Ask me about Medieval History & Combat.

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

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

WoodrowSkillson posted:

It also depends what kind of pike warfare we are talking about. Medieval/Renaissance pikemen just carried a long pike into battle since they were there mostly to protect musketmen from cavalry charges.

This is wrong and almost literally backwards. The development of pike tactics long predates the wide use of muskets in combat. The Swiss began seeing great success with pikes in the late 13th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_mercenaries

Only later did musketeers come into being, and at first there were not many of them. Look at the proportion here:

quote:

There were not many guys with sword and buckler even on the battlefield after a certain point.

That's hardly relevant, since the role of the pikemen, when not attacking other pikemen, is to attack or fend off cavalry.

quote:

Depending who was fighting and when, the pikemen might never even come close to enemy infantry. Obviously it did happen sometimes, but putting pikes against pikes was a meat grinder that no one really wanted to engage in since you would lose a whole lot of your expensive pikemen.

This flies in the face of just about every primary or secondary work I have read on pike combat. Seriously, who told you this? Yes, mercenary companies will sometimes refuse to fight or desert if they're not payed or if they're unhappy with the situation, but they don't balk at closing with the enemy when they do fight.

Edit: Also, pikemen are cheap as hell compared to cavalry, which is what they're replacing.

WoodrowSkillson posted:

I think some people overestimate how bad it would have been. Pike phalanxes rarely fought each other, and probably consisted of a bunch of dudes about spear length apart poking at each other's shields as they waited for the battles on the flanks to be decided.... I would imagine the same was mostly true for pike squares in the Renaissance. No one wants to just charge at them, so for a lot of battles it would relatively safe. That of course did not always happen, resulting in some rather bloody battles.

Gingerly poking at each other, not really. Bloody, oh yes.

HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 08:56 on Mar 26, 2013

# ¿ Mar 26, 2013 00:38

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 4, 2024 09:30

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Rodrigo Diaz posted:

This is why I typically loathe talking to reenactors about history. Many of them act as if they are authorities when they only know things through two sources. Either they have been told about 'how it really was' by the group guru, who has probably only read Oman (or Shelby Foote if they are ACW), or they have 'deduced' a lot of things about warfare through their LARPing. They fail to recognise they are playing a game, one with noticeable safety rules like "no killing people", rather than fighting a war. It's one of the few history things that can really make me spitting mad.

Hold on, I used to be a reenactor and my group was very good. Not everyone's ignorant, and a number of reenactors are also excellent material historians. (In areas where we diverged from reality due to safety considerations, the difference between what we were doing and the actual drill was known and discussed.)

WoodrowSkillson posted:

I have read multiple arguments between people far more educated then me about how exactly pikes fought each other, and how the "push of pikes" actually happened.

But probably less educated than me.

quote:

I may have been misinformed through that. Your reply has inspired some more reading, and http://www.marquisofwinchesters.co.uk/Ecwr-Guidelines/Guidelines-pikefighting.html seems to be a rather comprehensive summary of how pike fighting would happen.

Why does this site not refer to current research on this subject? Or any research at all, for that matter? Also, whether or not people get killed by the pikes, once Bad War starts happening the real damage is done by men armed with shortswords who'll pick their way through the tangle and stab people.

quote:

The pike fencing done by the Landschnekts seems to imply both sides facing off at spear length, since in a full on melee there is no way there would be room to fence with pikes.

That's incorrect, as everyone involved is at least three feet away from everyone else. You need room to maneuver, and also for your musketeers to perform the countermarch between your ranks.

quote:

The "bad war" of your image seems to be a rarity and not the standard.

I'm being serious when I ask you how many early modern battles you're familiar with.

HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Mar 26, 2013

# ¿ Mar 26, 2013 08:52

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Speaking of Agincourt, is this song period? If not, when was it written? It's pretty rad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK16e-Emrms

# ¿ May 30, 2013 05:34

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Penguissimo posted:

It definitely sounds like it could be medieval. (The actual vocal part, that is; the instrumental introduction is a modern addition.) If it's not from the medieval era, it's definitely written by someone familiar with medieval forms and composition styles.

ninja edit: Wikipedia seems to think it's legit. Check out the sheet music link in the External Links section.

