Ask me about Medieval History & Combat.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Ask me about Medieval History & Combat.

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Very interesting thread here, so keep going.

Railtus posted:

For example, Duke Albrecht V ordered in 1421 that of every 20 men, there should be 3 handguns, 8 crossbows, 4 pikes & 4 war flails. It also tells us something about Duke Albrecht�s maths (3+8+4+4=19, not 20).

Maybe he was just a cool dude, allowing some of his men to really express themselves?

Railtus posted:

France I know less about. I have heard that Parisian French only became the dominant language in the rest of France much later, and there are references to the Flemish, Burgundians & Normans as a distinct group. However, there also appeared to be something more of a shared Frankish identity as well.

Well, the Flemish are Dutch and the Normans descendants of the Vikings, so it makes a lot of sense that they would be identified as distinct groups. The Burgundians of that time I know little about, but being in the border region between Germany and France could have given the place a more German character. (Or just been identified as different because the Franks conquered their kingdom.) Then there's southern France, which seem to have been much more similar to Catalonia than northern France for a long time. As to the French identity in general, you're right about Parisian French being very recent, only being forced on the rest of France from 1870 or so. That's not to say that the idea of a French people did not exist long before however, it was just one where there was much more diversity in the language. (And even today you have people speaking a German language identifying as French, so the French identity seems less focused on language than many others.)

And since you didn't cover Eastern Europe, I thought I would mention national identity in the area around Russia. As far as I know, for the longest time most people would basically have answered that they were Orthodox if you asked them what nationality they were, so intertwined had identity become with the Orthodox faith. It's really only rather recent that the various Ruthenians started identifying as Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian and so on. That's not to say the Russians didn't use that term before that point, but it was perhaps not as tied to nationality at that point so much as the state and the early Kievan Rus. (Which some Ukrainians are kind of pissed about it seems, arguing that the Russians basically appropriated their legacy.)

(Fair warning, I have no formal education on the subject, this is basically just stuff I've absorbed from people who do.)

# ¿ Jan 25, 2013 22:49

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 22:20

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Railtus posted:

Frankish is a little bit broader than French. 12th century texts like Gesta Francorum or Historia Francorum were not shy about referring to people from all over the Kingdom of France (and a bit beyond) collectively as Franks or Frankish. It also included parts of Germany, but it was distinct from other ethnic groups like the Lombards or Saxons.

The Franks are of course also a group Germanic invaders, so confusing them with the later French identity might be a mistake. The Langobards/Lombards were as well, but were likewise assimilated into the local population. That both grups placed themselves as the ruling class of an ethnically different population probably makes it even harder to figure out identities I suppose, as the ruling classes have a tendency to not care particularly about anyone but themselves.

Kaal posted:

Well I think that you might be surprised at how much you know. Even if a modern person had no real scientific or engineering background, they still would be extremely well educated in comparison. If nothing else, virtually every modern person would be a better doctor with a fuller understanding of curative treatment than anyone prior to the American Civil War (excepting Roman surgical prowess).

As far as I know, the Egyptians were pretty skilled as well, doing stuff like plastic surgery. Besides curative treatment, most modern people should also be well aware of basic stuff like separating poo poo and drinking water, which seems like it could be pretty useful to the people of the age. Then there's stuff like the printing press, which history has certainly proven to be useful. None of that is going to make you the Great Inventor Emperor of Europe and Beyond though, at best you could be rewarded with a cushy job working for a king/emperor doing "science". Really, there are plenty of things we take for granted nowadays that would blow people's minds back then, not to mention the stuff people know that's not general knowledge/skills. It's more a matter of actually making it useful and accessible I think. Which might also have been the case for inventors in the time period? What was the scientific environment like at the time?

# ¿ Jan 26, 2013 13:27

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Railtus posted:

Trying to assign a modern identity to medieval people is never going to be a perfect fit. The Franks are part of French history but not all French history is Frankish.

True, I just like to keep in mind that the French are named after conquerors from a foreign culture, and that the history of France makes identities a bit more complicated then the case of some others.

Railtus posted:

Inventors might run into trouble from the guild system, which was eager to preserve trade secrets. That interfered with the spread of technology and invention. Another thing is a predominantly rural economy gave many people very limited opportunity to invent, particularly when we have a harvest to bring in. However, I would say to the educated social class with financial backing, medieval times were fairly open to science, discovery and learning more about the natural world.

