|
EvanSchenck posted:The rarity and expense of the manuscripts is the exact reason that we can suspect that the techniques were not commonly used, because it would be a waste to devote that money and effort to depicting techniques that were common knowledge at the time. It's the same reason that when studying medieval cuisine, we have lots of recipes for delicacies but none for staple foods. When books are rare and expensive, you don't record recipes for foods that people eat all the time, because everybody already knows how to make them. You write down the recipes for foods that most people don't know, and are out of the ordinary. People remember and record extraordinary things, not mundane ones. Similarly, a master would probably use a fechtbuch to record techniques that were special, rather than the techniques that everybody used and were foundational to fighting. This doesn't mean that what's in the fechtbücher is impractical, only that they were out of the ordinary and most likely situational in their utility. Thanks, that makes perfect sense actually. I had actually read the post about cookbooks and somehow didn't make the same connection to fechtbucher. edit: quoted post for new page
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 09:03 |
|
|
canuckanese posted:Thanks, that makes perfect sense actually. I had actually read the post about cookbooks and somehow didn't make the same connection to fechtbucher. As a further example, I believe many of the surviving examples from Germany are about how to win judicial duels, which involved specialized rules and equipment and would have been very different from informal brawls or wartime combat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
Railtus posted:Forgive me, but you appear to be responding to the exact opposite of the part of my post that you quoted. Unless you are actually agreeing with me, but the phrase “the big problem with the way you imagine it" kind of implies that you have gotten the wrong impression, because your criticism matches the opposite of what I describe. Railtus posted:What EvanSchenck says about the importance of parrying is an excellent point. Blocking their weapon with yours was one of the least desirable forms of defence according to medieval swordsmanship. Instead it was better to attack from a safe angle (such as while grappling them with your other hand) or void the blow (dodging, sidestep) and immediately counterattack. I also wanted to stress that "evading" multiple attacks is really hard if you actually want to attack yourself - evading multiple attacks basically means that you are continuously running away. I was also talking about a style that was made for longsword fencing without armor and shield, and I should probably have specified that, that is true. If you want to hit, you have to go into his killing zone and somehow neutralize his weapon while scoring a descisive blow yourself. Since I was talking about fighting without armor/shield, parrying with your weapon is NOT the "least desirable" form of defense, it is the only form of defense you have while in his killing zone. Of course your opponent may gently caress up and leave himself open, which would give you the chance of going in without dealing with his weapon (because it is somewhere else). Of course your points about movement and positioning stand. We were probably just talking about different things  EvanSchenck posted:The rarity and expense of the manuscripts is the exact reason that we can suspect that the techniques were not commonly used, because it would be a waste to devote that money and effort to depicting techniques that were common knowledge at the time. It's the same reason that when studying medieval cuisine, we have lots of recipes for delicacies but none for staple foods. When books are rare and expensive, you don't record recipes for foods that people eat all the time, because everybody already knows how to make them. You write down the recipes for foods that most people don't know, and are out of the ordinary. People remember and record extraordinary things, not mundane ones. Similarly, a master would probably use a fechtbuch to record techniques that were special, rather than the techniques that everybody used and were foundational to fighting. This doesn't mean that what's in the fechtbücher is impractical, only that they were out of the ordinary and most likely situational in their utility. The saber-fighting instructions for soldiers during the 1800s may be a similar case: they basically boiled down to 8 cuts and some few forms of defense (if I remember correctly). Simple enough to teach quickly to a large number of people, effective enough that many of them would be able to kill somebody in a fight. EvanSchenck posted:It's completely false, and slightly insane. The links that Jorghnassen posted do a good job explaining it. It's also useful to think of what these weapons really are at the most basic level: simple machines, specifically levers and wedges. Swords, axes, maces, and so forth are third class levers, with the grip as the fulcrum, the hands supplying the effort, and the striking surface as the resistance. The cutting edge of a sword or axe, or the flange of a mace, is a wedge, which uses mechanical advantage to separate a target in pieces rather than just smashing it. Nektu fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Feb 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
Nektu posted:The saber-fighting instructions for soldiers during the 1800s may be a similar case: they basically boiled down to 8 cuts and some few forms of defense (if I remember correctly). Simple enough to teach quickly to a large number of people, effective enough that many of them would be able to kill somebody in a fight. It also comes down to the fact that some moves are just better than all the others. The best sport fencers nowadays mostly use two parries and a bunch of variations on those two, rather than practicing the other, less worthwhile parries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
