Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Kaal
May 22, 2002

through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

I am super enjoying this video series. World History, Literature, Ecology, Biology, all wrapped up in pretty little videos!

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Railtus
Apr 8, 2011

daz nu bi unseren tagen
selch vreude niemer werden mac
der man ze den ziten pflac

EvanSchenck posted:

I had a practical question about armor. Did soldiers and knights wear it throughout the day while they were on campaign, or did they carry it as baggage and put it on before the fight? If they were in a situation where their enemy was known to be in the vicinity, would they sleep in their armor if they suspected a surprise attack at dawn or something like that?

Both. There were cases of soldiers wearing armour all the time, particularly with groups like the Landsknecht, who seemed to ditch leg-armour because it was a chore for marching. However, there was also a case of a Duke at the Battle of Azincourt not arriving in armour, and since he tried to armour up quickly he was missing out things that identified him as a Duke – which led to him being killed rather than captured. I can’t remember his name, however.

Sleeping in armour depends on the armour. Sleeping in mail or a gambeson is possible; I think it happened during the Crusades. Sleeping in full plate armour would be very difficult.

Railtus
Apr 8, 2011

daz nu bi unseren tagen
selch vreude niemer werden mac
der man ze den ziten pflac

Kaal posted:

I am super enjoying this video series. World History, Literature, Ecology, Biology, all wrapped up in pretty little videos!

The one about the Crusades is hilarious.

Godholio
Aug 28, 2002

Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?

EvanSchenck posted:

I had a practical question about armor. Did soldiers and knights wear it throughout the day while they were on campaign, or did they carry it as baggage and put it on before the fight? If they were in a situation where their enemy was known to be in the vicinity, would they sleep in their armor if they suspected a surprise attack at dawn or something like that?

Vegetius bitches quite a bit about how old-school Romans used to wear theirs all the time but that was abandoned by contemporary lazy punk kids who wouldn't get off his lawn as they marched.

Medenmath
Jan 18, 2003

Railtus posted:

It depends on the quality of the metal you work with. Messing about with layers is helpful if working with poor metals, such as an uneven carbon distribution. By spreading the carbon across layers you can make sure that a sword does not have too much carbon in one area (meaning a brittle spot) and too little carbon in another (a soft spot), to ensure a more consistent quality to the steel.

I suppose that works, but in that case you're mostly talking about folding the metal over onto itself a bunch of times... The layers become exponentially thinner so I could see how that would quickly "even out" the elements in the metal. You can't do the folding much with a visible pattern however, as after just a few folds the layers are too small to see. You could fold the individual layers before welding them together, of course.

Anyway, I have an actual question. How common was it for the western European kingdoms to claim to be inheritors of Rome? I know Charlemagne was crowned emperor, probably to the annoyance of the Roman emperor over in Constantinople. I would think that, after hundreds of years of Roman rule in places like France and Iberia, that linking your kingdom to the Empire might have been a good way to claim legitimacy?

Foyes36
Oct 23, 2005

Food fight!
I think the coolest part of medieval history is the stuff that was going down between 1000-1300 in Germany. And like no one ever talks about it. Was Otto IV really beaten to death by his priests? I guess that's what you get for being a Welf!

Also, the little feuds that happened in Italy during this time period are also often overlooked. Do you have anything awesome to say about this subject? The Guelphs and Ghibellines? How about the Colonna vs. the Orsini? Or the most awesome Italian family ever, the Theophylacti.

This is the poo poo I wish we talked about in history class.

the JJ
Mar 31, 2011

Third Murderer posted:

I suppose that works, but in that case you're mostly talking about folding the metal over onto itself a bunch of times... The layers become exponentially thinner so I could see how that would quickly "even out" the elements in the metal. You can't do the folding much with a visible pattern however, as after just a few folds the layers are too small to see. You could fold the individual layers before welding them together, of course.

Anyway, I have an actual question. How common was it for the western European kingdoms to claim to be inheritors of Rome? I know Charlemagne was crowned emperor, probably to the annoyance of the Roman emperor over in Constantinople. I would think that, after hundreds of years of Roman rule in places like France and Iberia, that linking your kingdom to the Empire might have been a good way to claim legitimacy?

They called it the Holy Roman Empire for a reason.

Kaal
May 22, 2002

through thousands of posts in D&D over a decade, I now believe I know what I'm talking about. if I post forcefully and confidently, I can convince others that is true. no one sees through my facade.

Third Murderer posted:

Anyway, I have an actual question. How common was it for the western European kingdoms to claim to be inheritors of Rome? I know Charlemagne was crowned emperor, probably to the annoyance of the Roman emperor over in Constantinople. I would think that, after hundreds of years of Roman rule in places like France and Iberia, that linking your kingdom to the Empire might have been a good way to claim legitimacy?

I mean, pretty much everyone called themselves Tsar of this or Kaiser of that. The one exception might be England, but on the other hand their kings did pretty much declare themselves to be the pope.

