|
Why would anyone let the surgeon corps wither away given their obvious utility? Did the Eastern Empire/"Byzantines" retain surgeons of such skill after the end of antiquity?
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 12:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:29 |
|
|
The disappearance of knowledge is a real interesting question in general. I have no answers about it I just know it happens and is interesting. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 12:17
|
|
|
Surgery seems like a thing where if a generation of to-be-surgeons misses out on their training in active duty due to, well, I don't know, the plague? peace time? then you're kinda hosed cos you can't really book learn that (no matter what The Simpsons tells us).
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 12:19
|
|
|
Kopijeger posted:Why would anyone let the surgeon corps wither away given their obvious utility? Did the Eastern Empire/"Byzantines" retain surgeons of such skill after the end of antiquity? This is just off the cuff, but I'd say the transfer to a mostly mercenary army could depress the level of medical care in the same way that the answer to "Why didn't the ancient Romans develop mechanical industry?" is that there were always more slaves, until there weren't. Again, not backed up by anything. Also probably dogmatic Christianity. Later Roman answers to historical questions usually involve dogmatic Christianity somehow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 12:44
|
|
|
In his video on Battle Fatigue, lindybeige mentions that in ancient Rome (I don't think he specifies Republic or Imperial) slave owners were legally required to specify whether the slave they were selling had attempted suicide in the past. I can't find any other references to this online.. anybody got any ideas?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
Sulla-Marius 88 posted:In his video on Battle Fatigue, lindybeige mentions that in ancient Rome (I don't think he specifies Republic or Imperial) slave owners were legally required to specify whether the slave they were selling had attempted suicide in the past. I can't find any other references to this online.. anybody got any ideas? I have zero specific knowledge about this, but take anything Lindybeige says as a degree or so more reliable than Youtube comments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
Yeah I wasn't calling him a historian by any means, but I wanted to see what his sources were. I've found some references to this in the Pandects, specifically Book 21, http://droitromain.upmf-grenoble.fr/Anglica/D21_Scott.htm But nothing that says out and out that suicide attempts must be declared to the buyer.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Sulla-Marius 88 posted:Yeah I wasn't calling him a historian by any means, but I wanted to see what his sources were. Given that it's lindybeige his source could be "a thing a guy in a bar said a few years ago" or "something I think must have happened"
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
Kopijeger posted:Why would anyone let the surgeon corps wither away given their obvious utility? Did the Eastern Empire/"Byzantines" retain surgeons of such skill after the end of antiquity? Islamic fellows kept the skills alive and innovated so I assume the ERE did as well, at least for a while.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Sulla-Marius 88 posted:But nothing that says out and out that suicide attempts must be declared to the buyer. Not primary sources, and just reference the aediles' edict, but here's two examples: https://books.google.com/books?id=r...epage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=1...epage&q&f=false
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:It's real hard to find any medical care better than the Roman kind until the 1800s. There were advancements in understanding of anatomy and stuff but as for what a surgeon could actually pull off, honestly I'm not sure are any significant improvements until antiseptics. Possibly in Egypt, just going by their reputation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:I guess my default image of a middle-aged man is Al Bundy. I think that even in the cities, the vast majority of day-to-day work for the lower/middle classes had to do physical labor as part of their jobs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Given that it's lindybeige his source could be "a thing a guy in a bar said a few years ago" or "something I think must have happened" His newest video is about halberds and how he thinks they were used (and half the poo poo is wrong because his idea of research is "looking at a halberd and thinking about it"). HEY GAL will eventually end up assaulting him at some point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:His newest video is about halberds and how he thinks they were used (and half the poo poo is wrong because his idea of research is "looking at a halberd and thinking about it"). HEY GAL will eventually end up assaulting him at some point. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Nov 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Slap him with a billhook.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:His newest video is about halberds and how he thinks they were used (and half the poo poo is wrong because his idea of research is "looking at a halberd and thinking about it"). HEY GAL will eventually end up assaulting him at some point. i watched it, it is nowhere near as bad as the pike video, and his central point does not seem to incorrect, even if its not right
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:i watched it, it is nowhere near as bad as the pike video, and his central point does not seem to incorrect, even if its not right His idea of the density of formations is dumb as hell, which makes the rest of his meandering blather sort of pointless (ha).
