|
Railtus posted:Leaping onto horseback in full armour (no cranes required, you should be able to jump onto the horse unaided). Coming back to this: is there reason to believe that these were commonly attained goals )like the President's Fitness goals) and not theoretical No True Scotsman goals? In other words, is it reasonable to assume that the average knight could actually do these things, or were the merely laudable examples that he ought aspire to?
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 22:33 |
|
|
Railtus posted:If a nobleman is travelling you could simply follow his entourage and hope it scares off any trouble. I imagine you'd gain a safety in numbers thing at night too, sharing a sleeping area with the help.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2013 12:21
|
|
|
Lord Tywin posted:So people only joined Christian military orders for life? My impression is that they took vows analogous to priestly or monastic vows, which would mean death is pretty much the only way out. But I could be wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
One of my highschool history teachers was a lefty, and I remember he said something about a military unit comprised entirely of left handed fighters, which was used to great effect due to their opponents being unaccustomed to attacks coming from the wrong side, but I don't know if it was true or if he made it up. And also I think it was ancient and not medieval.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
Tailored Sauce posted:3. Any interesting stories from history detailing sieges/attacks on Motte and Bailey castles? One of the most famous motte and bailey events has to be when Caesar laid siege to a huge motte and bailey fort (personally, I have a hard time calling it a castle) to capture Vercingetorix. He basically did the aforementioned surrounding combined with raids up the side of the hill.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:I know some people claim that fatter was better, but that's obviously nonsense or it would have leaked through in documentation/propaganda and art. Sorry, but you are mistaken. In many societies where some of the people suffer from genuine starvation and or malnutrition, having enough food security to be overweight is socially desirable. In India to this day, height and girth are both generally associated with familial wealth, the idea that your parents were able to keep you well feed consistently for all these years, much like how teeth in the US are a huge class signifier. Also being a bit over weight is indeed medically healthier than being below or even precisely at your target weight.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:Yet we don't see poems about how fat rulers were. We see poems about how virtuous (and temperance being the virtue opposite of gluttony) they are. The very fact that gluttony exists as a sin and monks fasted and stuff means they must certainly have been aware of it. Depending on the time and place, some monk's fasting diet included three meals with fish in at least one of them and possibly waterfowl. Gluttony as a sin was a way to encourage the poor to be content with their lot and also a theoretical ideal. There were huge feasts allowed to celebrate the days of saints, and a saint assigned to every day. Most people, even the very rich, at moderate fare, compared to those huge medieval banquet scenes you see with piles of suckling everything, but those feats did happen, too. And those rich people weren't eating lightly the rest of the year, just not banquets every day.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Also there are like 0 arming swords in the entire world. Dumb question, but the problem is that they're all huge, right? (Somewhat) Related question: was the cruciform hand-guard a Christian thing or is it just an easy way to make a sword? I've heard both, but it seems like non-Christian swords frequently had a blade stop that covered more than two angles.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Do you explicitly mean the guard or the overall shape of the sword? Because not all European swords were cruciform, nor indeed were all swords with straight guards. It's not just an easy way to make a sword, and is actually more intensive than the Roman method Abbasid and Mamluk swords were also frequently cruciform, so it's not a Christian Thing. The shape of the sword was incorporated as part of Christian imagery, but that is not why it came to be. The xiphos was also cruciform. I see what you mean about it not being the simplest thing possible, but it seems a flat cross guard must be easier to fabricate than a basket hilt or something. Honestly, the question comes to mind because I remember some people nerding that the swords in GoT shouldn't have such a universal cruciform silhouette, since they aren't swords from medieval Christendom but from the land of the Seven Gods and so on and so forth.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
I understand what flynning is in context, and I assume it comes from someone named Flynn, but can I get a precise explanation?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
Railtus posted:Flynning is named after Errol Flynn who did lots of swashbuckling movies where sword-fights were essentially moving the swords in a half-circle up or down so that it looked vaguely like a parry. It would follow an up-down-up-down pattern, with both combatants trying to deliberately hit each other’s weapons with a clang sound, rather than looking like they were going for each other. Thanks, I could picture exactly what you were talking about, but that connection didn't pop into my head at all.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:*Freedom to practice your own religion was not a big deal in the Roman world as long as you honored your god alongside the Roman pantheon. Freedom from participation in Roman religion was a big deal and speaks volumes about the Roman respect for Judaism. Like the later Europeans, to Romans the East was the source of ancient and mysterious wisdom, and the sheer antiquity of Judaism impressed the Roman imagination. Counter point: the idea of monotheism sounded patently ridiculous to the vast majority of the Roman world. Reverence of a single god above or even apart from any others is one thing, but to deny the existence of gods other than your own is a bit ridiculous to a deeply polytheistic culture.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2013 12:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 22:33 |
|
|
Great, now I want a sling.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2013 14:54
|
|