Rad. And I'm familiar with medieval composition since the college I went to made us all take a year of early music (it ruled), I just didn't know if this was the real thing or not. Thanks!

# ¿ May 30, 2013 19:45

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Anne Whateley posted:

The song is legit but that arrangement is very modern.

Really? The keyboard and electric guitar, sure, but the vocal arrangement, with its heavy focus on fifths and thirds, seems period to me.

quote:

This version is probably more appropriate (and much better imo), although still not all-male.

It's nice, but I hate the lead's vocal quality. Pryor and Tabor are much better singers, and the arrangement sounds unutterably sad, which I love. And who cares about their gender?

Flippycunt posted:

Hey I was hoping I could get some book recommendations that go in-depth about how/why certain medieval armies developed the way they did. For example, why heavy cavalry flourished in Western Europe...

Hey, 'sup. For why heavy cavalry developed in certain regions and light cavalry developed in others, you will want to look at the early chapters of Firearms: A Global History to 1700.

Basically, heavy cavalry develops in areas with very dense populations, because they have the resources necessary to support the number of people and animals that style of combat requires.

quote:

, or how the Dutch, Italians, and Swiss came to field pike formations while their neighbors didn't.

When I think "pikes," Italians are not the first group of people to come to mind.

The Swiss invented the pike square, then the Germans pick it up, and both these regions shamelessly export people who know how to do this. Then everyone picks it up. I've heard that the Swiss did it because it's pretty cheap to field pikemen, and Switzerland is a poor and noble-free country. Most books on landsknechts or Reiselauefer will bring up halfassed explanations for why this came about in the first few chapters; I like the idea that it's a resource-light way to make war, and anything more elaborate than that (such as the idea that it appeals to their native democratic sentiments) is probably woo. (On the other hand, Swiss mercenary companies kind of organized themselves like tiny mobile cantons, so there is that.)

Late medieval inter-Italian warfare is characterized by heavy cavalry (in fact, they used it a lot longer than other people did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condottieri). I thought Mercenaries and their Masters was a good book about condottieri, but it's also pretty old (they are not my specialty).

Pike combat is a huge deal during the Italian wars, but the people involved are Germans or Swiss, hired for the occasion, rather than Italians.

The Dutch are not known for being especially good at pike combat; that's their great enemies, the Spanish. The Dutch did, however, develop/popularize a new (and possibly undeservedly prized?) style of pike and musket tactics in the late 16th/early 17th century, characterized by thinner lines and a more elaborate drill, which--at least in theory--allowed the combatants to use their firearms more effectively.

EDIT: If you want to think about this sort of thing in general, rather than these specific questions, you should start thinking about it in terms of economics/society/infrastructure. That is what everything else is built on. It's not necessarily the reason why historical change takes place (cue decades of anguished Marxist sperging about this very question), but it's definitely a factor without which nothing else happens. So pick up some good economic histories or "global histories" (like Braudel) of the medieval West and go from there.

HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 06:52 on Jun 5, 2013

# ¿ Jun 5, 2013 05:05

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

I should not have double-posted.

HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Jun 5, 2013

# ¿ Jun 5, 2013 05:15

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Halloween Jack posted:

I'm confused about how plate armor became a thing. General articles on it seem to skip straight from lorica segmentata in the Roman Empire to the rise of articulated plate armor. Was the transition from mail to plate armor a relatively sudden innovation? All I can figure is that lorica segmentata was in use until about 400 AD, then mail was the best thing around for a long time, at some point in the 1300s brigandines start showing up, and by 1400 they were making articulated plate armor.

I had always heard it was in response to firearms and crossbows.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2013 04:12

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Buried alive posted:

I'd heard it was in response to developing steels/weapons which could hold a fine point and would basically go through chain like it wasn't there, then it fell out of favor once firearms/crossbows became powerful enough to pierce it consistently.