That's what I figured, since they did invent some cool stuff in the period. It's not like the "Renaissance" would have worked if people from the middle ages hadn't invented the tools and thinking they needed to do their thing.

Earwicker posted:

I've been to Bretagne and the Breton culture/identity seemed quite strong still, much more alive than Occitan culture seems to be.

Yeah, from what I remember of my visit there a decade ago, the place seemed pretty strongly non-French identifying. Haven't been to southern France though, so I can't compare.

Kaal posted:

The ancient Egyptians were certainly skilled for their time, but they were never particularly good at surgery.

Sorry, I wasn't talking about the ancient Egyptians, but the Egyptians around the time of the Romans. Who would certainly have had time to be influenced by the rest of the Mediterranean by that point. Could have been clearer I suppose.

Kaal posted:

Well certainly you'd need to have a firm understanding of engineering and chemistry to become the Great Inventor Emperor of Europe and Beyond. More than the average modern joe is likely to have. But really I think that most folks would be perfectly capable of single-handedly causing a renaissance and a regional power shift. Even boring things like bureaucracy and agriculture would see significant improvements from basic concepts, and would have major impacts on the world. Of course the problem is getting those concepts to be received - women and minorities of all kinds would struggle to be listened to. The scientific environment was very variable in Europe throughout the Medieval period. At some times and places, suggesting a bunch of scientific advancements would have been ignored or gotten you charged with heresy. Whereas in 1500 Italy, they nearly had a renaissance right there in Florence and you could have easily tipped the scales.

I absolutely agree about it being possible to cause such a renaissance, assuming you can avoid being killed. And a lot of the basic improvements seem pretty nonthreatening to me, such as for example the printing press. Not that the printing press can't lead to social upheaval, but the social upheaval would probably not be something a sponsor would expect. Basically, the boring stuff like bureaucracy, agriculture and health are really the things that would allow more man hours to be used for improvements, instead of just upkeep. A lot of the stuff that's taught as high school math/physics is also relatively recent, and would probably also be useful. Leveraging that knowledge into actually being boss of anything more than your workshop (and perhaps a county if you really excel) is probably unlikely though.

Third Murderer posted:

I've done some amateur blacksmithing and I thought I'd say something about this. Pattern welding is done by layering different types of steel and then messing around with the layers by twisting or cutting the resulting chunk of metal. You apply an etching chemical after the piece is finished to make the different types of steel stand out (since they will etch at different rates). The idea that metal made this way is superior in some way is a little spurious - I expect it's a myth. Pattern welding is decorative, although it can indeed be used on a functional blade or other tool.

Maybe the skill involved in making the pattern is a good indicator that the man who made the weapon is a skilled craftsmen, and so the pattern would indicate superior craftsmanship?

# ¿ Jan 26, 2013 19:00

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Railtus posted:

Kaiser is essentially the Germanic form of Caesar.

German

Though true, the other Germanic languages (excluding English) stick pretty close to the German kaiser, even more so in pronunciation, which incidentally is much closer to the proper pronunciation than the English Caesar.

Railtus posted:

Apparently East European empires used the term Tsar for it, although without as strong a Roman connotation. I have heard that the Russian Tsars were the eventual heirs to the Byzantine/Roman Empire, but I have not studied that.

Ivan III married the niece of the last two Eastern Roman Emperors, Sophia Palaiologina (AKA Princess Zoe). Through her, the Tsars claimed to be the Third Rome (though they're not the only ones), and got it into their heads that they should retake the Second Rome (Constantinople) which kind of set the tone for Russia for the next 450 years.

Strangely, the last titular Eastern Roman Emperor sold his title to Ferdinand and Isabelle, though the whole idea was apparently on such shaky grounds that no Spanish king ever actually used it.

# ¿ Jan 27, 2013 12:31

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Pfirti86 posted:

I just feel like the subject is glossed over a lot in high school history classes in favor of France/England/maybe Spain/etc and it always really bothered me. In fact, that quote is usually all the education I formally got on the subject.

It's the constant problem of people projecting later developments unto earlier ages. England in particular "gains" from this, where people think the 19th century clout of Great Britain was something England had always had, when it really had been a kind of backwater for a long time. You also see this in discussions about the Hundred Years' War, where people see it as England almost conquering France, when the reality is that it would have been the other way around if the "English" kings had succeeded.