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
When a historian says your blather is pointless you've reached some next level pointlessness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:His idea of the density of formations is dumb as hell, which makes the rest of his meandering blather sort of pointless (ha). What is his idea? I saw an interesting article a few years ago where a guy tried putting Roman centuries through computer simulations. His hypothesis is that legionnaires rarely fought shoulder-to-shoulder, in contrast to the phalanxes the Republic faced.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:What is his idea? I saw an interesting article a few years ago where a guy tried putting Roman centuries through computer simulations. His hypothesis is that legionnaires rarely fought shoulder-to-shoulder, in contrast to the phalanxes the Republic faced. His idea is that halberdiers fought really close together so they couldn't swing their halberds but had to stab people with them instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Why wouldn't they just have spears, then. Surely the point of a halberd is its versatility.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Yeah, that makes no loving sense. I mean, HeyGal's guys are prone to cutting half their pike off for the sake of not hauling around a bigger stick than necessary. I can't imagine some infantryman given a halberd he can only stab with wouldn't have the nearest blacksmith knock off the blade and turn it into a spear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
The biggest problem is his "This is the only way it could have worked ever!" attitude. I think his "poke and pull" tight formation idea is ok, but the good thing about something like a halberd is its versitility. If you need a phalanxy thing, great you have pointy bits on your weapons. If you need a choppy gang, awesome, you have choppy bits too. Its quite likely, given the pointy bits, that there were fights that used formations as he imagines them. It's also quite likely that there were fights entirely unlike those he imagines. e. just to clarify, he's not claiming that halberds were only for stabbing - he saying that they're primarily a poking weapon, but that the axe head has the added benefit of hooking and pulling to disrupt formations. CommonShore fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Nov 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
I'm surprised that he totally forgot about the spike on the other side of the blade. It seems reasonable to assume that these many-pronged sharp bits of metal going every which way on end of a halberd have many uses that people would have adapted to with versatility, seeing as how they are humans and not pokemon who have used up their first couple moves on marching and fancy hats. I don't understand why he thinks that you have to go all the way back in order to swing forwards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:His idea is that halberdiers fought really close together so they couldn't swing their halberds but had to stab people with them instead. aaaaAAAAAAA
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 12:17
|
|
|
"American historian stabs popular YouTube personality with a halberd – watch the striking video!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:If you need a phalanxy thing, great you have pointy bits on your weapons. If you need a choppy gang, awesome, you have choppy bits too. I read this in an ork voice. And if ya turn da pike around, dere's a shooty bit on da end!