Chamale posted:It also comes down to the fact that some moves are just better than all the others. The best sport fencers nowadays mostly use two parries and a bunch of variations on those two, rather than practicing the other, less worthwhile parries. But it is true - most practical fighting methods concentrate on a limited amount of techniques that are then trained until they can be applied without thinking under pressure/pain/whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Similarly, a master would probably use a fechtbuch to record techniques that were special, rather than the techniques that everybody used and were foundational to fighting. This doesn't mean that what's in the fechtbücher is impractical, only that they were out of the ordinary and most likely situational in their utility. I have only had acquintance with Fiore dei Liberi's Flower of Battle, but based on that I would offer comments. There's a very clear 'logic' in the said manual: the guard positions introduced in the initial unarmed section are the same that are used with daggers, swords, and poleaxes (and even have same names), so there's a focus on creating flexible principles (or foundation) of movement and reactions. There are a couple of cases (off the top of my head) where it's clear that the book's target audience is an aristocratic sponsor: one is a counter against someone who is using their sword like an axe (i.e. focusing on raw force and not cutting, a 'peasant's strike') and one is 'a special case' of using poison. That said, I'd argue that at least Fiore focuses on practical attacks and counters, and does not feature 'flashy', exotic movements. When something is rare, it's mentioned to be rare, or has important qualifiers ('will only work if done with rapidity'), but the majority of movements are very simple and to-the-point. You make a very good point about the prevalence of judicial combat, though: that seems to be Fiore's emphasis as well, even if there are a few illustrations about fighting multiple opponents and horseback combat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
Nektu posted:Maybe? Lets see... I see what you mean, thanks for clarifying. To make sure I have not confused other readers I should clarify as well. By striking from a safe angle I was referring to aggressively shutting down their options for attack, such as with the bind (restricting their sword for the benefit of those who do not study swordsmanship) or moving behind a path of safety created by your attack so that the angles they can strike from their current position are already covered. The idea is it is preferable to stop them from throwing their attack in the first place than to try stopping it once it has begun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
Evasion is a pretty important part of any martial art, and it certainly shouldn't be understated. But we should also remember that for the most part these European fighters were wearing very effective steel armor that could take hits. While the kind of stylized combat that was posted is impressive, it would appear that few of the attacks would have been capable of penetrating chainmail, much less plate. The popularity of two-handed weapons in the late medieval era was dependent upon the increasing ability for knights to rely upon their armor to shrug off blows. This is particularly true of any glancing blow, which includes most counter parries. Only powerful thrusts would have a real chance of success, and even that would be very problematic. Indeed the Royal Armouries Museum at Leeds conducted a study of medieval armor with the conclusion that "it is almost impossible to penetrate using any conventional medieval weapon". The response to overly elegant point fighting techniques was to simply take it on the armor and move in for a powerful disabling blow. This resilience is sometimes easy to forget, as it is not featured in our modern depictions of medieval combat; our film heroes rely heavily upon being able to cut through a swath of enemy fighters through a series of one-hit kills. Combined with the fact of group fighting, the reality would have been much more drawn-out - with fighters striking at vulnerable points of opportunity (less armored joints and extremities), and seeking to disable their opponents (even just momentarily) to allow their comrades to strike at the same. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl-ec6Ub7FM Kaal fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Feb 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 02:13
|
|
|
Nektu posted:Well, and there is that little thing that sport fencers are suicide fighters, because only the first hit counts - they dont care if they get hit themselves after they scored their own hit. That's not really accurate. Fencing, especially with the foil, has a system of priority so that sometimes scoring the first hit doesn't mean you win the bout. The intent is that a stabbed opponent presumably can't press an attack, but blindly lunging at someone in the process of attacking will get you killed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 08:48
|
|
|
How much of an issue would fatigue be in battles? It must be loving exhausting battling for a while in heavy armor, even if you're in great shape and used to it. I imagine it was brutal on the horses, too. The only way I could see fights not being a complete gong show is if each side had a habit of retreating and resting after brief intense skirmishes. I can't imagine long drawn out melees because you'd think people would literally collapse from exhaustion due to all that heavy armor. But maybe I'm underestimating human endurance and adrenaline.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 11:00
|
|
|
Fatigue was definitely an issue, but people often over-estimate the impact that armor had. It was uncomfortable, but at 50 pounds (armor plus weapons/shield) it was still less of an encumbrance than that facing a modern-day soldier who is loaded down with upwards of 100 pounds of gear and still expected to sprint, leap and climb. Certainly fighters needed to be physically fit, but the most significant impact on fatigue was in the use of combat arms - constantly moving, striking and blocking at full strength is extremely tiring. It is my understanding that combat would periodically slow as the opposing sides caught their breath and reorganized themselves for the next attack, just as they do today. I know that the condition of the horses was a major concern, and so cavalry units would have strings of remounts to help mitigate that. A human can be pushed a lot further than a horse before breaking. One thing that people will talk about is that leg armor constitutes much more of an encumbrance than its weight would indicate. They're the moving parts that everything else relies upon, and any loss in efficiency will have the greatest impact there. It's one of the reasons that legs were typically less armored throughout history. But even then I would note that people have been wearing shin guards and thigh guards for a long time without an appreciable lack of mobility, so I'd keep that in mind. As a counterpoint, this study takes are more critical view on the weight of plate armor. It's worth reading, though I'd note that their 15th century armor was twice as heavy as normal since it was designed to stop bullets and heavy crossbows. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14204717 Kaal fucked around with this message at 11:51 on Feb 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 11:13
