|
That's definitely true, the French command was all sorts of hosed up. I still find it hard to believe that even in Gay Black Hitler territory they wouldn't agree to "maybe let's have our superior archers shoot at those guys"
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 06:36 |
|
|
Sulecrist posted:How many troops tended to be in blocks/formations of pikes or bills or bows or men-at-arms or whatever? I'm sure it varies massively and a ballpark answer would be fine. If I need to narrow it down, let's say Wars of the Roses England and answer for dudes with polearms, dudes with ranged weapons, mounted knights, and dismounted knights. Armies at the time you're referring to aren't really organized and regimented in the way I think you're imagining. It's still mostly based on standing around with guys who are from the same area as you, and you're standing there because your lord is there, and he's there because that's where all of his lords retainers are standing, and his lord was told to stand in that part of the line by the king or whatever, etc. Your infantry formation is basically just going to be a big line, a few rows deep. Sometimes there are multiple lines. If you're an archer or mounted, you might be standing somewhere else by virtue of being in a more specialized (for lack of a better term) role, but even then it's not really broken into units with subordinate commanders or anything like that. Rabhadh posted:The English didn't have to do anything to get the French to fight, they really wanted to fight. The hold up was because they realised the English were in too good a position, which is why the English had to advance and loose a few arrows to get the party started. Well that and the French were waiting for more reinforcements. The French were pretty sure they were going to win, but recognized the defensive strength of the English position. They wanted to hedge their bets a bit by waiting for the rest of the French army to arrive. In hindsight it's hard to say if those extra men would have really made a difference, but Henry certainly felt he needed to goad the French into battle before their forces got any bigger.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Dude posted this in the milhist thread, not a single soul responded. awww man, I found out from one of the albums that the Higgins Armory museum in Worchester, MA closed. I used to love going there as a kid when we visited my grandparents. It was a really neat museum. I remember they had a section where you could wear reproductions of medieval armor as well, at least they did one time I visited. Somewhere my parents have a picture of a 7 or 8 year old me struggling to stand while wearing a barbute.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
In medieval times? aside from sieges, basically none. Even the bloodiest battles lasted a day or two at most. My guess is many of the longer/bloodier ones involved a class of cultures or religion like the Crusades or Mongol invasions.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Hastings is the most famous example but Kulikovo, Falkirk, and Legnano all come to mind. very good point. in terms of percentages, medieval battles could be devastating in terms of casualties/captures, like you mentioned. I was interpreting the question as pure body count, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:This, more or less, is my hunch. I also suspect that gisarme might, in Wace's time, be a catchall term for non-spearlike polearms. This is partly because Wace is using a French term, which suggests that there is, at least, a polearm of some kind in France. The other major reason is because of the "giserne" in the 14th century manuscript of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, which is an crescent-shaped axe (not too unlike a berdysh). I mean, this is based on a cursory googling so take it with a grain of salt, but I read that Chaucer also used the terms "gisarme" and "bill" (referring to the tool/weapon) somewhat interchangeably in a few of his writings.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
make me a mighty blade, for dragon slaying
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
Not super scientific, but relevant to the discussion: http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/i-tried-a-medieval-diet-and-i-didnt-even-get-that-drunk
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:Everybody's talking about swords and I'm just here thinking about which stick I want to buy B or E imo
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
Kopijeger posted:Why French- and Russian-speakers? You'd expect most of the scholarship to come from areas that were actually part of the Empire, so you'd think there would be more from Italy and the Balkans than from France or Russia. Come to think of it, to what degree do North Africans, Levantines and Turks study the Roman and Byzantine legacy of their countries? Not sure about French speakers, but part of the Russian mythos for centuries has been that they're "the third Rome" and the heirs to Byzantium. Historically they had pretty strong ties to the region as well, like the Eastern Orthodox Church for example.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Kopijeger posted:I knew about that, but it still seems relatively flimsy compared to the connection the areas which were actually part of the Empire would have. Though I suppose it could simply be a question of Russia having a greater population than any Balkan country and thus more historians studying the era. I guess my point is that people often study what they are interested in, so it makes sense for the culture that has long considered itself to be the heir of Constantinople to produce many more historians who choose to study the topic
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 06:36 |
|
|
HEY GAL posted:turks? in 1096? Seljuks
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2016 20:19
|
|