This varies depending on which source you read, but a number of historians say that firearms could not pierce plate for a long time, which is why breastplates were often sold with dents in them where the armorer had shot them and the bullet hadn't gone through.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2013 04:59

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

veekie posted:

Weren't they just getting heavier and heavier in response to firearms development, until for reasons of cost of outfitting, changing battlefields and the scale of conflict relegated them to commander gear and later, putting the commander a good distance from where the bullets were flying.

I don't think so; I think firearms got better. And if you make the armor curved you can have decently light armor that is still pretty protective.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2013 06:12

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Arglebargle III posted:

This came up in the thread before and the explanation that sounded best to me was:

chainmail is labor-intensive but requires little capital

plate armor is capital-intensive but requires little labor

Economic conditions tend to determine the nation's preference, so in the 2nd century golden age of Rome with manufactories popping up everywhere, the slave population shrinking because of extended peace, and lots of wealth, plate (loricum) armor is most the most efficient production choice. It also happens to be better. In medieval fiefs with poor access to human and physical capital but a huge forced labor pool, chainmail is the most efficient production choice.

The European population went down during the "fall of Rome" though, and it also nosedived from the late 1300s into the 1400s, then increased again, then fell again during the 17th century crisis.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2013 10:21

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Rodrigo Diaz posted:

Yo before you folk keep spouting completely uninformed theories on mail's origin and implementation please read this first: http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html
It's not perfect (and I'll expand a bit on some of its points when I get time) but it's 1000x better than the Goon Theorizing that's going on now.

Hey, my Goon Theorizing was pretty choice, thankyouverymuch.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2013 21:11

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Rodrigo Diaz posted:

You are certainly right that firearms got more powerful. The transition from serpentine to corned powder in the 16th c. was particularly massive.

You can also screw with the sulfur/saltpeter/charcoal ratio to get the best effect, and in many cases we know the ratio that different people or regions preferred.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2013 21:53

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Rabhadh posted:

Did the mixture vary due to like local weather patterns or was it just a cultural thing?

People kept trying to get it right, and different people had different opinions.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2013 22:15

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Pikemen also wore plate, too, although not the full shebang. The purpose of the pike square is primarily to guard against cavalry, and it led not to the eclipse of cavalry, but to new cavalry tactics--eventually, they all start carrying pistols or carbines.

the JJ posted:

Pikes kept people on horses away from the gunners while they reloaded...

Not originally; people added musketeer "sleeves" to pike squares later.

HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Jun 19, 2013

# ¿ Jun 19, 2013 22:00

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

tweekinator posted:

Didn't the Swiss start having their pikes charge instead of just fend off cavalry, and freak out the French and/or Austrians?

Kind of: more that the difference between a pike square and a line of pointed stakes driven into the ground is that the first one is mobile.

# ¿ Jun 25, 2013 21:31

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Smoking Crow posted:

Same question, but with knights. Did the knights just kinda chill at their barracks like modern soldiers do when there's no war?

Nope, since there were no barracks until Caterina Sforza invented them to give the mercenaries she hired somewhere to live (that wasn't either in the city or in a shantytown outside its walls, both of which offered these dudes massive opportunities to get into trouble) when they weren't working. Even then, they were not widely adopted until well into the 1700s.

Being a knight isn't a job in the modern sense, it's one part of these peoples' entire lives as nobles--so when they didn't go to war, they'd go home to their estates or go to court to serve the king, or whatever it is they did.

The difference between a modern job and a medieval Stand is that the first is what you do for a living but the second is your life, your state of being, and your identity.

# ¿ Jun 27, 2013 23:46

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

bres0048 posted:

Not much...

This is entirely wrong, the correct answer is folk art, folk songs and myths, suing each other, disputing inheritance, sometimes murder, and massive drunken revelry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnival#History
Artists like the Bruegels are good for that sort of thing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Peasant_Wedding

HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Jun 28, 2013

# ¿ Jun 28, 2013 02:31

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Doc Science posted:

Mongols and gladiators aside, I wanted to ask, what do you all think is the overall most feared weapon on the medieval battlefield? I'm think some sort of siege weapon maybe? I want a professional opinion though, if someone will offer one.