|
|
|
The weight of armor in combat isn't nearly as much of an issue as the fact that armour is damned hot to wear. That's one thing that hasn't changed from the 11th century, bulletproof vests are still damned uncomfortable to wear in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 12:11
|
|
|
Vigilance posted:How much of an issue would fatigue be in battles? It must be loving exhausting battling for a while in heavy armor, even if you're in great shape and used to it. I imagine it was brutal on the horses, too. It was very much an issue, it was also managed. I think Emperor Maximilian wrote down about the need to rotate your troops through the ranks in battle so that they could rest, and even have a barrel of water at hand for each 8 men or 8 ranks, I do not remember which. People in armour do fatigue a little more quickly, but not that much more quickly than an unarmoured man fighting. Armoured combat certainly stressed economy of movement to avoid becoming tired. Still, you could actually use less energy in armoured combat since you do not have to move as much to defend. Knights would often have more than one horse; one for travel and one for battle or having remounts during combat. Kaal posted:As a counterpoint, this study takes are more critical view on the weight of plate armor. It's worth reading, though I'd note that their 15th century armor was twice as heavy as normal since it was designed to stop bullets and heavy crossbows. Not only is their armour much heavier than normal (and the quote indicates the people conducting the study are unaware of that), they made another major mistake here. quote:The breast and back plates of the medieval armour also affected breathing: instead of being able to take long, deep breaths while they worked up a sweat, the volunteers were forced to take frequent, shallow breaths, and this too used up more energy. I asked Dierk Hagedorn (head longsword instructor at Hammaborg) about this, and he never experienced anything of this nature. No one else I know who owns armour found this problem either with the suits they wear. To me it seems likely that the armour the BBC study used armour that did not fit the wearer, which is going to affect the amount of energy used significantly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 13:03
|
|
|
Kaal posted:
While the study does say the participants "regularly re-enact battles for the Royal Armouries in Leeds" I would imagine conditioning would also be a big factor in the influence of armour on fatigue. Someone who has spent 10+ years wearing frequently, and training intensively in, heavy plate mail would find it much less tiring to wear than a re-enactor who is not at a similar level of cardiovascular fitness (and who doesnt have years of muscular development related specifically to armour wearing/combat).
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 13:07
|
|
|
Blut posted:While the study does say the participants "regularly re-enact battles for the Royal Armouries in Leeds" I would imagine conditioning would also be a big factor in the influence of armour on fatigue. Someone who has spent 10+ years wearing frequently, and training intensively in, heavy plate mail would find it much less tiring to wear than a re-enactor who is not at a similar level of cardiovascular fitness (and who doesnt have years of muscular development related specifically to armour wearing/combat). Yeah, definitely. People underestimate the relative level of fitness that is expected in warfare. As a modern example: I had a couple journo buddies come back from an embed tour in Afghanistan, and they talked about how tiring it was to keep up with the troops even with all their gear. One story that has stuck with me is that they were following a foot patrol that was crossing a big open field that was covered in long berms, and while the journos had to run up and over each of the berms, the Marines simply leaped from berm to berm in a sprint - quickly disappearing into the distance. My buddies, who were in decent shape and carrying much less weight than that of the Marine platoon, were fairly worried about simply being left behind. Kaal fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Feb 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
This is more related to the culture: how much of a role did superstitions and folklore actually play in medieval life? There's a perception that diseases = possessions/demons/spirits, etc., and of course there's tons of documents with "monsters" (large fish) and such from the time. Is there any way of knowing how much stock was put into these?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 12:59
|
|
|
Wiggy Marie posted:This is more related to the culture: how much of a role did superstitions and folklore actually play in medieval life? There's a perception that diseases = possessions/demons/spirits, etc., and of course there's tons of documents with "monsters" (large fish) and such from the time. Is there any way of knowing how much stock was put into these? I became quite superstitious after reading this paragraph  .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Marshal,_1st_Earl_of_Pembroke#The_Fate_of_the_Marshal_Family
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 14:28
|
|
|
Ok, my question is (and apologies if I missed it), but what was life expectancy like in the Middle Ages. In reading some novels set in the time period, people in the 40s were often referred to as old. True, not true? Moral_Hazard fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Feb 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