Conversely, the HRE is seen as though it was always the decentralized mess it had become in later years, when for a long time it was not that different from other states where petty nobles were also making a mess of things. People just have a habit of pretending that was not the case because those states didn't end up like the HRE. Other examples would be China and India, which were only really overtaken technologically very late, and where it was the exploitation of local politics that initially gave the Europeans the upper hand, not any actual superiority.

A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Jan 29, 2013

# ¿ Jan 29, 2013 18:08

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Pimpmust posted:

The coin and plate examples are interesting. A breastplate would cost a average mercenary around 1 months pay? (Not counting other expenses), I suppose it shouldn't be completely unexpected but I guess years of RPGs have taught me the heirarchy/cost of armor in a screwy way.

One thing I guess might influence this disconnect between your perception and the price is the concept of a month's pay. Being able to save significant chunks of your pay is the domain of people who are actually pretty well of, while the poorer segments have to spend their wealth now lest they risk death to hunger or their poo poo falling apart.

Basically, it requires an assessment of how many expenses someone has compared to their earnings to decide if a month's pay is a large or small amount. For example, if you only spend half your pay on upkeep you would be able to afford a new suit every second month, while if you can only save a sixth it would take half a year's work to afford one. (and not being able to save anything would probably not be out of the question.) It's also not unusual I think to have to spend more on upkeep as a poor person actually, as your limited wealth can force you into buying temporary solutions instead of more permanent ones. Such as buying shoes that cost half as much, but only last a quarter of the time, because when your shoes start falling apart there's not really the option of waiting three months until you can afford a better choice.

I have no idea about medieval prices though, nor the needs of mercenaries or really anyone, so where they would actually fall I can't say. I basically just wanted to warn against projecting the realities of people who pretty well off on a global scale with people living a much more marginal existence.

# ¿ Jan 29, 2013 22:33

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Railtus posted:

Food

I never thought about that, but the part about only writing down recipes for stuff you rarely make makes a lot of sense. That of course would also go for other stuff, making it more likely that things that were common knowledge would never be written down.

Something I think people might easily forget is the fact that a lot of the iconic fixtures of various regional dishes are rather recent imports/inventions. Tomatoes, like potatoes, are an American import, which had to be cultivated to become the fruit we know today. Before that it seems to have been a smaller, denser (and probably more seed-filled) golden fruit, used more for decoration than eating. Which of course means that the Italian kitchen as we know it today is a pretty modern invention. Likewise, orange carrots apparently took till the 17th century to appear, though yellow and red versions did exist before that point. That leaves cabbage and cucumbers as far as I can tell, and cucumbers didn't even exist everywhere in Europe. Not super exiting really.

Thinking about it, does that pretty much mean that rich man food and poor man food basically just differed in proportions/size/freshness, not character? In contrast to later periods, where contact with Indian Sea traders gave the rich access to spices, and sugar plantations meant that the rich now had access to delicious and sweet baked goods?

E:

Railtus posted:

On Anglo-Saxon religion, there were regional variations. Rather than Valhalla, they seemed to have a more meadow-like heavenly place. A less violent interpretation of heaven.

That sounds a bit like Elysium in Greek mythology, though the lack of real description makes it hard to say exactly. On the subject of Germanic myths in general, I will say that though Nordic mythology and German mythology have a lot of similarities, it's not a one-to-one fit. Apparently it's also a sore subject for Germans, because Scandinavians talking about the similarities between the two can easily make us sound kind of like the Nazis trying to create a unified Germanic :hitler:

mythology, especially if they think we're trying to just incorporate German mythology as a small part of the Nordic mythology.

You also have to consider the fact that even accounting for the existing differences in mythology, the conquest of Celtic groups (Whether in southern Germany or Britain) must have had some influence, and the Norse also got some extra centuries to have their religious views evolve in competition/contact with Christianity. Not to mention a lot/most of it being written down by Christianized Norse, who would have a kind-of outsiders perspective on the whole mythology. (Though the conversion of Scandinavia was pretty gradual and far less violent than in Germany for example, so a lot of the traditions continued right up to today.) I guess the Germans would also have been influenced by Rome, which could have caused them and the Norse to split even further.

(And of course a lot of Indo-European religions bear striking similarities, even if the specifics of the myths are different.)