Railtus
Apr 8, 2011

daz nu bi unseren tagen
selch vreude niemer werden mac
der man ze den ziten pflac

Third Murderer posted:

Anyway, I have an actual question. How common was it for the western European kingdoms to claim to be inheritors of Rome? I know Charlemagne was crowned emperor, probably to the annoyance of the Roman emperor over in Constantinople. I would think that, after hundreds of years of Roman rule in places like France and Iberia, that linking your kingdom to the Empire might have been a good way to claim legitimacy?

The main one was Germany, despite being perhaps the one nation with the least right to make the claim (the Holy Roman Empire was more or less the territory in Europe that the Romans didn’t conquer). What happened was Charlemagne’s Carolingian Empire split on his death into the Kingdom of the Franks (aka: Kingdom of France) and the Kingdom of the Romans (aka: Holy Roman Empire).

Kaiser is essentially the Germanic form of Caesar. Apparently East European empires used the term Tsar for it, although without as strong a Roman connotation. I have heard that the Russian Tsars were the eventual heirs to the Byzantine/Roman Empire, but I have not studied that.

After the sack of Constantinople a group of Crusaders formed the Latin Empire to try to claim the title of successor to the Romans. Ultimately claims of being the Romans tended not to go anywhere. Germany was largely thought of as the Empire rather than as being particularly Roman. The Byzantine Romans were frequently called Empire of the Greeks or of the Hellenes, though.

A complicated factor is that the Pope had already crowned Charlemagne the “King of the Romans”. So anyone else trying to link their kingdom to the Roman Empire had to either claim a link to Charlemagne or dispute the legitimacy of Charlemagne’s coronation. This put people off.

Pfirti86 posted:

I think the coolest part of medieval history is the stuff that was going down between 1000-1300 in Germany. And like no one ever talks about it. Was Otto IV really beaten to death by his priests? I guess that's what you get for being a Welf!

Also, the little feuds that happened in Italy during this time period are also often overlooked. Do you have anything awesome to say about this subject? The Guelphs and Ghibellines? How about the Colonna vs. the Orsini? Or the most awesome Italian family ever, the Theophylacti.

This is the poo poo I wish we talked about in history class.

Do not forget, he asked his priests to beat him to death.

Nothing springs to mind to say about Italy, although I might add some comment if something reminds me of them. Sicily was apparently Muslim lands for a while, and then Norman lands after that.


Kaal posted:

I mean, pretty much everyone called themselves Tsar of this or Kaiser of that. The one exception might be England, but on the other hand their kings did pretty much declare themselves to be the pope.

The English issue about being head of the church actually goes back to King John Lackland/Softsword aka King John the Completely useless (although the only King John England had). King John essentially seized papal lands in England and the lands of the Archbishop of Canterbury, which resulted in an interdict being placed on England in 1208.

An interdict is essentially the church going on strike. Baptisms were allowed, confession and absolution for the dying was allowed. But no marriages, no funerals, maybe even no Mass. Lay people had very limited access to the churches in England etc. Eventually, King John was frightened by the suggestion that the Pope was supporting potential invasions of England that he made England a vassal of the Pope.

So when the later troubles with Henry VIII began, remember that England was actually Papal property at the time.

on the computer
Jan 4, 2012

How cool was El Cid

Elector_Nerdlingen
Sep 27, 2004



Railtus, you said you got to slash at a gambeson without a person inside it - did you place it over something? Trying to cut at things when they're just hanging there is significantly harder than if they have something solid behind them. We did a test with an old mail shirt, and couldn't break it when it was hanging up. As soon as we laid it over a watermelon, the first blow split rings and left a hole (and wrecked the melon). With padding between it and a melon, it still wrecked the melon, but the padding had enough give that the rings didn't split.

Far from scientific, but it was to prove a point to a guy who didn't want to wear the gambeson (which is admittedly not very comfortable in the Australian summer).

EvanSchenck posted:

I had a practical question about armor. Did soldiers and knights wear it throughout the day while they were on campaign, or did they carry it as baggage and put it on before the fight? If they were in a situation where their enemy was known to be in the vicinity, would they sleep in their armor if they suspected a surprise attack at dawn or something like that?

At the battle of Stamford Bridge (right before Hastings), Harald Hardrada (Norwegian) had ordered his men to leave their armour behind at the ships (because they were not expecting strong resistance, and also because it was a hot day and/or he wanted to move faster). His army was wrecked by the English, in part because they were caught on two sides of a river at once, and in part because they weren't wearing armour. A lot of people at the time were basically of the opinion that Hardrada had been a loving dumbass to do it the way he did. This all implies that, at least around 1066, it was usual practice to march in armour.

As for sleeping in armour... I've slept in mail over gambeson, but that was because I passed out drunk. It wasn't super comfortable.

Apollodorus
Feb 13, 2010

TEST YOUR MIGHT
:patriot:
A great film for anyone who wants to learn about the Western martial arts tradition is Reclaiming the Blade. It's an excellent historical-cultural overview of the role of the sword and swordsmanship in Western civilization, literature, and popular entertainment.

INTJ Mastermind
Dec 30, 2004

It's a radial!

