|
Railtus posted:I did come across this discussion - http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=7175 – on the subject of minor penetration and how it might be possible. None of the sources I am familiar with mention the arrowhead getting past the shield when the arrow sticks in, but it could be because it was not important enough to mention in the descriptions rather than because it did not happen. The pilum or spiculum was said to be able to puncture shields (in De Re Militari, if you’re wondering about the reliability of the source) so it is not impossible for arrows or other weapons to puncture shields a little as well. There is a game that the Ottomans used to play. It's called darb, you shoot bodkin arrows like these  at metal or glass targets. I can take a few pictures of targets when I come home.  A bow like the one above is bad news for anyone in plate armor and chainmail. There is an account of a french knight getting his head riveted into his helmet by an ottoman arrow that pierced the front and exited at the back at the Battle of Nicopolis. Adam Karpowicz did some testing on the penetrative power of such weaponry, I think he also gives examples for the piercing of wooden items. I'll look that up when I get home. There is a catch though. Ottoman arrows are lighter and shorter than comparable european bodkin arrows, but much faster thanks to the high energy storage of that bow's design. The air drag affects lighter arrows more, so while they can reach out very far, the penetrative power to pierce just about any armor from plate downward will be only there in the first 40m or so. You're still completely hosed with chainmail. Here a few different types of ottoman arrows. The long one is a tartar arrow (also in use in the ottoman military)  e: "There are only a few referrences to war use. Hansard wrote about two-hole penetration of a metal helmet made to withstand pistol shots, together with the head. Shots through 2 inches of metal, as well as 1/2 inch plank at 100 yards have been recorded. A wooden mannequin clad in chainmail was completely shot through. Turkish arrows were known to penetrate plate armor of the Austrian Cuirassiers of the 17th c." [Karpowicz, Adam (2008): Ottoman Turkish bows, manufacture & design] I recall reading about Prince Eugene of Savoy talking about the cuirassiers in another source. 2" of metal might sound massive, but look at the bell on this picture and imagine how much power such an arrow must have so that the glass stays whole. The arrows are inserted for illustrative purposes.   Other composite designs do not differ so greatly in their performance. What sets the turkish bows apart is the use of relative light arrows. Parthian, Mongol and Magyar designs are for very heavy arrows Power Khan fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Sep 26, 2013 |
#
¿
Sep 26, 2013 12:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 16:25 |
|
|
That statement about the weight of the arrows is true. Turkish flight bows, made for sporty distance shooting cast extremely light arrows and are exceptionally fast at restoring their braced form. So that the bow doesn't get damaged, one needs a bow with very light siyahs and limbs and very high energy storage (they usually have a proportionally large ammount of sinew backing). The arrow will take energy that is stored in the bow upon drawing, the higher the weigth of the arrow, the more energy will be stored in it. Conversely, if you shoot an arrow that is too light, only a portion of the energy will be donated in the arrow - the remaining energy of the bow returning to the braced form will hit the bow's structure. It's kind of dry firing a bow. Sooner or later it will break. And you don't want to be anywhere near when a 120# bow breaks. Also, too light arrows will be felt as handshock (siyahs that are too large will also produce handshock) Turkish bows are very short. I have measurements of 40 different bows here in Kapowicz's book, and most are 103-110cm, drawweight ranging from 50-140# (there is even one with 240), most of them around 120#. The reason why they are able to shoot such short and light arrows effectively is, that they are of very low mass. Most are between 360 and 450g. That means they are very fast at restoring their original shape and therefore casting light arrows effectively. You could see it like the principle behind the calibre of modern assault rifles, heavier and slower projectiles, or faster and lighter projectiles. (I think the turks meant to wound enemies rather than kill them, so that they could collect ransom or make slaves. Also, you can carry more light arrows). Like I said before, heavier arrows will retain more energy over distance, but can also be used for larger arrowheads against unarmored targets. It is still possible to shoot such arrows with a turkish bow, but probably only to the max draw of 30" with a 106cm bow. There is also an overdraw device that's called "siper" which allows you to shoot very very short arrows safely (and also another one that allows the use of crossbow bolts). Other bows like the design that the Manchu or the Crimean Tartars used are made for very long and heavy arrows. They're almost like javelins. Those bows are alot longer and have larger siyahs and a reflexed handle. The underlying principle of construction is the same. Either 3 part or 5 part construction, but all with V-splices - just like the turkish ones. The configuration of the angles is different, but both bow types need string bridges. https://plus.google.com/photos/100344514090479456506/albums/5643756987087292545  I've read that such bows originated in areas where there is very dense vegetation (and loving large bears). The long arrows make it hard for the prey to escape. I've spent the last 1 1/2 years preparing to build a turkish target bow. I started on the project 3 months ago and am now close to glueing the wooden core together. It's awfully spergy and will probably take another 3 cores to make a halfway working bow. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Sep 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
dromer posted:Speaking of which, what's the primary mechanical difference in firing mechanics between crossbows and regular/recurve/longbows? If crossbow bolts are so short, then why don't crossbows suffer the effects of dry firing? They do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzdTUQuBY_g You might be able to dry fire your beginner crossbow, but higher drawweigths will explode in your face. The ones with solid steel bows will be more tolerant I guess, but the string will surely break. Crossbows are an ingenious idea. You can use higher drawweigths (more range & power), training your troops will be faster, the guys can carry more ammo and like with the turkish short arrows - it's hard to shoot them back at you. The mayor difficulty when trying to build larger numbers of them is the locking mechanism. The chinese came up with a very simple cast solution very early on. http://www.atarn.org/chinese/bjng_xbow/bjng_xbow.htm From the perspective of drawing your crossbow, you'll use other muscle groups. When drawing a bow, you will do most work with your shoulder and back - this isn't optimal and needs long conditioning for you to be able to take such extreme drawweigths without the danger of hurting yourself. Cocking a crossbow will utilize your legs and hips. Those are far better for such a task.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2013 18:10
|
|
|
Railtus posted:Thanks for the useful info. This is interesting, although I would be cautious about suggesting mail is essentially useless against them – you mention other composite bows being of similar performance, but in Crusaders fought against foes armed with composite bows and their mail armour seemed to defend them quite well – not that it is impossible to pierce mail or even plate with some arrows (Girard of Quiercy was killed by an arrow through both shield and armour, probably resolving the whole “is an arrow getting through a shield realistic” debate) but I’d hesitate when it’s portrayed as quite so easy or reliable. There is no exact reference what type was used. Quite recently I saw something about the combination of padding and chainmail and that it's supposed to be very effective at stopping bodkin tips. It's likely that a double layer of riveted chainmail and padding would stop such an arrow sufficiently. In fact I'd love to see such a test. I don't know what type of bow or arrowheads muslim troops would use against the crusaders. Do we know the quality of these troops? Elgood's Islamic arms and armour might give a better answer, but somebody else borrowed the last piece at the library. The men who were meant to operate these weapons were nothing short of olympic champions. Imagine a guy doing onehanded pullups by just hanging on the bar with his thumb. There is a manuscript by Taybugha that details the requirements for passing archery examinations of the mamluks (the ones for janissaries are surprisingly similar). The bar is set very high for modern standards, but these men were trained day in day out for warfare. Hitting a man sized target consecutively from 70m away. Holding the arrows in the hand, shooting 3 arrows within 12 seconds at the same target 70m away (with a warbow). Distance shooting is interesting too Swoboda (2012:166) gives an account of regular competitions of puta shooting at the Okmeydan from a distance of 300-400 gez (198-264m!).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2013 19:59
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:It makes indescribably happy to know that "Getting drunk and shooting beer cans off a fence post" is a tradition that goes back to medieval times. Ha, I didn't think of that! It's quite obvious, isn't it?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
The argument about the armour also works in the other direction. Weapons that do not perform, will not stay in use for long. That is especially true for very labor and time intensive weapons like composite bows. Check em:  This is just a curiosity. It was used for mace tournaments. You and your opponent get a flag fixed on the top and the goal is to knock it down. Those guys knew how to have fun. This is a piece from the Höfische Jagd- und Rüstkammer in Vienna. There is a massive collection of weapons and plate armour. What I found surprising is the size of the men that used to fill those sets. Pretty tall, of course powerfully built. I also didn't know about the barroque ideal of beauty, there's suits that will make you look like a winebarrel, apparently that was considered super sexy back then. You can also learn what a "Schamkapsel" is: 