This is old butRailtus posted:Essentially he made his career from semi-sport battles rather than in war. One reason I like Marshal is he developed the land he had gained, making improvements while he owned it (although mainly expanding two castles). This is kind-of true but also misleading. William the Marshal spent much of his youth in tournament, that is true, but from 1188 he was much more important as a soldier, general, and military adviser to Henry II and his successors. John Gillingham has made a solid case for this, noting for example that many more words in his Life are devoted to warfare than to tournament. He may have come to royal attention through his reputation as a tournier but even in his early days of knighthood he was a warrior, and his skill in war is quite evident from his biography.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
Wiggy Marie posted:This is more related to the culture: how much of a role did superstitions and folklore actually play in medieval life? There's a perception that diseases = possessions/demons/spirits, etc., and of course there's tons of documents with "monsters" (large fish) and such from the time. Is there any way of knowing how much stock was put into these? Not as much as you might think. A text entitled Liber Monstrorum de Diversis Generibus, a bestiary found in in Cotton Vitellius A.xv (the Beowulf-manuscript), written sometime between the seventh and tenth centuries, contains the following passage in its preface: (translated from the Latin, obviously) Liber Monstrorum de Diversis Generibus posted:
So...yeah. Not so much. Also, the pun at the end is awesome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
Essay is finished. I have a dissertation to work on but this should be making a fairly constant pace.Rodrigo Diaz posted:This is old but It depends what you view as “made his career.” By 1188 William Marshal was 41 years old, granted a large estate, and in royal favour. Most of the parts of his life I find interesting came later, but this was fairly late into his life and it was his success in tournaments more than his success in battles that got him there. MoraleHazard posted:
You’re welcome. Thank Wiggy Marie, she convinced me to start this thread. Overall, not true. The average life-expectancy was fairly low, although this was mostly caused by infant mortality. Then we get the Black Death after 1350. Then we get wars. This means we cannot take the average lifespan from birth at face value. At least in England, people seemed to expect to live into their 50s & 60s. Bishop Isadore (from Spain, 7thC) wrote that “seniority” was from 50-70 and “old age” was 70 and up. People did die younger quite a lot, but the interesting thing is life expectancies seemed to get longer as people got older. What that indicates is people were more likely to die young, which was what brought the average age down. A source on the subject: http://sirguillaume.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Old_Age-Height-Nutrition.pdf Some notes I made reading through it: English medieval landowners expected to live into their 50s & 60s. 20% of the young adult population (20 years old) lived to 60. 50% of those who reached 60 reached 70. 50% of all babies died before age 25. I hope that helps! Wiggy Marie posted:This is more related to the culture: how much of a role did superstitions and folklore actually play in medieval life? There's a perception that diseases = possessions/demons/spirits, etc., and of course there's tons of documents with "monsters" (large fish) and such from the time. Is there any way of knowing how much stock was put into these? Good question! The main obstacle with examining the influence of superstition is that much of the information out there on superstitions tended to be from the historiographical “dark ages” – essentially the older school of historians that portrayed the medieval period as backwards and ignorant, which seems to be generally unreliable scholarship. That said, there were certainly areas where superstition had influence. Trial by Combat was one example, since the expectation was that the rightness of one’s cause would help one in the fight. Ish. There were a lot of examples of people questioning it with very non-superstitious views. One Pope wrote to the Teutonic Knights telling them to stop imposing trial by combat on people they converted. Kleines Kaiserrecht openly stated that innocent men were wrongfully convicted for being physically weak, etc. It is more likely the superstition element was really just a convenient excuse for retaining a pre-medieval custom of single combat. Trial by Ordeal happened, although interestingly enough the Church was opposed to it. Priests were forbidden to cooperate since the Fourth Laterin Council (1215), although that also implies that priests needed to be forbidden from going along with it. For much of the medieval period, witch-hunting was outlawed – in the Lombard Code of 643, in the 794 Council of Frankfurt, the Bishop of Worms around 1020 was writing against the superstitious belief in magical potions, magic, curses, night flying etc. We could use this to argue that the sources were clearly anti-superstition… but there was clearly enough superstition around for people to go to the trouble of writing against it. Otherwise it would be like someone writing about where they stand on the issue of albino octopuses named Jerry. Then around 1320 the Church made magic-use a punishable offence, although most Inquisitors did not take it seriously. There were cases of accused witches in Milan (1380s onwards) who confessed to having participated in white magic. The Inquisitors were not sure what to do – the women confessed, but they clearly were not harming anyone – the Inquisitors just sent them on their way with a few words about being more careful around superstitions. I could say more on this and the development of witch trials, but it might be getting off-topic. My overall conclusion is that superstition was clearly present and influential enough for the Church to spend a lot of time and effort trying to fight it. One questionable source was Kitab al-I’tibar, an Arabic text by Usamah Ibn-Munquidh, who describes a Frankish physician diagnosing a woman as possessed by a demon and cutting a cross into her skull (which killed her). But, Kitab al-I’tibar is a sort of poem/tale where the author was expected to take liberties with the facts in order to tell a more compelling or educating tale. One interesting belief was in the healing power of relics, which follows my favourite trend in medieval history – when they get things right for the wrong reasons. People would travel to a holy site in the hopes of receiving healing upon completing their pilgrimage. This means holy sites would have large numbers of sick people travelling there. So the church set up hospitals in those locations, meaning that people would get at least some healing or treatment after all. Beneath this avalanche of examples I get the impression that there was not necessarily a distinction drawn between the magical and the mundane. Medieval bestiaries would feature a hippopotamus and a cockatrice (rooster-snake-dragon that turned people to stone) without explicitly viewing one as magical and another as non-magical. This is a very rambling response but the overall theme is “it depends.” :P My overall theme is enough people put stock into superstition for other people to be complaining about superstitious people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
