|
LordSaturn posted:Only indirectly related: I don't know about flash photography specifically, but when I used to guide at Speke Hall I know one of the beds (well, blankets) had begun to fray just due to light damage. Some more on light damage in general: https://www.nedcc.org/free-resources/preservation-leaflets/2.-the-environment/2.4-protection-from-light-damage Obviously a single flash photograph is not going to cause significant damage on its own, but if it keeps happening with lots of visitors routinely taking pictures, then the repeated flash will accelerate the light damage over time. Essentially the damage caused by flash photography is pretty difficult (read: impossible as far as I know) to distinguish from other sources of light damage and the fading, weathering or discolouration related to it. It just ages sooner. It might take years of repeated photography for there to be visible damage, but museum conservation deals with items that are decades or centuries old. In context, 10 years is a very short time for the wear caused by light to take effect.
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 20:07 |
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:How prevalent was slave ownership in the Kingdom of Jerusalem? I'm sure the title of the blog implies a less than unbiased source on the subject, but some interesting commentary here: http://defendingcrusaderkingdoms.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/slavery-in-crusader-kingdoms.html Also, certain quotes like the Ibn Jubayr one that essentially describes Muslims as better off under Crusader rule than under the rule of other Muslims would suggest that the condition of slavery was not common enough to earn his notice. It could mean that slaves were simply not a visible or observable presence in the kingdom when Ibn Jubayr was travelling through (not immediately identifiable as such). The only suggestion that slavery was at all common or “standard” in the Crusader States from what I can find comes from David Nicolle, Knights of Jersualem: The Crusading Order of the Hospitallers – though it seems an offhand comment that isn't given exploration, and I remember from my Bachelor's dissertation coming across Nicolle and finding him generally pretty unreliable in the past. I don't remember the exact thing that made me distrust Nicolle, however. Riley-Smith mentions that Italian merchants were sometimes accused of selling local Christians as Muslim slaves, and Yvonne Friedman suggests that normally ransom rather than slavery was the way to deal with prisoners. A quick look finds a “very large slave market in Acre” being mentioned on some webpages, but no real details on it (although I'm not looking too deeply because I'm tired). Overall, I get the impression that slavery in the Kingdom of Jerusalem was not standard operating procedure, the kind of thing that existed but didn't seem to play a large role in any aspect of the kingdom. If Muslims kept as slaves was commonplace, I would expect it to reflect in Jubayr's commentary – either slave ownership was not prevalent or slaves were not easily distinguishable from the free Muslims who Jubayr describes as so well-treated. I'd be hesitant to assume that slaves were so well-off, so I'd lean towards concluding that slave ownership was rare. Siivola posted:I sort tangentially disagree. To me the smallsword is only a dueling weapon in the sense that it's a civilian weapon, and dueling just happens to be a thing civilians do. I mean, if you really look at the thing, it's actually kind of bad to duel with: The hilt doesn't protect anything, the blade is so short you end up in wrestling range, and the sword is so quick in general it's super hard to control the opponent's blade long enough to stab them without getting stabbed back. And indeed, dedicated dueling swords went on to reinvent big cup hilts and longer blades once people stopped carrying swords as fashion statements. I see the smallsword as a fashion statement as well, where it is expected to carry a sword while minimising the inconvenience of carrying a sword. I know a quick google repeatedly bludgeons me with the phrase "no man was properly dressed without his sword." http://www.encasedinsteel.co.uk/2015/09/11/a-brief-introduction-to-the-smallsword/ - this lists an interesting observation under "Two-tempo fencing", suggesting that the smallsword might be a little more novice-friendly? I'm not sure how much merit there is to that, but assuming it is perhaps as people carried swords as fashion accessories more and as serious weapons less they might find themselves leaning towards the weapon that requires less of a commitment to learn?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I've had questions in my head for a while about bandits and what they are in an actual historical setting, but I've been having a hard time figuring out how to phrase them. Free-floating groups of bandits are a fixture in fiction, especially in medieval settings, but I can't really wrap my head around them. The way I see banditry is as supplemental rather than a primary source of income. The Scandinavian who goes aviking is a farmer most of the time, and joins a raiding party. Another bandit in Southhampton might be an official sent by Henry III to put down bandits… Another might be a castle lord living on the Rhine who decides to charge a toll to travellers that the Holy Roman Emperor hasn't authorised him to do so (the robber barons as they were known). Outlaws living in the forest were a thing, although I've not come across any reliable information as to the type of community they have. I imagine a lot of what they eat would be what they could hunt or fish or grow in the local area, I'm not sure if I would use the word “farm” but if they had the opportunity to grow crops somewhere away from civilisation I'm sure they would. There were groups like the Coquillards, but I can't find much information on them. Arguably the Knights of St. John were pirates for much of their time in Rhodes or Malta, although they would not have seen themselves that way. They would have seen it as part of their war against the threat of the expanding Muslim empires to attack Muslim shipping and deal economic damage to the enemy. The Barbary Corsairs probably thought of themselves a similar way, seeing themselves as warriors fighting against Christian kingdoms. A lot of these have connections to somewhere that doesn't think of them as bandits or criminals. So they are a “bandit” to the people they are raiding, but a “brave warrior” to the people back home who they sell plunder to.