A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Jan 31, 2013

# ¿ Jan 31, 2013 22:46

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Railtus posted:

Cookbooks tend to tell us about the rich diets, and sometimes include clearly imported ingredients. For example, there was a distinction in one cookbook between cinnamon and Chinese cinnamon. Spices in general were more common among the rich, save for the common herbs such as sage, mustard and parsley. St Hildegard of Bingen (1100s) described mustard with meat products as a poor man�s food, but King Henry V is reported as having said �war without fire is like sausages without mustard.�

To be fair, 1100's to Henry V is a considerable time difference, and the geographic difference could also matter a lot. Not to mention King Henry V maybe just not giving a gently caress, he just wanted some drat mustard on his sausages. I doubt anyone would tell him he was acting like a poor person by preferring it.

As to spices, that series linked earlier seemed to state that trade had declined severely before the Mongols reestablished it, which if true would probably indicate some variation between different periods. Fever exotic spices coming to Europe might mean that simply being nobility wouldn't be enough, you had to be high nobility or royalty to actually get access to it on a regular basis. That would really make some of the nobility nothing more than rich peasants, in terms of diet.

Anne Whateley posted:

60% of calories from carbs isn't too far off from today, is it?

I wouldn't be surprised if it was more for some people. Difference being that it's largely processed sugars nowadays, not various forms of bread and other stuff that's less likely to give you diabetes or cavities.

# ¿ Feb 1, 2013 00:46

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

bewbies posted:

(forks were not common until very late in the era)

From what I can tell, for a lot of Europe they never become popular in the era. The most readily apparent evidence for this is how Americans, even to this day, don't know how to use forks ( :colbert:

) because the fork only became widely adopted very late, possible only after their war of independence. Forks were basically seen as an effeminate Italian affectation, or even worse, an affront to God. ("Son, God gave you two fine hands, don't disrespect him by using that Italian cutlery!")

# ¿ Feb 1, 2013 01:15

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Railtus posted:

It may have been well-established even sooner. I know a Moorish cookbook from around 900-1000 mentioned Chinese cinnamon specifically, which at least assumes the reader was expected to be familiar with it.

Thanks for the info!

There is of course always the possibility of it being "Chinese" (at times). Geographical confusion about where stuff came from is not that unusual. Chinese cinnamon is for example also native to India, Bangladesh and Vietnam, which might mean it was imported by Arab traders sailing the Indian Ocean and not through the Silk Road. Incidentally, I found out that Chinese cinnamon (less delicate and cheaper, thus known as bastard cinnamon) is the preferred cinnamon in the US and Canada, sold simply as just cinnamon, while the more delicate Ceylon cinnamon (known as true cinnamon :colbert:

) is preferred in Mexico, Europe and Oceania. If people can't even figure it out today, what chance did they have back then?!

# ¿ Feb 2, 2013 10:32

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

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.

Like today basically?

Just with people believing in werewolves, witches and vampires, instead of homeopathy, Nessie and bigfoot.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2013 01:25

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Meat Mitts posted:

How large was the average person? I toured some castles in Europe and it was noted that people of the period tended to be smaller than modern times. Is this something that is period or geographically specific, or are people today in general taller than in the past?

Depends on how much shorter you're thinking. The really major difference between modern people and people of the past is going to be found in Europe during the 18th and 19th century, as nutrition was exceptionally lovely in the period. At least for the working man. The upper classes seem to have been doing fine, being as tall as people are now, while the lower classes were (at times) up to 8 inches shorter! Going back to the middle ages, I don't believe people were exceptionally shorter than they are now, perhaps an inch or two? Though of course the middle ages also cover quite a lot of social evolution, so it probably depends on when, where and who you're talking about.

Seems to me that focusing on height alone when explaining differences in building features would be a mistake, since the context in which the buildings were built in are also extremely important. A different social structure results in different demands on the building, and also affects the price of the materials required to build it, making it difficult to view an old building in the right context for someone coming from a very different society. I think this is particularly relevant in the case of modern society, as the industrial revolution really turned things upside down in the architecture world. Not only did the social order get upset quite heavily, creating a large "middle class" with "rights", the same upheaval turned the old truth of cheap labor and expensive materials on its head. Basically, we're talking about stone architecture built for people in a more obviously stratified society, whose daily life was very different from our own, and thus the buildings they inhabit are going to reflect this. Perhaps a more dramatic example of this is the yurt, which is a dwelling that is obviously based on a very different lifestyle than that which the average Westerner lives. In short, short doors does not have to mean short people.

# ¿ Feb 22, 2013 14:45

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

the JJ posted:

Pretty much, they were a group that formed to protect pilgrims, and were associated with, suprise!, hospitals. The Templars pissed off the Pope, the Hosplitar's ended up squatting in Malta for basically forever harassing the infidel in someway or another, often combating Barbary pirates.