Power Khan fucked around with this message at 09:08 on Sep 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2013 08:54
|
|
|
Check out the catalogue of this smith. He's specialized on the reproduction of medieval arrow- and crossbow heads. You get an idea of what was used for which purpose. Archers carried a range of heads for different purposes. http://belza.iq.pl/index_eng.html I haven't seen larger collections of missle weapons in the local museums here. Some finely crafted crossbows and bolts for a noble here and there. Maybe there's more in the depots and it's just not flashy enough to be put on display. There's some turkish equipment on display, but the only larger collection is found here: http://esterhazy.at/en/forchtensteincastle/index.do Probably also useful to notice, it's the nobles who collected these things, so you'll see stuff that they owned or notable stuff that they looted. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 09:42 on Sep 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2013 09:40
|
|
|
One thing you got to know about this type of shooting is, that you never take the eyes of your target. You learn to nock your arrow without looking. Even I can do that. This is a replica of a quiver from a museum here: http://www.sword-elgur.com/katalog/turkish-leather-quiver-from-heeresgeschichtliches-museum.html?cat=7&pn=34 You can see the different sections in the quiver that are separated by leather strings. Look at the picture with the arrows in the quiver. Other quivers have smaller pouches sewn a little lower.    The arrows don't need to be in very deep. You can google for pictures of korean horse archer quivers, those look like miniatures, but they work. I want to build a leather one like these up there, but there's also very interesting chinese quivers made from birch bark that have the feathers down and the arrowheads up. Apparently the Magyars used a very similar type too. Here is a reconstruction:  I can give you a good guess why they did that. The fletching was glued with hide or sinew glue, that stuff dissolves in water. Birchbark is very good at keeping water away (also a reason why composites are often covered in said bark.). It doesn't hurt the fletching to have it upside down like this. When you pull the arrow out, the fletching straightens to normal. It might also be more convenient to carry the arrows in this fashion, because it makes the movement to nock the arrow more direct. Of course it's possible to cut yourself, but waterproofing might be the main idea behind turning it upside down. This doesn't seem to be an idea that made it. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Sep 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:You were the one who said that mail was useless against Turkish arrows, and we know that was not the case. "We know that was not the case"? From where would you know that? A youtube video, where guys shoot a longbow and a corresponding war arrow with platecutter tip at mail with padding? Or can you give us literature to back that up, where they lay out the setup and material and test both types of equipment? It's documented that both types pierced even plate with bodkin tips. The turkish arrow is better at piercing it because it's faster and is less subjected to friction when entering the material, because of the barrel taper in front (with diameter of the shaft of around 6mm). I'm sure you have no problem googling the formula for kinetic energy and realizing why increased velocity is better than increased mass. Fyi, an arrow of 600grain, shot from am bow of 150# will provide 118J. I'm not sure that I'd want to be anywhere these things wearing mail or plate. If you still point to that experiment, you'll surely realize that the setup is not the same. What about the quote that just states "metal", and yea, it's most likely brass, as the example for wood would suggest? What of it? It's good at shooting holes in things and people. Are you so fussy that you don't enjoy a little theatrality? Sexgun Rasputin posted:I still don't understand how shooting undersized arrows out of a high draw-weight bow becomes ok when the bow has very little mass. I don't really understand the physics behind it, how does that keep the bow from exploding? If you look to the formula for kinetic energy, you will see that to increase the energy of a smaller arrow, you will have to make it faster. To impart the arrow with that energy stored in the bow, it's limbs need to move faster when restoring from full draw to the braced form. Light and short limbs move faster, therefore are able to impart more energy into a short and light arrow. In the link below you can see examples of the percentage of how much energy is transfered from the bow to the arrow. Flight bows are optimized for just that. http://www.atarn.org/islamic/Performance/Performance_of_Turkish_bows.htm Power Khan fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Sep 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