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 12:52
|
|
|
The most American close combat weapon, with a gun at the other end! We are getting really close to gunblade territory here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
Gunswords were a real thing, though I don't think they were common.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I'm surprised that he totally forgot about the spike on the other side of the blade. His general idea is somewhat right, in that yeah, in close order you have to be cognizant of your buddies weapons while using yours, but he seems to manage to both look at the design of the weapon correctly and incorrectly at the same time. Yes, the blade shape is not ideal for cutting, at least in the concave ones, and might be used to hook enemies. However if that's all it was for, they would put a drat hook on the thing and be done with it. He keeps talking about fighting men in armor, but unless I'm totally wrong, most dudes a man with a halberd would be fighting would have a helmet and breastplate, and then any other armor they could afford/scrounge up. Which means a big sharp blade swung at a man's arm is very, very effective. They were not fully armored men at arms, in general, since then they would have brought poleaxes. It's weird how he is doing a correct thing, in looking at the design of the weapon and analyzing it, but then stops like 70% of the way through. its just real weird how he seems to think the only "swinging" motion is a fully wound up devastating chop, instead of quick diagonal slashes or push/pull cuts once you get the head of the weapon over the enemy shoulder.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:It's weird how he is doing a correct thing, in looking at the design of the weapon and analyzing it, but then stops like 70% of the way through. its just real weird how he seems to think the only "swinging" motion is a fully wound up devastating chop, instead of quick diagonal slashes or push/pull cuts once you get the head of the weapon over the enemy shoulder. Probably watched too much anime growing up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
A lot of people are also really obsessed with the idea that there's only one way to do things. Like Roman formations. Did they fight shoulder to shoulder or in looser formation? I guarantee they did both. Sometimes by choice, sometimes because they worked better for the situation. Even real historians get way too into these arguments and going all in on X or Y and lose sight of the basic complexity and inconsistency of all human behavior.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Yeah what I started to post earlier about Lindybeige is more or less that idea of single-explanation blinders, but I cut myself off. I don't think his view of halberds' use in dense formations is unreasonable, and I really feel as if the thread is being unfair to him on that point, but that tactic would be completely useless for sentries and guards, who also carried halberds, and his explanation's inability to admit other uses of the weapon in contexts beyond dense formation fighting is its failure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:Yeah what I started to post earlier about Lindybeige is more or less that idea of single-explanation blinders, but I cut myself off. I don't think his view of halberds' use in dense formations is unreasonable, and I really feel as if the thread is being unfair to him on that point, but that tactic would be completely useless for sentries and guards, who also carried halberds, and his explanation's inability to admit other uses of the weapon in contexts beyond dense formation fighting is its failure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Also here is a thing: he describes the stabbing with halberds thing as "going for vulnerable spots in the enemy's armor." Which, when you're still dealing with a dude who is coming at you and your friends wearing full plate or something (which is the only situation where this is relevant because someone in a helmet and a breastplate out can just chop or stab however you feel like) _really loving hard_ and I can guarantee that unlike some dudes who do youtubes about historical martial arts and historical weapons, Lindybeige has never actually tried doing the thing he describes. Hitting small moving targets with a long pointy stick isn't easy. The spike at the top of the halberd can be used for a bunch of things in a bunch of ways, but no loving way is that the best and the only way to use it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:loving civilians carried halberds sometimes It really was the Swiss army knife (a Swiss voulge, if you will) of the middle ages. Cheap to manufacture. Good for cudgeling, poking, hooking, cutting, and probably chopping wood in a pinch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Sweep the legs Johnny!
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:A lot of people are also really obsessed with the idea that there's only one way to do things. Like Roman formations. Did they fight shoulder to shoulder or in looser formation? I guarantee they did both. Sometimes by choice, sometimes because they worked better for the situation. "They carried spears." "Yes, but they also owned a sword more than likely." "But they didn't need a sword! They had spears." "No real human being who owns a sword leaves it at home, just because he is carrying a spear." "BUT THEY WERE SPEARMEN!" "They were heavy infantry just like the others, except with added bonus of having to lug a heavy spear around." "SPEARS" "This isn't Total War, reasonable and physically capable people can carry multiple items while doing athletic things." "SPEARS"
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:A lot of people are also really obsessed with the idea that there's only one way to do things. Like Roman formations. Did they fight shoulder to shoulder or in looser formation? I guarantee they did both. Sometimes by choice, sometimes because they worked better for the situation. Scipio used a weird formation with wide paths between the troops, in order to lessen the impact of Hannbial's elephants at Zama. In the battle of Watling Street, Suetonius used a formation that looked like this _/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_ when he defeated Boudica. The legion kept a super tight formation and essentially trapped the british in the teeth of the formation. Caesar used troops armed with pilum as spearmen to surprise Pompey's cavalry at Pharsalus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:29 |
|
|
A general who uses the same tactics in every battle is probably a lovely general.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 13:35
|
|