Firearms.

# ¿ Jul 2, 2013 07:12

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

veekie posted:

I kind of doubt siege weapons would generally be considered terrifying, given how long they take to assemble(or even construct) and target. The typical footsoldier likely wouldn't see one of those unless a fortified position was involved, and then they're used more against the fortification than the soldier.

The earliest European firearms, which were pretty small, were definitely used as anti-personnel weapons. Also, artillery is operated with :gifttank:

SCIENCE

, which as we all know may as well be black wizardry.

HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 08:19 on Jul 2, 2013

# ¿ Jul 2, 2013 08:15

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Rodrigo Diaz posted:

Ahaha did you even read the link you posted? Fire-based weapons were used throughout the Middle Ages. Red-hot iron, flaming missiles, and of course fuckin Greek Fire. Off the top of my head I can think of 6 sieges in a 50 year span in northern France that used fire as a potent weapon. Once fire was employed by catapults flinging 'flaming dross', as Orderic calls it, another it was red-hot arrow points, two were wagons stacked up with flammables and covered in grease to burn gates down, and two are just plain old fire from torches. Pitch was really common as an adhesive and a sealant for boats, buckets, etc. I don't know where you get the idea it was astronomically expensive.

You can also stick gunpowder in a clay bulb and make a grenade. Or fill grenades with scorpions or something.

Speaking of chemical weapons, this book is too early for the Middle Ages, but it does rule. http://www.amazon.com/Greek-Poison-Arrows-Scorpion-Bombs/dp/158567348X

# ¿ Jul 3, 2013 00:34

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

When Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes, one of the things he did was to quarter troops (the "dragoon" in the picture) on Huguenot families (the "heretic"). This was a common punishment in the period, or a common threat in international relations--one of the things you, as a head of state, would do to other heads of state that was somewhat less serious than war would be to raise an army and either send it over their border or threaten to. No actual combat, but the pressures of living with them would economically ruin an area.

The Revocation was unpopular throughout France and Europe at large: "heretic" is ironic--as Roderigo Diaz pointed out, this cartoon wants you to sympathize with him.

I wondered if this was printed over the border in Switzerland or in the Netherlands, since it's pretty subversive. It looks like it was printed at Lille, though--under the Huguenot, it says "Lilh de G. Engelmani." I'd bet that was a false imprint.

HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Jul 6, 2013

# ¿ Jul 6, 2013 23:23

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

LankyIndjun posted:

When you say "many," do you mean many noble women?

For example, in the late 1940s in India at the time of independence, the literacy rate among women in India was about 9%.

Presumably, medieval Europe wasn't much better. So, to me, to say "many" women were literate and numerate sounds like it's probably misleading to a modern/Western audience - "many" to us means, like, at least 30% or something. I'd venture that well over 90% of women were illiterate.

Just off the top of my head, why would you assume medieval Europe (many countries, over a period of a thousand years) has a great deal in common with India in the 1940s?

# ¿ Jul 11, 2013 09:01

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Rodrigo Diaz posted:

For a second I thought Railtus had started posting again.

What's wrong with them?

# ¿ Jul 11, 2013 23:06

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

at you historysplaining to Rodrigo loving Diaz.

INTJ Mastermind posted:

On a sword, the blade has to be sharp enough to hold a cutting edge, AND be strong enough to withstand the force of repeated strikes. That's a lot of demand to put on a single material, which in addition to the difficulty of objectively making "good" steel, makes creating a quality sword kind of a crapshoot.

Did you read what he wrote?

quote:

While many swords contained iron components (such as those made by pattern-welding or wrapped construction) the cutting edge, was almost always made of steel.

I'm going to let him do the heavy lifting here unless he wants help, but this:

quote:

Unfortunately for Ye Olde Smithe, judging all 3 basically came down to experimentation and secret family recipes, without any hard objective data to work by.

is a thing that I run into frequently and it is such bullshit. Ye Olde Smithe and Ye Olde Knyghet (and Ye Old Mercenary Captain) aren't retards; making a sword or a gun represents a great deal of intellectual investment. The practical knowledge that these occupations rely on is still knowledge whether or not it's formally systematized; it can still be learned, whether from others or from experience, taught, and improved upon (which is why we see a lot of technological advancement during the Middle Ages). They have plenty of "objective data;" it's just organized in a less efficient way.

HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Aug 2, 2013

# ¿ Aug 2, 2013 04:18

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Beeez posted:

Forgive me if this has already been asked as I haven't managed to read through all 30 pages yet, but I've been reading some historical fiction and accounts of ancient and medieval warfare lately and I've found I sometimes can't totally picture how large-scale warfare would look back in those days. Seeing the various videos demonstrating what's in the manuals on single combat has illuminated single combat for me, but I still don't always know how to picture authentic warfare. Are there any good visual representations of that kind of thing, be they videos or pictures? Any help is much appreciated.

If it's late enough that the people involved have "perspective" down, period paintings or engravings are good sources.

Battle of Pavia, Italian Wars

Battle of White Mountain, end of the opening gambit of the Thirty Years' War

Siege of Gravelines, by the same guy who did the White Mountain picture (which means it's not period, but it looks really cool)

# ¿ Aug 19, 2013 21:00

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Beeez posted:

Another question I have would be, was dysentery always fatal in those days, or was it possible to survive it even though it was more serious back then? I've heard that it was a common illness in soldier camps in the past but I don't know if it was an instant death sentence or not.

If you can stay hydrated long enough to wait out the diarrhea, I think you'd be fine.

Edit: Hey Obdicut, what's the haps?

# ¿ Aug 21, 2013 04:20

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

veekie posted:

Also depended on how much hydration they needed. Water alone wouldn't do it, you'd need saline to make up for the salt losses from making GBS threads your butt off. And probably sugar since you aren't absorbing much nutrition either.

FYI, if any of you guys ever get cholera, you need to drink: a half-pint of water, a fistful of sugar, a three-finger pinch of salt. Stir until dissolved, sip miserably, repeat.

# ¿ Aug 21, 2013 06:52

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Arglebargle III posted:

It was a common illness. Cholera is really hit or miss since death depends entirely on whether you can replace the water the patient is losing. So it could absolutely devastating or it could just make everyone miserable for a few weeks.

Dysentery and cholera aren't the same thing, and neither one is the only thing that can cause diarrhea.

# ¿ Aug 21, 2013 07:49

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

He also takes pains to say that it was really hot, which means the first thing I jump to is food poisoning. But historical medical diagnosis, as you mentioned, is always hosed up and vague. People describe symptoms more or less at random, they have weird names for things--and bacteria themselves evolve, which means even if it's the exact same disease we get now, the symptoms might have been completely different. Look at the history of syphilis, for instance.

# ¿ Aug 21, 2013 21:20

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Rodrigo Diaz posted:

Regarding disease, one of the most controversial subjects right now is the Black Death, which I won't really go into because I haven't done a whole ton of research on it. That said, the case, as it was presented to me, that it did not transmit by fleas seems fairly conclusive.

Yep, pneumonic plague is airborne; we've known this since forever. I read a really good book on the Black Death a few years ago--I'll try to remember the title and get back to you with it.

# ¿ Aug 22, 2013 06:44

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Can anyone point me in the direction of a sword school in Germany? I'm moving there in a month or so and want to start reenacting (again) and swordfighting.

# ¿ Aug 29, 2013 20:41

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

pulphero posted:

Here is a good palce to start looking http://www.communitywalk.com/map/index/896439

Sweet! Cheers.

# ¿ Aug 30, 2013 07:12

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Rodrigo Diaz posted:

I think your confusion here is over contemporary Latin (or Frankish if you like) terminology toward their Muslim adversaries during the crusades. Sources like Joinville and the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi. Saracen is a similar term, though that is an even trickier term, as by the 14th c. the Teutonic knights referred to Baltic pagans by that term. Muslim sources did a similar thing by calling all Latin/Western European peoples 'Franks'.