One useful thing to know about horsearchery is, that it is harder to draw a bow on horseback. There are enough people around who practice it, who are able to tell you that. The average drawweight in use today will be around 30-50#. Back then the men picked and trained for that with these bows were nothing short of incredibly strong athletes, who mostly started from very young age. You can look for the guys shooting warbows on youtube, but you will not find anything about guys shooting such heavy bows from horseback with a thumbring. Short bows are prefered for horse archery. The effective range is shorter, because of the reasons I gave first about lighter arrows. You're on a horse and pretty mobile and meant to harrass the enemy line where the opportunity arises. I can't belive we're talking about the point if horse archery is legit or the effectivity of such ranged weapons when not even the chinese found a sure formula to defeat such armies of mounted archers. They did use large formations of crossbowmen and pikes to some effect, but whenever large groups of these guys come together, it tends to turn out very bad for the other side. Are we now also ignoring what the english did at Crécy or Agincourt? With the right tactics, those weapons are no joke or percussive instruments. Infantry bows are larger, for turkish bows that means sizes up to 54" nock to nock - that is reasonble if you consider the lesser mobility and the need for more power at a larger range to compensate. Like I stated before, the tartar-type bow was also in use in the ottoman army, and there are many bows in the museum at Karlsruhe that will appear to be hybrids of both. In the link that Hogge Wild gave, there is also the kinetic energy needed to defeat mail and padding at page 17. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 08:14 on Sep 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2013 08:12
|
|
|
Supposedly, that story about the mongols riding on small and nimble horses like the ones you see in documentaries is a nice story. Big and strong horses for the heavy cavalry and horse archers. Mongol heavy cavalry is no joke. Mad Max doesn't ride to war on a bicycle.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2013 12:38
|
|
|
Looking for the literature, but I'm half on the way home and then off for some time. Just recall that the mongols picked larger horses for the heavy cavalry. Probably captured, maybe bred. I don't think I ever heard of heavy cavalry anywhere that sported small mounts like the bred that's now representative for mongol horses. Regarding antiquity, it is said that breds like the Nisean horse made heavy cavalry like cataphracts possible. Nice bike. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02IG9Sb8HTM e: Yup, mares.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2013 13:10
|
|
|
Talking about the biggest land empires of all times and if their main weaponry and tactics are actually working in theory is a waste of time. I gotta return some arrows.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
Yes. Candy? Here's a suit of plate for tournaments that I saw today: 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
Bitter Mushroom posted:One thing I don't fully understand is why the Mongols conquered so much. It seems to me that a people perfectly adapted for their environment, and with a fairly simple form of government doesn't need to go anywhere else to thrive. Loot. And raping anything with legs. Arglebargle III posted:I think the real answer is that the Mongols would not have continued the campaign into Europe in any case. Subutai (or his superior, a younger royal) had 20,000 men. Hungary and Silesia are notable for being the edge of the European plains; after that it's mountains and forests all the way to Lisbon. As Railtus already said Germany and France were also more heavily fortified than Russia or Hungary had been. The areas on the flanks of such an invasion, the Baltic Sea and Caucasus, were either already hostile or likely to be hostile. And the supply lines, though impressive, were already stretched a long way. And Europe just wasn't that wealthy compared to the real prize in the Mongols' backyard. The province of Austria bordering Hungary is called "Burgenland" for a reason. Mostly it should be called "Land of stinking, tractor driving drunks that can't spell their names or speak proper german", but that's another story. They're famous since centuries for keltering wine that gives you a headache, the shits and makes you agressive. Nothing more, nothing less. So, to offer some content to my post. There is a shitload of castles there. Mostly because of the centuries of Hungarians raiding the the area to no end. Places like Lockenhaus. Apparently the guides there claim that this fine woman resided there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_B%C3%A1thory Power Khan fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Sep 30, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:Cities smelled really bad because tossing poo poo onto the street was a real thing. Also, animals were dragging poo poo around and you can't keep them from pooping where they wanted. "Stadtluft macht frei" also has an ironic undertone. Anyway, that stuff was more regulated that you think. There's areas in the city where dumping your potty out of the window is prohibited or limited to certain daytimes, public cesspits that need to be covered at night or sidewalks around them that needed to kept free of ice, so that nobody walking home after a visit to the inn drowns. You also have guys picking up the animal poop and carting it out of the city. Poop isn't the only sanitary problem. The cities are mostly arranged around a church with a cemetry right around it. Where I live, there's a number of old houses from the 14th and 15th century with larger central yards where there's usually a well. You can find these just about anywhere around the city center. So you have cesspits and a well used cemetry making GBS threads up your water supply. Oh yea, and people making GBS threads on the streets when nature calls.