Railtus posted:This is a very rambling response but the overall theme is “it depends.” :P My overall theme is enough people put stock into superstition for other people to be complaining about superstitious people.  Just with people believing in werewolves, witches and vampires, instead of homeopathy, Nessie and bigfoot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
Wiggy Marie posted:This is more related to the culture: how much of a role did superstitions and folklore actually play in medieval life? There's a perception that diseases = possessions/demons/spirits, etc., and of course there's tons of documents with "monsters" (large fish) and such from the time. Is there any way of knowing how much stock was put into these? For the layperson in the era, beliefs that we'd call superstitions were extremely real. Demons stalked your children, illness was the result of a displeased god or an angry agent of satan, people were miraculously healed by relics, so on and so on. Faith healing and what might be called witchcraft (pagan healing rituals usually practiced by midwives) were extremely common. It should be said that a lot of the things that the midwives and other healers did were based on observation and results (honey for wound care, for instance), but they were still a ways away from anything scientific. The issue really is how one defines "superstition". If we use the wiki definition it implies that it is a belief that contradicts scientific results, so given that there wasn't a great deal of scientific understanding at the time it is tough to say exactly what was and wasn't superstitious. In other words, the "active" god, imps and demons and monsters, the protective and healing power of grace, so on and so on, was thought of as a matter of fact, not as a possibility.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 01:48
|
|
|
Any good resources on non-ecclesiastical Medieval music? I do a little, but most of it's really late. Speaking of, what's your opinion on Corvus Corax? They seem to try pretty hard to be authentic, or as much as they can be, and a good chunk of them have history degrees. But they also have a major addiction to gold body paint and raven masks. Warning for people unfamiliar when you click on that link : side-effects include chanting in Latin and sudden urge to strip naked to the waist and hit something with an axe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
Thanks for the excellent thread. In reading through it, I think it kind of speaks a bit to a couple of question that I have always wondered about when watching movies/documentaries on warfare during the Medieval period: How did anyone walk away from a Medieval battle without some form of crazy grievous injury? Much like the classical era, It seems like warfare at the time could be a swirling mass of confusion and death, and that with whole units of footman engaged against other units (sometimes after a charge), combat could last an unknown amount of time and be completely exhausting (as Vigilance and others mention). You stated that the knight trained extensively and was an athlete. That kind of explains the ability to swing a sword, or axe, or halberd for long periods of time in armor. Adrenaline would be another factor. You also mentioned the tactics like a shield wall, and formations staying in good order, which would also play a part in keeping troops protected. Even so, I have always wondered how in that exhausting, confusing mass of bodies, almost everyone would be a target for someone else who they were not ready for - someone coming up from behind them and stabbing them while they were engaged with another enemy, someone finishing off an enemy, and smashed in the head by one of his allies, etc. The close in-nature of warfare at the time, and the weapons used also point to downright nasty wounds being commonplace. In your studies, I just wanted to know if you have noticed any trends in battles that might help explain how the average footman could hope to walk away from any given battle without the loss of a limb or worse? Finally, how advanced was battlefield medicine at the time?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
What would be the best weapon (non-ranged) to give a mass of fairly untrained people? A shield and a spear? I've been also thinking about pikes, but I think that would require the regiments to be fairly well trained in maneuvering in order to be effective enough to keep the enemy from getting too close. Aside from the shield and spear combo, I have always regarded the halberd as the best weapon to mass produce for untrained levies, since it can both stab and smash while keeping the enemy at bay, aswell as drag mounted troops of their horses. It just seems like a weapon that anyone could use somewhat effectively even with only minimal training.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Any good resources on non-ecclesiastical Medieval music? I do a little, but most of it's really late. Terry Jones' Medieval Lives did a great thing on minstrels/jongleurs/troubadors. The "Song of Roland" that the guy performs is probably very close to what the real thing sounded like. Actually now that I think about it "Medieval Lives" should just be mandatory viewing for anyone reading this thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
I'm not sure. I watched it awhile back, so I don't remember specific quibbles, but I remember being irritated a lot. In general I think he's arguing against strawmen, beginning with stereotypes that aren't widely held past like fifth grade (or outside of bad high fantasy). I don't think the series is a good intro to medieval history, and it's inadequate for anyone who really wants to get into it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 19:01
|
|
i like nice words
|