Railtus posted:

Overall, it is not superior, it was just an earlier, more labour-intensive method of compensating for limited metallurgy. Around 600-1200 it was the main type of sword in use, but during the later half of the medieval period forge-folded or pattern-welded swords were considered medium quality, and the best swords were the ones made of homogenous steel.

How common was differential hardening in European swordsmithing? The Japanese figured it out with their swords - getting a very hard (holds a sharper edge) yet brittle edge section that's backed by a softer and more resilient core.

A Buttery Pastry
Sep 4, 2011

Delicious and Informative!
:3:

Railtus posted:

Kaiser is essentially the Germanic form of Caesar.
German :eng101: Though true, the other Germanic languages (excluding English) stick pretty close to the German kaiser, even more so in pronunciation, which incidentally is much closer to the proper pronunciation than the English Caesar.

Railtus posted:

Apparently East European empires used the term Tsar for it, although without as strong a Roman connotation. I have heard that the Russian Tsars were the eventual heirs to the Byzantine/Roman Empire, but I have not studied that.
Ivan III married the niece of the last two Eastern Roman Emperors, Sophia Palaiologina (AKA Princess Zoe). Through her, the Tsars claimed to be the Third Rome (though they're not the only ones), and got it into their heads that they should retake the Second Rome (Constantinople) which kind of set the tone for Russia for the next 450 years.

Strangely, the last titular Eastern Roman Emperor sold his title to Ferdinand and Isabelle, though the whole idea was apparently on such shaky grounds that no Spanish king ever actually used it.

Foyes36
Oct 23, 2005

Food fight!

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Strangely, the last titular Eastern Roman Emperor sold his title to Ferdinand and Isabelle, though the whole idea was apparently on such shaky grounds that no Spanish king ever actually used it.

He sold it to the French too! Clever fucker.

Railtus
Apr 8, 2011

daz nu bi unseren tagen
selch vreude niemer werden mac
der man ze den ziten pflac

Lacklustre Hero posted:

How cool was El Cid

El Cid is very celebrated, he was an extremely successful military commander and a champion of Prince Sancho. Unfortunately, he made his career partly against Sancho’s brothers, which meant that after Sancho died without heir El Cid lost his status and eventually went into exile. Until King Alfonso started losing and needed El Cid’s help.

El Cid was loyal to Sancho, however, not necessarily the crown or the family. Particularly as El Cid had been fighting the family for Sancho. Instead of immediately coming to the rescue El Cid started seeing the conflict as an opportunity to carve up some more land for himself. Valencia. Which he succeeded in, officially one of Alfonso’s servants but functionally independent. The city and his administration were tolerant of both Christians and Muslims, with administrators and soldiers of both faiths. That he commanded the loyalty of both religions is a sign that he probably was pretty cool.

Another cool aspect was he was very inclusive in his leadership; he would discuss tactics with his troops and accept suggestions.

Overall, El Cid was the ideal of knighthood. A valiant champion, an inspiring leader, fair-minded enough to win the loyalty of Christian and Muslim alike, he loved his horse (kind to animals is cool to me) and was a keen tactician. You do not get remembered in history books as simply “The Lord” without some level of awesomeness.


AlphaDog posted:

Railtus, you said you got to slash at a gambeson without a person inside it - did you place it over something? Trying to cut at things when they're just hanging there is significantly harder than if they have something solid behind them. We did a test with an old mail shirt, and couldn't break it when it was hanging up. As soon as we laid it over a watermelon, the first blow split rings and left a hole (and wrecked the melon). With padding between it and a melon, it still wrecked the melon, but the padding had enough give that the rings didn't split.

Far from scientific, but it was to prove a point to a guy who didn't want to wear the gambeson (which is admittedly not very comfortable in the Australian summer).

I just had my arming coat hanging. It was a quick demonstration to my mother’s-fiance’s-granddaughter.


INTJ Mastermind posted:

How common was differential hardening in European swordsmithing? The Japanese figured it out with their swords - getting a very hard (holds a sharper edge) yet brittle edge section that's backed by a softer and more resilient core.

Hard edges with softer cores were standard, the edge hardest nearer the ‘sweet spot’ (part of the blade was most intended to cut with) and softest near the base of the blade (more likely to defend with). This tells me it was mostly strategically chosen hardness levels. However, they typically used different methods to the Japanese. Rather than using clay as a form of insulation, they would use differential tempering. Low quality swords might just have carburised edges, which means the edges would harden more than the core during quenching.

Some research on blade hardness:

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_bladehardness.html

All of the swords they examined had differential hardness contents, which seems to be the pattern with studies into this. That does not tell me whether all European swords had it or whether they just picked the ones that did for the studies. Since even the lowest quality swords had harder edges and softer cores, I would expect it was commonplace. It was an alternative form of differential hardening, although it produced the desired effect.

Differential hardening appeared to be present on swords as early as the Nydam ship (3rd-4thC). Arabic accounts of western swords seem to suggest both flexibility and hardness. Al-Kindi describes both iron and steel used in European swords. Ibn Miskawaih reports raids of Viking graves to find high-quality swords. Nasirredin al-Tusi refers to western swords as extremely flexible and so hard they could hack iron nails.