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2013 09:33
|
|
|
Which one is it?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:St. Elizabeth's. It's in the plaza, round the corner from St. Stephen's. Wow, weird. I've never noticed it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Vinegar or piss + heat will make some kinds of stone shatter. Timur had fires set up to a city's wall (can't recall which one. Damascus?) and rapidly cooled the stone by having the men pour vinegar on it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 09:13
|
|
|
That weapon looks like it's broken. A Saufeder most likely.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
WEEDLORDBONERHEGEL posted:den oberhou fur den stuck; perhaps something like "An overhand blow for the sword"? "Piece" can mean "weapon." Any native speakers want to correct me? Stuck as in Stück could also be translated as "part", like "In this part of the play, he is eaten by a bear" (Incidentally, the short form of when I say "play" could also mean [Theather]Stück). Confusing enough for you?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
I'm having a deja vu of whitebelts argueing which sporty martial art is better. It's all jacking off unless you fight no holds barred.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Scientifically testing would mean people killing each other with swords, spears and maces. I could imagine a tv-show with celebrities doing just that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Or is relying entirely on combat to settle academic disputes absurd? Actually, combat would be quite refreshing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
You mistake something like a duel for a fight with no holds barred.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Let's switch the topic a bit. Lately, I wondered if there are surviving excercise regimen for knights? You know, instructions. I saw a few things on Furusiyya in the library and some more vague chapters in the books about Janissaries that I had lent out. That stuff sounds like the training that a world class athlete would do.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Railtus posted:The principle of slave-soldiers is that they are outside the existing social and political structures. A knight can be made a baron by a feudal overlord such as a duke, not just the king, so a knight can gain personally by participating in political intrigue, infighting or even a coup. A Mamluk or Janissary does not have the same options for personal benefits, instead deriving all their rewards through service to the ruler and thus in theory having little incentive to betray him. In practise it did not always work out that way; the Mamluks eventually formed their own Sultanate and the Janissaries would sometimes ‘exchange’ their master for a better one. Janissaries were a standing army, that alone makes them wield political power in a (pre-)modern state. In fact, the Ottoman state was balanced between the power of the Janissaries and the Sipahis (non hereditary land holders). So, naturally, the Agha was an influential man who also controlled access to the sultan, as his men also guarded the gates to the palace. Sometimes the Sultan would get locked in the palace, until he gave in to certain demands. But these plays about palace intrigue and access to the formal source of power are probably the same everywhere. The word slave might lead to wrong assumptions about the status of a Janissary. They're kul, which means royal slaves, they're a part of the Sultan's household. It's more precise to think of them as civil servants of renown who are bound with their life to the state. Also, a part of these men is trained as heavy cavalry, the quapikulu. In it's heyday, the corps picked the cream of the crop of the young men in the Balkans. Usually the 3rd or 4th sons and so on of farmers, etc., the ones that would not inherit their father's land. So naturally, the corps was attractive for men who would otherwise face poverty. Once you joined, everything was cared for, for the rest of your life (howsoever long that might be). You get an education, a solid job, get taken care of if sick or maimed and once you're old enough to retire, the corps will also support and pay you until you get put into the ground. But before that, you're sure to enjoy a Janissary's favourite past time: Screwing young boys. A recruit would not only be trained as a soldier, but learn a trade, or according to his skill become an engineer, administrator, etc. There were