Anne Whateley posted:I'm not sure. I watched it awhile back, so I don't remember specific quibbles, but I remember being irritated a lot. My dad, who's an excellent Chaucerian and Piers Plowman guy (and who got to study under the late, great Charles Muscatine, long will he be missed) thinks it's a great series, and that it does a good job of showing the way people lived rather than focusing on the rare and unusual. It's purpose isn't to deliver a scholarly portrait to other scholars, but to engender interest in the field, correct popular misconceptions, but I think you're wrong in saying that it's not good for someone who wants to get into it. It's always good to remind yourself of the basics and of past false assumptions because it helps you safeguard against making assumptions yourself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
Anne Whateley posted:I'm not sure. I watched it awhile back, so I don't remember specific quibbles, but I remember being irritated a lot. Maybe not past the fifth grade for people who like history but some dude came into this thread asking of medieval people stank so bad we'd pass out were we to meet one. Some things are vexingly persistent, like constant witch-burning, 20 pound swords, the all-powerful longbow, medieval people being inherently stupid, etc. and Medieval Lives goes a little way to correcting that. Also, Jones' analysis of Chaucer's Knight is pretty contentious, and I'm not convinced by some of his arguments, especially in regards to contemporary views of the later crusades.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
monkeyharness posted:Thanks for the excellent thread. In reading through it, I think it kind of speaks a bit to a couple of question that I have always wondered about when watching movies/documentaries on warfare during the Medieval period: How did anyone walk away from a Medieval battle without some form of crazy grievous injury? As I understand it, your average portrayal of combat in say an RPG where there's two lines running at each other and "merge" into just a gigantic clusterfuck of men mingled with each other going at it in One-on-One combat, stretched across the entire field didn't really happen. There's a reason people invented formations and lines to do battle, things didn't really turn "massacre" ugly until one of those formations broke and got charged down by dudes on horses. That and massive field battles just didn't happen all the time either, due to the risks/cost involved.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 21:38
|
|
|
GyverMac posted:What would be the best weapon (non-ranged) to give a mass of fairly untrained people? A shield and a spear? The first part of the answer is that masses of untrained people were not a common sight on the medieval battlefield. It's a myth. Battle was the domain of military aristocracy, and most battles were clashes between well-equipped professional soldiers. Peasants were often caught up in wars, usually as passive observers or as victims of raiding and "foraging." This was partly because wars were mostly fought to resolve disagreements between rival kings or lords, to which peasants were not party; mostly it was because even a small force of professionals could overpower a huge mob. The Hussites made superb use of levies to repeatedly defeat professional armies, but that was less a function of their hand-to-hand weapons and more due to their exploitation of cannon and handguns in wagon fort tactics. Their infantry was noted for using flails, but they only went into action after the enemy had been disrupted by artillery and ranged weapons, and exhausted themselves by failed attacks on the perimeter of the wagon fort. In limited cases such as the Anglo-Saxon fyrd (a militia made up of small farmers) the spear and shield was a common weapon, though not necessarily because it was easy to use. The spear's prominence is more due to the fact that it required very little metal and consequently was extremely cheap. In an event such as a peasant rebellion or riot, people would equip themselves with what they had to hand. Most people carried knives or daggers with them, and it was also common to have a walking stick that could be used as a club (aka cudgel, shillelagh, shepherd's crook, and so forth). Tools such as woodaxes, hammers, mauls, agricultural flails (used to process wheat by beating the husks loose from the grains), and so on, could be used as weapons. quote:I've been also thinking about pikes, but I think that would require the regiments to be fairly well trained in maneuvering in order to be effective enough to keep the enemy from getting too close. Yes, effective use of pikes demands soldiers trained in close-order drill, because they are actually a remarkably poor individual weapon. quote:Aside from the shield and spear combo, I have always regarded the halberd as the best weapon to mass produce for untrained levies, since it can both stab and smash while keeping the enemy at bay, aswell as drag mounted troops of their horses. It just seems like a weapon that anyone could use somewhat effectively even with only minimal training. Nope. Effective use of a polearm like a halberd required a good grasp of timing, balance, and distance. Otherwise it would be too easy to miss with a strike and have your opponent push past the weapon, get inside your range, and gut you. There isn't really any particular hand-to-hand weapon that will be notably effective in the hands of an untrained man. The club is probably the least bad option, because the use of it is pretty self-explanatory and idiot-proof.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Any good resources on non-ecclesiastical Medieval music? I do a little, but most of it's really late. Interesting question. My advice is to look for work by individual composers. James. J. Wilhelm had a book called Lyrics of the Middle Ages, but I have no idea how good it is. Bernart de Ventadorn has music intact for at least 18 of his poems. Apparently Trouvere music tended to survive quite well. Perotin from around 1200 wrote the Allelulia Nativatis, although that might still fall under church music. Gaucelm Faidit has 14 melodies surviving - http://www.trobar.org/troubadours/gaucelm_faidit/ Again, music is outside my area of expertise, but hopefully those name-drops might give you something to work with. I have never heard of Corvus Corax before, but I love ravens and crows in general. Their music is certainly pleasant to listen to, and from what I can tell it sounds like they were using the same musical instruments as back then – so I think with those