I do not think they differentially hardened it to the same degree as katana, but I think that was a conscious design choice.

EDIT: I have heard some at SwordForum say "occasionally" differentially hardened, although that could mean more than one thing - it could mean other swords have uniform hardness, or it could refer to differential hardening as a technique instead of differential tempering or carburisation (other ways to have a hard edge and soft core). However, all research into the hardness of western swords throughout the blade seems to suggest strategically distributed hardness and none of the research I am familiar with has ever provided evidence of a sword with uniform hardness content. So it could just be that these studies have simply not looked at the ones without differential hardening/tempering/carburisation.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Ivan III married the niece of the last two Eastern Roman Emperors, Sophia Palaiologina (AKA Princess Zoe). Through her, the Tsars claimed to be the Third Rome (though they're not the only ones), and got it into their heads that they should retake the Second Rome (Constantinople) which kind of set the tone for Russia for the next 450 years.

Strangely, the last titular Eastern Roman Emperor sold his title to Ferdinand and Isabelle, though the whole idea was apparently on such shaky grounds that no Spanish king ever actually used it.

Thanks for the information!

Railtus fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Jan 28, 2013

SoldadoDeTone
Apr 20, 2006

Hold on tight!

Railtus posted:

I have heard that the Russian Tsars were the eventual heirs to the Byzantine/Roman Empire, but I have not studied that.

As far as I recall, the Russian Tsar, Ivan III at some point married "the last princess of Byzantium." Basically, Russia sought to obtain the title of Rome and found a woman who may or may not have actually been related to the royal family of the Byzantines. She was reputedly the niece of Constantine XI. Moscow itself was referred to as "the Third Rome." There is a famous quote by one of the Tsars at the time that I cannot correctly attribute, but it was something along the lines of "Moscow is the Third Rome, and it will never fall."

Wikipedia has a page about it that gives some detail. I'm not an expert on any of this, so you'd do well to read it rather than my ramblings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Rome

Railtus
Apr 8, 2011

daz nu bi unseren tagen
selch vreude niemer werden mac
der man ze den ziten pflac

SoldadoDeTone posted:

As far as I recall, the Russian Tsar, Ivan III at some point married "the last princess of Byzantium." Basically, Russia sought to obtain the title of Rome and found a woman who may or may not have actually been related to the royal family of the Byzantines. She was reputedly the niece of Constantine XI. Moscow itself was referred to as "the Third Rome." There is a famous quote by one of the Tsars at the time that I cannot correctly attribute, but it was something along the lines of "Moscow is the Third Rome, and it will never fall."

Wikipedia has a page about it that gives some detail. I'm not an expert on any of this, so you'd do well to read it rather than my ramblings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Rome

Thanks, that is really helpful.

Mr. Spooky
Jul 1, 2003

I was allowed this account on the condition that I never post.

Lacklustre Hero posted:

How cool was El Cid

He had an epic beard!

Penthesilea
Sep 5, 2008
I, despite the username that is a reference to a Homeric epic, am also involved in the study of Medieval History. I am currently working towards my MA at a university in the United Kingdom. If Railtus is okay with it, I'm open to answering queries.

My area of specialty is the Black Death of the mid-14th century, and gender/social relations in mid to late Medieval England.

If anyone has questions regarding that I feel qualified to answer that Railtus doesn't, I'll do my best!

Penthesilea fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Jan 29, 2013

sullat
Jan 9, 2012

ScottP posted:

Excellent thread already, thanks!

What sort of lifestyle would the average member of a mercenary troop in the early medieval era (let's say pre-1100) have? Was it common to be a professional, "full-time" mercenary, always under some lord's contract, or did mercenary bands often have to resort to brigandage?

It's hard to say with some precision what their daily life was, but the mercenaries definitely resorted to brigandage. In the Alexiad (I believe) Anna says that Robert the Weasel started his career as a brigand, before becoming a mercenary. You could say that his time as king was brigandage on a larger scale, trying to swipe the Byzantine crown. Obviously, she may be a bit biased against Robert, but still. There was another incident around the time of Manzikert where the Frankish mercenaries refused to fight the Turks, and the commander tried to carve out his own little slice of Anatolia to call his own. The Turks eventually put a stop to that.

puredeez
Apr 2, 2011

I whispered some grossly insulting remark in his ear. He flamed up and gave me a slap in the face. We grasped our swords; the ladies fainted; we were separated; and that same night we set out to fight.
Could someone tell me about plague doctors and their cool costumes?

Schenck v. U.S.
Sep 8, 2010

puredeez posted:

Could someone tell me about plague doctors and their cool costumes?