special colleges that would educate promising individuals, these are the men that run the state and the royal estates (which initially supported most of the corp's needs and made large profits). The Janissaries are the police, firefigthers (with an unsettling tendency to commit arson), clerks, engineers that keep the empire running. Or at least the european part, as Anatolia was always an unruly shitfest. Being in the corps, you basically can hold any office in the state, but religious offices like kadi. Later in the 1600s, you can even hold land. The corps is an neverending source of political intrigue from the 15th century onward, but it never actively deposed a Sultan until Osman II in 1622. From then on, everything spins out of control for a long time until Grand Vizier Köprülü manages to put the state back into a working form and de facto stripping the Sultan of any real power. However, the turmoil of the 1600s sends the empire in a spin from which it will never recover as a whole, so that it is able to catch up to the european powers. Everything circles around the problem of keeping the corps in check or destroying it alltogether. To make the system run from time to time, it would take a very skilled individual who was able to navigate the complex political terrain, without such, the system was unstable. Reading about this era, you get an idea that this would make excellent material for a tv show, where main characters constantly get strangulated with a silken bowstring. The life of Sultan Ibrahim the Deranged and the preceding decades are actually a very good read. What Wikipedia doesn't tell you is, that he wasn't only batshit insane (ok, "the Deranged" might give him away), but had an obsession for morbidly obese women. The mother of his successor Mehmed IV. was so incredibly fat, that she could hardly walk alone, and Ibrahim kept a whole harem of these women. e: cleaning up grammar, etc. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 13:25 on Feb 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2014 09:20
|
|
|
A linothorax isn't exactly weak armor
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
When you say leather, you will most likely mean rawhide. Rawhide is very, very tough. To the touch it's comparable to hard plastic. The downside is, that it gets soft and supple when it gets wet (you can submerge a strap of rawhide in water for a few minutes and it's completely soft, like rubber) and also starts to rot if not kept dry. It's the same problem as with the linothorax - it isn't resistant to prolonged exposure to moisture. There aren't many ways to make things completely waterproof prior to modern varnishes. Tung oil and urushi laquers are available in east asia, but in the mediterranean, there's nothing quite as effective that would work reliably in central european climate. Linseed oil, animal fats, wax and resins (e.g. mastic) are available, but they aren't foolproof. You need stuff that gets deep into the material or that polymerizes on the surface. You can apply many, many coats of linseed oil to wood, but it will still take damage if left outside in the rain for too long (also some woods are quite resistant to rot and moisture). I wonder if it would work with rawhide? When I last checked, I saw that the source where I get my leather and tools also sells rawhide for shields and armor. Leather is different, the material soaks up liquids readily (at least the vegetabile tanned kind). You can also harden leather by heating it up and then brushing liquid wax on it. The leather will accept a surprising ammount of wax. Anyway, that's a technique that's more useful for shaping leather than really hardening the material in a sense that it will be more resistant to cutting and stabbing. I don't know when people came up with it, but you can cook varnishes from linseed oil and beeswax for example. This works well for wood, but other surfaces might be problematic, especially when flexibility is needed or the material doesn't accept liquids well. Other varnishes that use mastic and dammar are more complex and need prolonged boiling and other ingredients and solvents like turpentine. It's fairly complex and you probably heard about how readily available mastic is even today. All these varnish types aren't especially impact resistant. If you were in the military, you know how stuff gets thrown around and punished while marching.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2014 09:42
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:The Japanese used lacquer to make rawhide lamellar, so it certainly exists. There's also cuir bouilli which is lamellar or scale of hardened leather. That laquer is urushi. You can buy it now, but there's nothing comparable around at that time. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Apr 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
I think it was Herodot, who said that the Skythians poisoned their arrows by sticking them in rotten meat.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