Though it was Rhodes where they hung out after having been kicked out of the Holy Land, not Malta, if we're talking the Middle Ages. Having their base in Malta only became a thing after the Ottomans persuaded them to leave Rhodes with a 100,000 man army (to their 7000), and now we're talking about the Renaissance. As for harassing the infidel, weren't they basically they basically the Christians' version of the Barbary pirates by the end, due to having fallen on hard times since the old supporters in Europe had basically disappeared? That's the problem of being a religious order when the world secularizes.

Grand Prize Winner posted:

Cathars!

No wonder this sounded similar to what I knew about Gnostics, wasn't aware that the Bogomils were a subset of those. From a pure theological perspective I find the whole view rather interesting, and it does deal with the inconsistency of God between the Old and the New Testament rather well.

# ¿ Feb 23, 2013 12:46

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Blue Star posted:

Some questions about medieval navies and boats:

Were the Vikings the only people who had longships? If so, what type of boats did the Anglo-Saxons use to get to Britannia? What type of boats did Irish and Scottish people use in early medieval times? What type of boats did the Franks, Visigoths, and Ostrogoths use?

Well, the Angles, Saxons (and Jutes), plus the Franks, Visigoths and Ostrogoths are all Germanic tribes, so some commonality in ship building traditions is probably likely. Tacitus suggests that the Germanic tribes were skilled seafarers, and the description of the Swedes* in the 1st century matches pretty well with what we know of the Vikings centuries later. It's probably not entirely unlikely that the Angles and Saxons were part of the same ship building tradition, more so because they went to Britannia along with the Jutes. The ship on this page is probably very similar to what the Angles, Saxons and Jutes would have used, and I guess the other Germanic tribes would have used similar ships. No idea about the Irish and the Scottish, never really heard of them having a shipbuilding tradition.

*Swedes, though who knows with the Romans, not exactly that knowledgeable about Scandinavia.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2013 22:19

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Yeah, Pangaea does not have anything to do with the settlement of the British Isles, at least not any more than it has to do with all history after its formation. You're right though that there was a land bridge between the British Isles and continental Europe, which pre-historic humans might have used to crossover to Britain before it was washed away. That's way outside the Medieval era though! Arriving by boat seems like another sensible option, given that the South Pacific was settled the same way, and the distances there are quite a bit more challenging.

Still, the readjustment after the glaciers retreated would have made the landscape of the Medieval era different from what we know today. Basically, there's a line going approximately from Scotland to southern Denmark and across the southern edge of Baltic Sea and through the Baltic Countries to the White Sea where everything* south of it has been sinking and north of it rising, at a pace that's actually relevant to people. Medieval Sweden and Finland in particular would be an area that would look very different, with the sea penetrating further inland than it does today.

*OK, not everything, only for some hundreds of miles. The sinking is also far less pronounced than the rise in northern Scandinavia.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2013 19:14

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

EvanSchenck posted:

Pisa was conquered by Florence in 1406.

As to Venice and Genoa, they were wealthy port cities with strong navies, located in favorable defensive terrain. Genoa is located in mountainous Liguria, hard between mountains and sea, making it somewhat difficult to access from the landward side if the Genoese didn't want you to. It also had sufficient wealth to build fortifications and maintain mercenary forces for its defense, the ease of resupply by sea made it practically impossible to take by siege. Venice was an even more impossible task, because it was located on an island in a huge lagoon controlled by the Venetian Navy, and the territory surrounding the lagoon was disease-filled swamps. Those cities were just situated in extremely strong defensive positions, and that's why they were unconquered for such a long time.

The political systems of the day were also less able to extend their authority beyond the capital city, compared to centuries later, so there was less of a disparity in power. Especially because as you said, the independent cities were often quite wealthy, and therefor able to pay for mercenary forces far beyond what a simply population comparison would suggest. Then there's the fact that there were many polities in the area, and all of them opposed a single polity exerting too much authority in the region (except for themselves, obviously.), which led to shifting alliances to preserve the status quo.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2013 21:11

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

life is killing me posted:

I watched it and really enjoyed it. I wish I knew more about the period and the culture. I will say they showed a boy receiving his first arm ring as a man, the episode featured a Thing, and there was reference to one of the characters having been a shield maiden. I also know, however, that earlier in the thread there was discussion on the show and there were gripes that they only featured Scandinavian Vikings as opposed to Danish, which as I understand were the most powerful group of people at the time who were considered Vikings.