Hell, I've heard Saladin called the "King of Babylon," but that's probably intended to be more symbolic (tyrannical enemy of the righteous, comes from over-there-ish) than "realistic," if you can even make that distinction with a bunch of medieval literature.

Also, that last thing is where Star Trek got the term "Ferengi." "Ferengi" = "farang"= "Frank." It's a commentary on the capitalism of Western Europe and the US. :riker:

# ¿ Sep 2, 2013 23:08

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Kemper Boyd posted:

The church was always just as strong as the state apparatus it could talk into supporting it and there's probably the reason protestantism got it's true start in Northern Europe and Britain.

Protestantism got its start in the Holy Roman Empire, France, the Low Countries, and Switzerland. It owes a great deal more to Humanism, intellectual developments within early modern/medieval Catholicism, and the support of influential Central European political figures than to the weakness of any of these states. The Early Modern period is also a thousand years away from the early medieval quasi-paganism you're describing.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2013 09:47

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Pikes, shorter pikes, those combat axes with the picks on the back,war hammers, morningstars, cinquedeas. Everything that has armor also has joints, force something through the joints.

Edit: A diamond tipped war pick would rule pretty hard.

HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Sep 8, 2013

# ¿ Sep 8, 2013 03:20

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:

Wouldn't a gun shooting diamond tipped war picks still be better?

Naah, they'd tumble in midair and it's be pretty much impossible to aim. It'd be hard to seat them in the tube, too.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2013 04:46

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Grand Prize Winner posted:

By 'german' fencing, do you mean Academic Fencing? Because that's a style where you stand stock-still and let the other guy whack you in the face with a sword so you get a neat scar.

No, really.

It's fast too, like you would not believe. I have a friend who carried water for those guys. They still don't let women fence so she doesn't have a bitching scar. Too bad--she's this pretty blond Quebecois chick who studies the Merovingians, one of two human beings I've ever met who looks good in a fedora. She would have rocked a fencing scar.

# ¿ Sep 10, 2013 06:04

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Pornographic Memory posted:

Wait, they still fence to intentionally get scarred to this day?

I always thought Germany had mostly discarded the more militaristic aspects of its culture by now.

I didn't ask her if it was Germany. A bunch of other Central Europeans do it too--that dude with the bitching nasal and goggles ( :swoon:

) on the wikipedia page is Polish, I think.

Christ, that would own. I wonder, if I bribed someone to look the other way...

And (in the 19th century at least) they didn't exactly think about it as "militaristic." It's violent, yes, and you're abandoning your self to danger and thus hopefully attaining some sort of transcendence, yes, but it's also entirely self-directed: the only person telling you that you have to do this is you. That's why it's the most perfect symbol not of their aristocracy, who were not the primary demographic for college, or therefore of their officer corps, but for 19th century liberal individualism. The nobles weren't the ones who were super into dueling, it was the bourgeoisie.

Max Weber, for instance, was in a dueling frat in college and I think he wrote something about how rad it was. After all, the scar makes men more beautiful. (They literally believed this, which is why whenever I hear evopsych people talking about universal standards of beauty, I laugh and laugh. Sometimes they'd sew horsehair into the cut so it'd heal rougher.)

HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 09:07 on Sep 10, 2013

# ¿ Sep 10, 2013 06:19

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Testikles posted:

EDIT: Answered by the post above.

So it wasn't about her fedora. OK.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2013 03:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 4, 2024 09:30

HEY GUNS: Oct 11, 2012; FOPTIMUS PRIME

Sexgun Rasputin posted:

Also, question about a thing that happens in the movie (minor spoiler for Ironclad): To break the siege King John has them burrow a big tunnel under the castle and fills it with live pigs. He then traps the pigs inside and sets them on fire. The heat from their burning fat cracks the stone and collapses the main tower.

Is that a thing that really happened?

I've never heard of that, but mining and countermining was A Thing in medieval and early modern sieges. Tunneling under your enemy's walls, shoring up the tunnels with wooden beams, and setting those beams on fire was a common tactic, and once gunpowder gets past the early-adopter stage you start seeing mines as well.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2013 22:06

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

«‹›15 »