Quarrels for a heavy crossbow? They have very thick shafts, they look like broomsticks. First time that I saw one of these in a museum, I was surprised how large they actually are. This is a picture of the ones on display that I meant, they are thicker than my thumb: A few rooms away, there's a hunting crossbow with fitting quarrels on display. Figure the difference. Slim and small. You don't need a 600 pound crossbow and quarrels with overkill mass to take down a gothic plate wearing deer. If you buy a starter crossbow today, you might be surprised that the given drawweight is something around 100#. Well, this sounds alot, right? It isn't. Those perform like a 30# bow for beginners. As for fletching, try to shoot an unfletched set of arrows. It works, but not really well. There are alot of factors that will make consistent shooting over a greater distance than 20m pretty random without fletching. The further you shoot, the more noticeable small errors in technique (or variance in equipment) will be. The fletching corrects alot of those. A crossbow will eliminate unclean release obviously, and also differences in spine in the quarrels can be ignored as they're so short and stiff. Actually, crossbows are pretty interesting. 80-100m are most likely just as far as they will fly with such a weak shooter, very short range and just randomly spraying bolts is more likely. What I really want to build someday? A crossbow with a horn&sinew prod.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 11:09
|
|
|
Look at this: Hide the pikes in the woods, march out when they're almost through, blocking front and rear. A really nasty situation for the Austrians, they're caught between the woods & pikes and the swampy terrain of the Trombach.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 08:52
|
|
|
Ritschert. Older, but you gotta try that. Looks like vomit, tastes pretty awesome. Pretty good if you want to do manual labor. Other candidates will be various types of Knödel, stews with lentils, dumplings with various fillings and many different soups like breadsoup and floursoup. You can look through regional cuisine of the mountainous areas of Austria, Germany or Switzerland (those were usually very poor and some dishes there are very, very old). Also, French Toast, which we call in German "Arme Ritter", poor knights. It's alot older than the name hints and very simple (if you have old bread and eggs, a pretty obvious dish if you ask me). They're served sweet nowadays, but often the sweet version is unknown and people will make it savory. You won't believe how detached and traditional some places can be when it comes to cooking, especially in the mountainous regions. My favourite version is with dark bread like rye farm bread (Bergbauernbrot, flavoured with dill and caraway, sometimes fennel seeds). I highly recommend trying that if you have access to that kind of bread, use oil or lard generously for frying and tap it clean afterward. I'd suggest that in combination with a lentil stew with small carrot cubes, roasted onions and bacon (Bauchspeck) and a hint of garlic.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 08:34
|
|
|
Just a few guys suckerpunching each other with dull swords   
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Transporting a 1,80cm bow sucks. How do you do that with a poleaxe or a pike?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Those old shooting techniques don't have any schools like the swordfighting guys have. It's pretty much in development. There's schools in Turkey that are putting stuff together, like the guys and girls from Tirendaz. Another guy is Metin Aksoy, who also does alot of stuff, but he's somewhere in the hinterlands and doing god knows what with alot less profile online. The Hungarians are doing their horse archer thing, and Lajos Kassai has some schools, though I don't know how accurate and well researched his stuff is. So, everything is kinda new, and there's lots of snake oil. Like this guy http://bogen-daumenring.de/ Fun fact, he's putting on a great act, but can't shoot for poo poo and makes up stuff why there is no anchor point, etc. Which is abstruse ofc. I'm more invested in making composite bows (so that was also my focus when I dug for literature), but it's probably based on "Saracen Archery" by Taybugha. http://pgmagirlscouts.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/saracen_archery.pdf On a quick look, I didn't find the requirements of what the archer's supposed to be able to do in the text, but they're mentioned in a modern interpretation of a book that I own. (Swoboda Adam (2011): The art of shooting a short reflexed bow with a thumbring). It is quite instructive and well thought out, but it's not scientific literature with appropriate quoting, so, while the stuff about technique is solid, the historical references need to be taken with a grain of salt. About technique of shooting, there are articles in the Journal of the Society of Archer Antiquities (good luck accessing these), one by McEwen about 2 persian archery manuscripts. These are also discussed in "An Analysis of a Persian Archery manuscript written by Kapur Čand" by Bede Dwyer and Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani, which is avaiable online. Though there is no mention of speed shooting. Another possible source about requirements of the archer is Klopsteg P.E. (1947): Turkish archery and the composite bow, though this one is more invested in flight archery, if I recall that correctly, which