Denmark is part of Scandinavia. :colbert:

Even if you stick to the Scandinavian Peninsula (named after the cultural region, not the other way around), what's now the southern tip of Sweden was Danish territory at the time (and until about 1650). Actually, there are still Danes there, even if the Swedes did make a hearty effort at forcefully assimilating them. (I get what you mean, just wanted to point that out.

)

But yeah, Denmark was pretty powerful in the period, and likely the catalyst for the creation of Sweden, as the Geats and the Swedes figured they were better off together than apart against us evil Danes. The population of Denmark apparently matched the population of England and Wales at the time, which is kind of crazy since their population is 10 times bigger than Denmark's nowadays. Of course Denmark was also significantly larger, but still.* Would certainly explain the desire to move out of Denmark and find somewhere else to live, not to mention the ability of the Danes to kick rear end in a way we haven't done since.

*I'm guessing England's population was depressed at the time, because it certainly takes off at the end of the Viking Age, while the Danish one actually drops steadily between the 13th and the 17th century.

A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Mar 4, 2013

# ¿ Mar 4, 2013 21:49

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

life is killing me posted:

Didn't Alfred the Great have a large part in that? What with the fortification of towns, knowing the Danes would have a hard time taking a city or town that was fortified as such? I mean, couldn't we say that that Vikings as a whole simply gave up after a while?

Huh? Not sure how this relates to my post? Not really dealing with why the English managed to eventually stop the Danish invaders, more why they were ever a serious threat to begin with. (Which if you assumed proportional populations to current ones would be a real feat.)

# ¿ Mar 4, 2013 23:57

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Rodrigo Diaz posted:

Their overuse of the term 'biomechanics' also bugs me. That you have more leverage closer to the hilt of the sword is not biomechanics, it's just simple physics.

Given the context of the presentation, I think it's understandable why they just use a single term, so as to not confuse the crowd. The distinction between physics and biomechanics also seems unnecessary to me, in the context of fighters, as the fighter and his equipment should ideally be natural extensions of each other. Focusing on the term biomechanics makes that more obvious I feel, and brings home the point that you're sensing your opponent through your sword and shield, not just looking at him with your eyes.

# ¿ Mar 13, 2013 10:16

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Rodrigo Diaz posted:

If you're going to use scientific terms you should aim for some kind of accuracy. Why not simply say 'physics', which is the more accessible term, over biomechanics? The sword and shield being 'natural extensions' of the fighter is mysticism, and the point I was making has nothing to do with feeling your opponent's movement through the sword, but the fact that the Forte is stronger than the Debole, which is just leverage.

The term biomechanics makes me believe he's trying to impart upon the listeners the idea that combat should be examined in a holistic, not reductionist, fashion. Basically, you can't look at the tool without understanding the user, and the context in which it was used. It might not be scientifically accurate, but since they're presenting the stuff to people who are completely blank this approach might work better than precision. It's not that different really from how basic science is generally taught, where very important aspects are ignored in favor of giving a rough feel for the concepts, even if it's generally useless for anything more. At least biomechanics might not cause people to mentally shut down because 'physics' is associated with stuff that they never really understood in school.

As for mysticism, is it really mysticism to say that a warrior should develop a familiarity with his tools that makes the use of them second nature? That's always what I perceived the 'natural extension' of the fighter to mean, and that's something people do with all kinds of stuff.

Railtus posted:

I suspect that English was not their first language, which might have caused errors in their terminology.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the guy is German, and the other dude is Danish, presenting viking combat to Danes.

# ¿ Mar 13, 2013 21:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 22:20

A Buttery Pastry: Sep 4, 2011; Delicious and Informative!

Arglebargle III posted:

I have heard some Nordic language speakers complain (I think the Skyrim thread) that Jarl is pronounced almost exactly like Earl and that a heavy "ya" sound is wrong. So this is actually an example of language correctness.

I've never heard jarl/Jarl pronounced in any other way than with a "ya" sound (Danish), and this link seems to agree. All of those pronounciations have jarl start with an initial (jɑ), where the initial sound in earl is (ɜ). The former is the same sound as in yard, while the latter is like the i in bird. Whether it has always been pronounced that way is another matter, but the fact that all the major Scandinavian languages agree makes me think it hasn't changed much.

# ¿ Oct 3, 2013 12:01

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Ask me about Medieval History & Combat.