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:Out of curiosity does anyone have a recommendation for a book that goes into detail about weapons and armour of the Medieval Period. Or even better if there is some stuff that deals with the Migration Period and the "Dark Ages". While I can't think of the book to go right now, I can mention a few sources. Knyght Errant has a pretty awesome Youtube channel that goes into a lot of detail about the evolution of armour styles, with some discussion of the weapons that go with it. Also, "I, Clausewitz" does a lot of amateur yet detailed information that would relate to your Worldbuilding with a military focus - http://l-clausewitz.livejournal.com/l_clausewitz178455
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Bendigeidfran posted:With regards to blunt impact weapons like maces: what were the main elements of their design? Was there a particular way they were forged, changing styles over time like we see with swords? Or was there not much advancement because early designs worked well enough despite changing battlefields? Scholagladiatoria says some things about maces, I have heard a lot of the same things from him, and I think he is a fairly reliable source – although I wish he'd go more into the evidence on this subject the way he does on some other topics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnveFLcgoG0 Generally if you google “scholagladiatoria maces” you should get a fair amount of results. I don't have anywhere near as clear a timeline as I do for swords, but I get the impression that there was some evolution. -wooden hafts for earlier or perhaps cheaper maces, metal hafts for later and higher-end maces. -flanges seem to be more common later, one possible explanation is (from Matt Easton) is that they were for grip, a bit like the way the hammer on a pollaxe often looks like a meat tenderiser – I think these flanges would apply more when armour tends to present glancing surfaces and less when armour catches more than it deflects. -personal observation; I tend to think of the rounded flanges as earlier maces, while the more angular flanges seem to be later styles. Angular flanges. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Maza_de_armas.jpg -warhammers tend to be a later thing, they never completely replaced maces but seemed to be a development of them. -method of forging for warhammers at least is more or less what I would call the medieval normal. Harder steel on the bits expected to hit people, softer steel or wrought iron at the core. Welded steel onto an iron core seems to be a thing with warhammers… I do not know whether this was a deliberate design choice or whether all-steel would be favoured on the high-end weapons. -I've not seen much on civilian/law-enforcement use of maces, although I will say it seems plausible to use a less-lethal weapon for the role. In 1279 King Edward I formed a special guard of 20 sergeant-at-arms who carried decorated maces as badges of office, but I don't know whether they were primarily weapons or primarily symbols. -I cannot remember the exact source, but I remember examining a document on a watch law, and it required “glaives or poleaxes” to be carried by the men on night watch duty… I know it was an English watch, and it does give me the impression maces were not the go-to weapon even for town guards. -Matt Easton's evidence for aldermen with maces appears to be primarily artwork. Anyway, that's what some searching found, I hope that's a little helpful. DandyLion posted:Surely you mean something smaller/lighter than what is commonly referred to as a mace? Perhaps like a billy club or similar. Your average weighted mace could burst a skull like Gallagher, which I have trouble seeing any 'relative' non-lethality therein. Heck, in some cases, Maces could more easily injure since its not as easy to 'cut' through clothing with a bladed weapon as the movies would lead you to believe. On the other hand, breaking an arm, a leg, a hand, a foot, a rib - essentially anywhere on the body that's not the skull - seems more survivable than a wound from an edged weapon (or at least any cut severe enough to stop someone from fighting).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 20:07 |
|
|
vulvamancer posted:I was watching the Lindybeige video on routed units/armies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBQT6To2bLg and it got me wondering, were there historical battles where units that were routed got reorganized and came back to affect/swing the battle? I know there were feigned retreats, but any units that actually broke? Hastings 1066 might fit the bill, where the story goes that a general retreat happened, and even a rumour Duke William had been slain – so he had to take off his helmet to rally the men and show his face so they could see he was alive – and then Duke William launched a counterattack against the pursuers which defeated those units at least. There was the flight, and then the army was able to launch new assaults on the English/Saxon line later. I haven't looked over it in enough detail to know if the fleeing units were specifically instrumental, but it's entirely possible that was not mentioned. Perhaps Verneuil 1424, although I'm not as sure about that. I know the archers were routed, the mercenary knights assisting the French stopped to loot the baggage train rather than consolidate their victory, and then Bedford led an attack by the English knights against the remaining French while the mercenaries were busy with that. I would assume for it to be so effective that at least some of the English forces had to rally, but I don't find the rallying troops explicitly pointed out.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2016 21:11
|
|