The Black Death being Penthesilea's stated specialization, he can probably give you a more detailed answer. But as a general explanation, until modern times people didn't know how disease was transmitted. By means of observation they knew that you could catch some diseases just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and often great numbers of people would fall ill of the same disease at the same time, but they didn't know of any mechanism to explain it. The state of the art in epidemiology for most of history was something called "miasma theory." People observed that epidemics of disease often took place around foul-smelling things, like rotting organic material (e.g. dead bodies), feces, swamps and stagnant pools, etc. Today we know that this is because the bad odors are caused by microorganisms, some of which can cause diseases, and they also attract animal vectors like insects, rats, and so forth, that can carry the disease to people. As they had no knowledge of microorganisms, they could only guess that bad odors signified the possible presence of poisonous vapors that caused illness if they were inhaled or absorbed through the skin. The distinctive costume associated with plague doctors was designed to keep away contaminated air, with gloves, a full-body cloak, and a bird-like mask. The beak would be stuffed with herbs, to ward off odors.

However, I believe that costume first appeared during the 17th century, which means it is not actually a medieval thing so much as a renaissance/early modern deal.

Railtus
Apr 8, 2011

daz nu bi unseren tagen
selch vreude niemer werden mac
der man ze den ziten pflac

puredeez posted:

Could someone tell me about plague doctors and their cool costumes?

EvanSchenck’s reply is excellent, although I would add that the costume in general was kind of a crude hazmat suit as well. The costume was typically waxed to prevent moisture getting through and to generally insulate the doctor against possible infection, they also carried canes so they did not have to touch the patient directly. The mask often had glass windows for the eyes to also act as a barrier between them and possible infection. It actually worked quite well at protecting the doctor, but a doctor could still spread the infection by going from patient to patient.

However, whether the costume dates from the 14thC or 17thC is a good question. Modern historians have mentioned ‘beak-doctors’ in reference to the 14thC, although we do not have medieval illustrations backing it up. The mask may have come before the rest of the costume, Guy de Chauliac recommended air be purified, which suggests at least the concept behind the mask existed. However, looking at old illustrations, I see lots of people tending to plague victims but no costumes. I think if the specialist medics were wearing the costume, then that would be more represented in the art - the costume would be a convenient way to show "This is a doctor" for the purposes of the art.


Penthesilea posted:

I, despite the username that is a reference to a Homeric epic, am also involved in the study of Medieval History. I am currently working towards my MA at a university in the United Kingdom. If Railtus is okay with it, I'm open to answering queries.

My area of specialty is the Black Death of the mid-14th century, and gender/social relations in mid to late Medieval England.

If anyone has questions regarding that I feel qualified to answer that Railtus doesn't, I'll do my best!

I certainly do not mind. I will still post my own comments or interpretations though. A friend of mine did his dissertation on how the Black Death contributed towards the development of plate armour.

Grand Prize Winner
Feb 19, 2007


Railtus posted:

I certainly do not mind. I will still post my own comments or interpretations though. A friend of mine did his dissertation on how the Black Death contributed towards the development of plate armour.

How does that work?

Also, I read/heard somewhere that the Plague ended up really driving up the price of labor in Europe. True/false?

sullat
Jan 9, 2012

Grand Prize Winner posted:

How does that work?

Also, I read/heard somewhere that the Plague ended up really driving up the price of labor in Europe. True/false?

True. Even though demand for labor dropped (fewer people to feed/clothe/whatever) the supply of labor dropped even faster. In England, the crown passed laws to try and freeze wages at pre-plague levels, one of the factors leading to the peasant rebellions of the late 14th century.

Anne Whateley
Feb 11, 2007
:unsmith: i like nice words

the JJ posted:

They called it the Holy Roman Empire for a reason.
I dunno dude. It felt like all of my professors loved "The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. Discuss :ironicat:"

Chamale
Jul 11, 2010

I'm helping!



Anne Whateley posted:

I dunno dude. It felt like all of my professors loved "The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. Discuss :ironicat:"

It lasted a long time, so it's easy to make that case for the Holy Roman Empire in the 18th century. In the 13th century it was intimately connected to the Pope and a powerful empire in Europe.

Penthesilea posted:

My area of specialty is the Black Death of the mid-14th century, and gender/social relations in mid to late Medieval England.

If anyone has questions regarding that I feel qualified to answer that Railtus doesn't, I'll do my best!

What kind of opportunities did women have to learn in Medieval England? I understand that formal education didn't exist for most people, but I'd like to know more about the kinds of informal education from family and friends that were available to girls and women at the time.

the JJ
Mar 31, 2011

Anne Whateley posted:

I dunno dude. It felt like all of my professors loved "The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. Discuss :ironicat:"

Yeah, but the question was about claimants to the legacy. Of which the HRE, in some form or another, was the biggest and longest standing example West of the ERE.

Penthesilea
Sep 5, 2008

puredeez posted:

Could someone tell me about plague doctors and their cool costumes?