two criteria they are going to produce something fairly similar to medieval music. monkeyharness posted:Thanks for the excellent thread. In reading through it, I think it kind of speaks a bit to a couple of question that I have always wondered about when watching movies/documentaries on warfare during the Medieval period: How did anyone walk away from a Medieval battle without some form of crazy grievous injury? At the risk of sounding flippant, one way was winning, another was surrendering (not always reliable) and a third was running away. Although this is more for knights than the footmen, armour worked really well. A good suit of mail was very reliable, there were stories of Crusaders on foot covered with arrows and seeming completely unaffected. A coat-of-plates was very reliable too, able to stop a couched lance fitted with a graper. Essentially most armour used at the time would stop most hand-held weapons – at least initially. Once you got stunned you were more vulnerable. However, it is important because generally the guys with the least protection were more likely to be archers or in the back ranks or otherwise less exposed to danger. Late-period pike phalanxes seemed to have their best armoured troops at the front, and early period formations such as the Boar’s Snout seemed to recommend having the guys at the point of the wedge be the most well-armoured. To a degree you are right. Re-enactors doing shield walls and other competitive battle simulations found that most people never saw the guy that scored a killing blow on them. My guess is that both individual warriors and their commanders actively avoided the kind of exhausting, confusing mass of bodies you describe – precisely because it was so dangerous. A good case for it is made by I-Clausewitz; http://l-clausewitz.livejournal.com/141128.html Essentially formations staying in good order was what stopped the swirling mass of confusion and death. If one group lost cohesion first, that would be the group that started taking lots of casualties, and the carnage that followed would be fairly one-sided. The only times both sides would end up in a swirling mass would be if both groups lost cohesion at the same time, which was more common post-1500 during pike-and-shot, referred to as ‘Bad War’. As opposed to the nice friendly kind of war. Another thing to consider is fear. Quite a lot of people would hold back from the fight, there were complaints about soldiers “fencing” with the pike, which is standing at full pike length and just poking at each other with neither side continuing their advance more aggressively. Battlefield medicine, from what I could tell, was moderately advanced. I did find this - http://www.strangelove.net/~kieser/Medicine/military.html - which I find fairly trustworthy because it openly points out the limitations of its own information. GyverMac posted:What would be the best weapon (non-ranged) to give a mass of fairly untrained people? A shield and a spear? Either spear and shield or pike. Spear and shield was more common in the earlier stages, pikes were more common later on. What was popular was reinforcing pike phalanxes with dismounted men-at-arms (knights fighting on foot) so that you had the skilled men there for when the enemy did get close. From what I can tell, halberds tended to be more popular with skilled troops, although that could be more related to cost than to usefulness. The Swiss Reislaufer tended to have a core of halberdiers in their pike squares who were also well-armoured men. Among Landsknecht the guys with halberds were most often Doppelsoldners (double-pay men). Halberds can be pretty unwieldy if you do not know what you are doing, I think you would need training to use the axe-part effectively, particularly at closer range. On the other hand, just because someone lacks military training does not mean they are necessarily unskilled in the movements needed to use a halberd or other polearm effectively. One trick that worked quite well were weapons based around farm tools. The English billhook was a weaponised version of a gardening tool. Occasionally grain flails were modified to become weapons. These could help mitigate the level of training required.  bewbies posted:Terry Jones' Medieval Lives did a great thing on minstrels/jongleurs/troubadors. The "Song of Roland" that the guy performs is probably very close to what the real thing sounded like. Anne Whateley posted:I'm not sure. I watched it awhile back, so I don't remember specific quibbles, but I remember being irritated a lot. Rodrigo Diaz posted:Maybe not past the fifth grade for people who like history but some dude came into this thread asking of medieval people stank so bad we'd pass out were we to meet one. Some things are vexingly persistent, like constant witch-burning, 20 pound swords, the all-powerful longbow, medieval people being inherently stupid, etc. and Medieval Lives goes a little way to correcting that. Terry Jones is very fond of alternate takes on ‘common knowledge’. In some regards this is a good thing; he shows that peasants were not virtual slaves, on the other hand he gave a very one-sided account of the knight – John Hawkwood and the White Company was not really the best example of knightly conduct. I think he could be far more balanced in his consideration of the evidence. A good criticism of Jones’ analysis of Chaucer’s Knight is here - http://www.ueharlax.ac.uk/academics/research/documents/FiloGina.pdf
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 22:19
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:The first part of the answer is that masses of untrained people were not a common sight on the medieval battlefield. It's a myth. Battle was the domain of military aristocracy, and most battles were clashes between well-equipped professional soldiers. Peasants were often caught up in wars, usually as passive observers or as victims of raiding and "foraging." This was partly because wars were mostly fought to resolve disagreements between rival kings or lords, to which peasants were not party; mostly it was because even a small force of professionals could overpower a huge mob. To give a few examples, the Battle of Visby was depressingly one-sided, even though the peasants had some armour and equipment. Another thing would be the 'success' of the chevauchee tactics during the Hundred Years War (well, they succeeded in looting and burning villages, but failed at their goal of winning the hearts and minds of the people whose homes they just burned down).