is quite different, but maybe there are comments on target archery too. One of the main sources of this book is the Telhis-i resa'il ür-rümât by Mustafa Kani from 1847, which Sultan Mahmud II (?) ordered to be written, so that the declining art of bowmaking shall be conserved (There is a german translation of the old arabic script). There is very little written on military archery, which is understandable, as this was guarded as a military secret. On the other hand, once you try to learn archery by a book, you will very soon hit the limits of what can be communicated by written word, instead of instruction by a master. The same probably goes for any other martial art. You cannot effectively learn that from a book alone, so why write it down? The archers of the Ottoman Empire were organized and licensed in clubs, called "Tekke", which I'm not 100% sure what it means, as these clubs were also occupied with other kinds of training, probably like a Zurkaneh. There is most likely literature available on that, but in turkish. Reconstructing these techniques is difficult, as there are no works like Fechtbücher with their images. Some illustrations are solid, examples of that are to be seen in the text by Dwyer & Khorasani. There are at least 2 sources that I find credible: This one is an instructive video by Adam Swoboda (I asked him for one, and also alot of other people it seems) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejiU3ncUomg The other one is from Dr. Özveri https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lnv9Pr3AWSw To get back to the original video, it infuriates me. It's horseshit. That guy is shooting a light bow, without proper technique and a ring. And then the claim that he can pierce mail with that joke of a bow. Another guy on youtube does a how to. What the hell is that supposed to be? You cannot do that with a warbow. I repeat, you cannot do that. The shoulder is sensible, you need perfect technique to shoot a heavy bow safely, and even more if you want to do it fast. Like that, you end up with surgery, very soon. Also, a ring is an absolute requirement for a heavy bow. If you shoot mediterranean, you need a glove or a tab. Barehand? Nope. Shooting from the chest like that? gently caress off. It's like some jackass on youtube tells you that you properly box by crossing your hands or that it doesn't matter to get hit on the neck or in the balls. Of course you can shoot them like that from a kid's bow. I'd rant more, but I have to go. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 09:12 on Jul 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 09:10
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:That's all fine and dandy but are you arguing for people intentionally keeping their bows weakened to aid speed shooting? There is an anecdote about early colonists of North America where they were taunting some native to shoot an arrow at a target they had made, the guy was able to drive his arrow several inches into the oak block the colonists had set up, from range. Stone arrowhead too. There is a story in one of the bowyer's bibles that Saxton Pope tells about how he joked with a local while being on safari. To Pope's surprise guy outshot him easily, until Pope got the heaviest bow that he had, and then only beat him by a few meters. The guy was shooting with regular heavy hunting arrows. Speaking of which, the book about the Grayson collection is quite interesting and got reprinted recently. http://www.amazon.com/Traditional-A...yson+collection You guys in the states are very lucky, there are quite a few museums that also have persian and mughal archery tackle. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 13:13 on Jul 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 09:21
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Absurd. Abstruse = difficult to understand, esoteric, recondite. Maybe in your weird language, but not in mine, and this is what I wanted to say: http://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/abstrus foolish, silly, quixotic, confused, cloudy, incomprehensible Like: A: "Warum tragen wir diese abstrus langen Piken mit uns herum?" B: "Was fragst du mich? Ich bin ein Pferd."  QED
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 16:25 |
|
|
Spieß is like a blanket word for any kind of wooden shaft that's used to stab something, and ofc it makes for some great, yet meaningful sentences like: "Für Fleischspießchen benutze ich einfach ein Cocktailspießchen um das Fleisch auf dem Spieß aufzuspießen.". The old meaning is usable for any kind of spear, or really, any wooden stick. See, you probably didn't realize what you were in for when you decided to learn german and come to this great country of beer, sausage and Hitler. "Etwas von der Pike auf lernen", you surely heard that before. I think Pike formations are a pretty smart thing. Did you know that the Turks detested polearms? There was one Orta that specialized in halberts, if you end up there, you're too stupid and incompetent for anything else. I've never been to Germany. Btw, I will build this, and it's going to be awesome: http://atarn.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2365&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 18:04
|
|