EvanShenck and Rialtus have already responded to this really thoroughly, but to expand:

Plague doctors as a concept are much more present in our conception of the plague than in real history. Plague raging to the extent of the mid-14th century was unprecedented, but when people started getting sick and dying, pretty much everyone knew the best thing to do was get out of town. So, those with the means to leave the cities, where it raged for the longest period of time, did so. For example, Boccaccio's Decameron is a collection of stories told by noble men and women who have fled the city to escape the plague. This means that the population dropped, and that those people most able to pay doctors for their visits, weren't present. Also, let's not forget that, while medieval people didn't understand germs as such, they knew that being in close contact with the sick could engender further sickness. Doctors, such as they were, were most likely not going to risk their own lives. Boccaccio mentions in the Decameron that “almost without exception, [the healthy] took a single and very inhuman precaution, namely to avoid or run away from the sick and their belongings”. Many witnesses to the plague noted that contact with the sick was risky business. Boccaccio related an incident in which two pigs, after chewing on the clothes of a dead man, convulsed and died.

I think my favorite treatment comes from Tommaso del Garbo's Consilio Contro alla Peste: “notaries, confessors, relations and doctors who visit the plague victims on entering their houses should open the windows…and wash their hands with vinegar and rose water and also their faces…it is also a good idea before entering the room to place in your mouth several cloves and eat two slices of bread soaked in the best wine and then drink the rest of the wine.”

In short, there's little evidence of plague doctors as we think of them (goggles, long beaked mask, etc.) as a widespread phenomenon during the Black Death. People would soak rags in vinegar and hold them to their face, or wrap a scarf drenched in wine around their mouth and nose, but that was not the province of doctors, just of people trying to protect themselves from the miasma.

Oh, and not that is relates specifically to the questions at hand, but I'm a she. :)

I'll try to get to more questions later today.

Penthesilea fucked around with this message at 15:16 on Jan 29, 2013

Railtus
Apr 8, 2011

daz nu bi unseren tagen
selch vreude niemer werden mac
der man ze den ziten pflac
To anyone I miss, I have not forgotten you, but I will answer when I get chance.

Grand Prize Winner posted:

How does that work?

Also, I read/heard somewhere that the Plague ended up really driving up the price of labor in Europe. True/false?

True, the 1351 Statute of Labourers was a good example to show the reaction to increased labour prices.

I answer this first because it is the main reason for the development of plate armour.

Mail, the main armour in use prior to the Black Death, was incredibly laborious to make. Each individual link needs to be hand-riveted shut, which can take hundreds of man hours and involves thousands of rings. The mail-makers and armourers could simply give that work to apprentices and essentially throw semi-skilled labour at it. After the Black Death, labour prices going up made that method more expensive.

Shaped metal plates required more skill to make, but fewer man-hours and less overall labour. The water-powered trip hammer and solid steel helmets were around in the 12th century, so the technology already existed to make plate armour.

To give some price ideas, Alan Williams in The Knight And The Blast Furnace (excellent book, I recommend the preview at Googlebooks) mentions that in 15th century Iserlohn a mail haubergeon (short shirt) cost 4.6 gulden while a set of plate armour cost 4.3 gulden, and mail could require 2 months to complete while a breastplate required only 2 days. Essentially plate armour was cheaper and quicker to make.

Foyes36
Oct 23, 2005

Food fight!

Anne Whateley posted:

I dunno dude. It felt like all of my professors loved "The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. Discuss :ironicat:"

The Holy Roman Empire was a fascinating institution with an endlessly complicated history. Dismissing its enormous role in the development of Europe with some dumb Voltaire quote says all I need to know about a person, or a professor.

Edit: I might be getting a little defensive and misinterpreting what faculty are trying to stimulate. I just feel like the subject is glossed over a lot in high school history classes in favor of France/England/maybe Spain/etc and it always really bothered me. In fact, that quote is usually all the education I formally got on the subject.

Foyes36 fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Jan 29, 2013

Anne Whateley
Feb 11, 2007
:unsmith: i like nice words
Yeah I'm not talking about a high-school teacher racing through your one allowed semester of non-US history and covering all of the HRE with a snappy one-liner. I'm talking about the professors who taught me undergrad & graduate courses for my Medieval & Renaissance Studies major at a well-regarded university -- professors who felt that it was a good in-class conversation or a good essay question (one of many) because it required you to take a position, make a decent argument, and demonstrate a lot of knowledge in the process. I promise they knew and taught a whole bunch about the HRE.

Xiahou Dun
Jul 16, 2009

We shall dive down through black abysses... and in that lair of the Deep Ones we shall dwell amidst wonder and glory forever.



I know this is vague as hell, but I don't suppose you could talk some about currency?

Like, I know that there were a bunch of different currencies going about (e.g. florins, guilders, etc.), but I can not make heads or tails about where the hell half of them are from (I know guilder is Dutch, duh, but that's it) or what the "exchange rate", such as it was, would be.

Anne Whateley
Feb 11, 2007
:unsmith: i like nice words

Chamale posted:

What kind of opportunities did women have to learn in Medieval England? I understand that formal education didn't exist for most people, but I'd like to know more about the kinds of informal education from family and friends that were available to girls and women at the time.
It varied a ton, by century and by class and by luck of the draw. In general, women weren't as uneducated as you might expect; many were literate and numerate. Middle-class women could learn from relatives or other women. The daughters of wealthy families might be educated in a convent, while the wealthiest families could afford tutors. How much to teach women (and whether to do so at all) was a hot debate, so there are plenty of primary sources to check out, but pragmatically, it was convenient if you could at least trust your wife to manage the place -- whether a modest bakery or a grand estate -- while you were away.