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Yes, effective use of pikes demands soldiers trained in close-order drill, because they are actually a remarkably poor individual weapon. What do you think of George Silver's assertion that the pike was a better weapon for single combat than the two-handed sword? Railtus posted:To give a few examples, the Battle of Visby was depressingly one-sided, even though the peasants had some armour and equipment. Another thing would be the 'success' of the chevauchee tactics during the Hundred Years War (well, they succeeded in looting and burning villages, but failed at their goal of winning the hearts and minds of the people whose homes they just burned down). "Winning the hearts and minds of the people" was not a primary goal of the chevauchée, at least not in the campaigns of Edward III or his sons. Speaking strategically their chief purpose was to draw the French into unfavourable battle-- Crécy and Poitiers being the most famous examples from this period. They also served to help pay for the armies and of course to supply them, but Clifford Rogers has done a pretty good job of showing that their chief purpose was to provoke the Valois onto the field. It is also worth mentioning that 'hearts and minds' campaigns should not revolve around making people like you, but rather around making their allegiance to you seem the most optimal for their own defence and stability, and be justifiably legitimate. Making your use of force seem irresistible is part of that. To quote from FM 3-24 Counterinsurgency posted:“Hearts” means persuading people that their best interests are served by COIN success. “Minds” means convincing them that the force can protect them and that resisting it is pointless. Note that neither concerns whether people like Soldiers and Marines. Calculated self-interest, not emotion, is what counts. To bring it back to the Middle Ages, let's consider an example from my area of expertise: when Louis VI brought forth William Clito as the rightful successor to the duchy of Normandy, and repeatedly ravaged Anglo-Norman lands, some barons came over to his side not only because they viewed Clito as a superior overlord (either because he was more legitimate or more easily exploited) but because Henry had proven incapable or unwilling to defend his vassals, and would not make serious headway against Louis until Brémule in 1119. There are a number of reasons you do not see allegiances shifting as radically in the HYW. The foremost of these is that notions of treason, and the punishment of treason, had become much more extreme. Where in the 11th and 12th century the confiscation of lands was a common punishment, by the mid-14th century execution had become much more regular (in England anyway, not sure about the continent). Xiahou Dun posted:Any good resources on non-ecclesiastical Medieval music? I do a little, but most of it's really late. That drum beat is pretty positively not medieval European. This sounds like 'medieval-esque' music. A buddy of mine who has studied the historical use of the gusli (a Russian instrument akin to a psaltery) has told me a lot of bands sell themselves as playing medieval music but oftentimes make it up. Naxos's "Time of the Templars" CD set seems decent. Whoever plays their Palästinalied does a credible job. Among other bands that have claim to at least semi-accuracy you have Sirin and Estampie. Estampie does do mixed medieval-pop stuff sometimes but they usually alert you to that fact in the CD description.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:"Winning the hearts and minds of the people" was not a primary goal of the chevauchée, at least not in the campaigns of Edward III or his sons. Speaking strategically their chief purpose was to draw the French into unfavourable battle-- Crécy and Poitiers being the most famous examples from this period. They also served to help pay for the armies and of course to supply them, but Clifford Rogers has done a pretty good job of showing that their chief purpose was to provoke the Valois onto the field. I am being a little ironic in my description; I figured I did not have to repeat the more nuanced commentary I made in earlier posts. Thanks for the source though, is the work by Clifford Rogers Wars of Edward III: Sources & Interpretations by any chance? I would be surprised to hear Crecy used as an example of drawing the French into an unfavourable battle. On paper, Crecy looked like it was unfavourable for the English. If the French had not made major mistakes like attacking without having rested from the march or forcing their crossbowmen to leave their pavises in the baggage train I would have expected the French to have the advantage. On the other hand, Poitiers does fit that description better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
Railtus posted:
Oh, he's not to be relied on in a scholarly way, but he's good at making an argument. I kind of think of him like a Thor Heyerdahl.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
Railtus posted:I am being a little ironic in my description; I figured I did not have to repeat the more nuanced commentary I made in earlier posts. I was actually thinking of War Cruel and Sharp: English Strategy under Edward III, 1327–1360, though Wars of Edward III would certainly be a useful companion. On Rogers as a historian: I don't like his 'military revolution' pap but his analysis of Edward III on his own is pretty solid. As for Crecy, it really wasn't that unfavorable to the English. Edward had already fought and defeated a larger Scottish force (Edit: I mean larger than the force he had at Halidon Hill, not larger than the French force at Crecy) in a similar manner at Halidon Hill, and the tactics and formation, as I recall, were developed even earlier than that. The thing about Crecy, though, is much the same problem that Edward II had at Bannockburn. It is worth remembering, after all, that Philip VI had waited 9 years before meeting the English in the field himself, and in that time things like the Battle of Sluys and the sack of Caen had occurred. The mounted vexation toward the English over that time (or toward the Scots at Bannockburn) meant that the knights and noblemen in the army would be chomping at the bit to trade blows with the English, making the forced march more likely. Compounding this was Philip's desire to come with an overwhelming force, but this meant he had even less control. The pressure from his noblemen to fulfill his role as liege and fight the enemy, especially after 9 years of delay and failure meant that further delay could have been politically disastrous. Through his own caution, Philip basically forced himself into fighting Crecy with all haste, and it seems that Edward was well aware of this. His own father, after all, suffered for his haste to reach Bannockburn for many of the same reasons and with similar results. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Feb 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:What do you think of George Silver's assertion that the pike was a better weapon for single combat than the two-handed sword? I had to look this up, but in that respect he seems to be talking about the half-pike or spontoon, which was about 6-7' long. I was talking about the full length pike of 14' or more, which he calls the morris pike, about which he says, quote:The long staff, morris pike, or javelin, or such like weapons above the perfect length, have advantage against all manner of weapons, the short staff, the Welch hook, partisan, or glaive, or such like weapons of vantage excepted, yet are too weak for two swords and daggers or two sword and bucklers, or two rapiers and poniards with gauntlets, because they are too long to thrust, strike, and turn speedily. And by reason of the large distance, one of the sword and dagger-men will get behind him. It seems kind of hard to credit the notion that someone armed with a pike wouldn't be able to stop an opponent with a sword and dagger from getting inside his reach, but would be able to do so against a two-handed sword--but he'd be the expert, and I'd just be speculating.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 02:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 09:03 |
|
|
On the subject of medieval music, can someone PLEASE tell me the name of the second song in this Youtube video(starts at 1:25)? How authentic is it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 03:31
|
|