I really can't overemphasize how much it varied, though. Even at the end of the medieval period, you had extremely educated women like Jane Grey or More's family, but even later, one of Shakespeare's daughters was likely illiterate. They're all English and from the 16th century (Shakespeare's daughter 17th c.), but for a broader view, very relevant names are Hildegard von Bingen (12th c. Germany), Christine de Pizan (14th-15th c. France), Veronica Franco (16th c. Italy) and other cortegiana onesta, and Sor Juana Inez de la Cruz (17th c. Spain/Mexico). Warning: if you google any, you'll probably disappear down a rabbit hole and come up a few hours later.

Anne Whateley fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Jan 29, 2013

A Buttery Pastry
Sep 4, 2011

Delicious and Informative!
:3:

Pfirti86 posted:

I just feel like the subject is glossed over a lot in high school history classes in favor of France/England/maybe Spain/etc and it always really bothered me. In fact, that quote is usually all the education I formally got on the subject.
It's the constant problem of people projecting later developments unto earlier ages. England in particular "gains" from this, where people think the 19th century clout of Great Britain was something England had always had, when it really had been a kind of backwater for a long time. You also see this in discussions about the Hundred Years' War, where people see it as England almost conquering France, when the reality is that it would have been the other way around if the "English" kings had succeeded.

Conversely, the HRE is seen as though it was always the decentralized mess it had become in later years, when for a long time it was not that different from other states where petty nobles were also making a mess of things. People just have a habit of pretending that was not the case because those states didn't end up like the HRE. Other examples would be China and India, which were only really overtaken technologically very late, and where it was the exploitation of local politics that initially gave the Europeans the upper hand, not any actual superiority.

A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Jan 29, 2013

Railtus
Apr 8, 2011

daz nu bi unseren tagen
selch vreude niemer werden mac
der man ze den ziten pflac

Xiahou Dun posted:

I know this is vague as hell, but I don't suppose you could talk some about currency?

Like, I know that there were a bunch of different currencies going about (e.g. florins, guilders, etc.), but I can not make heads or tails about where the hell half of them are from (I know guilder is Dutch, duh, but that's it) or what the "exchange rate", such as it was, would be.

Using an oversimplified model, the Carolingian Empire established a Livre as a unit equal to one pound of silver, 20 Sous made 1 Livre, and 12 Deniers made 1 Sous. That was the Frankish version. For England, £ = L. Shilling = Sous. Penny = Denier. For Germany, a Pfennig was a penny. In theory this worked as a model for all over Europe, but eventually standardisation fell to pieces and French duchies would each mint their own currency.

For a while, Deniers were the only coin actually minted, with Sous & Livres just being used as units for accounting purposes.

Florins were from Florence, the most consistent coinage there was. It lasted around 300 years with little change in the composition (so the same amount of gold used) and was used widely in Western Europe.

Guilders or gulden were Dutch, referring to gold. I know a landsknecht mercenary (pikeman) from 1515 was paid 4 guilders per month, whereas a bricklayer or stonemason might earn 2.5 guilders and a labourer 1.6 guilders. That would imply a guilder was also used in Germany.

Generally, Europe did not entirely believe in exchange rates. For modern people, money is a value assigned by the government. Today £1 is worth £1 because the authority says so. In medieval times, the worth of a coin was determined by the precious metals in it. On top of that, the manorial economy was based more on land and labour, where people would work the land of a lord in exchange for a portion of land that they could work to grow their own food and crops etc.

So if you cannot make head or tails of medieval currency, you probably have a good idea how medieval people sometimes felt.


Chamale posted:

What kind of opportunities did women have to learn in Medieval England? I understand that formal education didn't exist for most people, but I'd like to know more about the kinds of informal education from family and friends that were available to girls and women at the time.

Women in medieval England had it worse than the rest of medieval Europe, from what I can tell. Coverture was a feature of English common law where a married woman ceased to be a separate legal entity from her husband, so she lost property rights (although a husband might be held to blame for a wife’s actions). This kind of arrangement could reduce the incentive for a family to educate their daughters, since those conditions can reduce the impact of any education she might have on her life.

Anyway, women did seem to routinely run businesses such as breweries and grain mills, so they probably were taught at least a little business know-how. Generally women would assist their husbands in business, which again assumed a level of on-the-job training so that they could be useful assistants. Spinning, weaving and midwifery were very much female activities at the time. Again, women had to know what they were doing.

This may or may not count as education, but medieval society tended to have very work-based education.

Women in Medieval England by Helen Jewell seems to suggest that more women owned books than teaching opportunities would suggest, so there definitely was more education for women than was necessarily recorded.

Pimpmust
Oct 1, 2008

The coin and plate examples are interesting. A breastplate would cost a average mercenary around 1 months pay? (Not counting other expenses), I suppose it shouldn't be completely unexpected but I guess years of RPGs have taught me the heirarchy/cost of armor in a screwy way.

How often would a soldier like that expect to have to replace his gear? I mean, not all at the same time probably, but in general. Did they buy new breastplates like some gamer might buy a new computer every 2-3 years? :v: (Well, or steal it off the dead).

I'm guessing most peasant draftees wouldn't be running around with all that much metal armor (or did they?), but were the majority of mercenaries well armed/armored?

The time era might be somewhat later though, when I'm thinking Mercenaries I'm thinking the 30 year war or thereabouts.

Just how did people, outside of various House guards end up as mercenaries? As I understand it even mercenaries dragged their families around with them as camp followers, did they recruit kinda like navies did (grab random dude if they had to), or was it all official soldiers who decided to privatize? Would some random farmer son just one day decide "Pa, I'm gonna be a soldier, but not one of those faggy Royal ones! :colbert:" and be able to pull it off somehow?


e: Tons of questions, because modern literature/media sure loves their mercenaries but they rarely go into any real detail on it.

Pimpmust fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Jan 29, 2013

Railtus
Apr 8, 2011

daz nu bi unseren tagen
selch vreude niemer werden mac
der man ze den ziten pflac

Pimpmust posted:

The coin and plate examples are interesting. A breastplate would cost a average mercenary around 1 months pay? (Not counting other expenses), I suppose it shouldn't be completely unexpected but I guess years of RPGs have taught me the heirarchy/cost of armor in a screwy way.

How often would a soldier like that expect to have to replace his gear? I mean, not all at the same time probably, but in general. Did they buy new breastplates like some gamer might buy a new computer every 2-3 years? :v: (Well, or steal it off the dead).

I'm guessing most peasant draftees wouldn't be running around with all that much metal armor (or did they?), but were the majority of mercenaries well armed/armored?

The time era might be somewhat later though, when I'm thinking Mercenaries I'm thinking the 30 year war or thereabouts.

Just how did people, outside of various House guards end up as mercenaries? As I understand it even mercenaries dragged their families around with them as camp followers, did they recruit kinda like navies did (grab random dude if they had to), or was it all official soldiers who decided to privatize? Would some random farmer son just one day decide "Pa, I'm gonna be a soldier, but not one of those faggy Royal ones! :colbert:" and be able to pull it off somehow?


e: Tons of questions, because modern literature/media sure loves their mercenaries but they rarely go into any real detail on it.

Going by Iserlohn, a set of plate armour would cost just over a month’s pay for the landsknecht. Probably more than the breastplate, although an entire foot armour could cost as much as 16 guilders.

Gear, if well-looked after, could be handed down generations. Ancestral swords were a real thing in the early medieval period, and much of the armour used by the less wealthy warriors (for example mail worn by a serjeant instead of a knight) would be second-hand. Another thing is it depends how much fighting you did. Generally a sword can be expected to last.

Peasant draftees could be surprisingly well-equipped. The Assize of Arms in 1181 would require all burgess and freemen to have a gambeson (cloth based armour), helmet and a lance (spear). All above a certain level of wealth were required to have a hauberk (mail shirt). However, this requirement was also a limit to the amount of equipment a man could have. To me that tells me other guys were not supposed to have weapons, which means they were not expected to be drafted.

Duke Albrecht in 1421 issued a feudal levy saying 1 men in 10 households should be equipped with a sword or knife (closer to a machete), body armour of iron or jerkin, along with a pike or gun or flail.

Overall I would say most soldiers on a medieval battlefield were well-armoured. Ordinances would set demands on the kit a serving soldier would have: a French coutilier in 1446 was expected to have leg armour, helmet, haubergeon, jack or brigandine, dagger, sword and either a small lance or a voulge (pole-cleaver).

Hordes of unarmoured peasants being used as cannon fodder was not desirable in medieval warfare. Remember, the peasants you call for military service are also your workforce and source of income. Throwing their lives away would cost you money, so it was better to have fewer well-equipped men. If you must have conscripts, giving them bows was better

The 30 Years War was well into the period of munitions armour, so breastplates and helmets were cheap and mass-produced.

Most mercenary companies eventually became very organised. The Swiss Cantons were essentially a national industry, the Free Companies such as the Catalan Company or Black Band had leaders who did all the recruiting. Landsknecht companies were official soldiers or colonels who hired private employees. The recruiting for Landsknecht went really well, enough to tell me that if a farmer’s son was to decide to be a soldier then he had to wait for a good opportunity rather than just go out and join a company.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Anne Whateley
Feb 11, 2007
:unsmith: i like nice words

Railtus posted:

Spinning, weaving and midwifery were very much female activities at the time. Again, women had to know what they were doing.
This is kind of misleading. On a domestic level, then yes, if someone was spinning by the fireplace it would be Mom. As time went on and guilds grew, production moved outside the home, and producing textiles for sale was definitely a man's world. There were more women in textile guilds than in other guilds, but it was still overwhelmingly male.

The majority of women who ran businesses were widows who'd inherited them from their husbands, so as you say, they'd had years of experience when they took over. It was rare, but not unheard-of (within certain fields), for a woman to start a business of her own.

  • Locked thread