|
Obdicut posted:It is true that the Inquisition wasn't solely composed of sociopaths. Most trials ended in an acquittal-- many times after a sufficient bribe had been paid, so I'm not sure where you're getting that the Inquisition acted as a control against corruption-- and the penalties were at least formalized.t there was a conspiracy of crypto-Jews. If memory serves, judging by how the Church operated at the time (at least, before Protestantism was invented), this was probably not a bribe in the traditional sense but rather an indulgence. One of the things that Catholicism gets fire for is that, way back in the day, it was believed that you could literally buy your way out of sin. God would forgive you if you gave the Church money because, you know, House of God and all of that jazz.
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2013 08:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 07:07 |
|
|
How prevalent were things like pavises and tower shields? I remember reading that a pretty popular thing in and around Italy for a while was to take a big chunk of militia, kit them out with big rear end shields and crossbows, and have them hide behind their fancy little portable walls while raining fire all over everything. I remember reading that it was popular because it took very little training to get a ton of these guys. It was like "OK, you hide behind your big wall thing, point this thing at the other guys, and pull the trigger. Got it?" How much truth was there to that?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2013 09:09
|
|
|
life is killing me posted:Thanks guys for setting me straight, for some reason I was thinking Pangaea was much later. But I guess you guys got the gist of my post. I have no doubt that ships were probably the main mode of transportation, but I am confused as to how the Scots got there and why they went. Isn't it at least pretty well-known that the Vikings were the most skilled sea-farers of the time, since they had to use ships to raid pretty much anywhere? It seems to me, from archaeological finds and such, that much of their lives revolved around seamanship and settling in conquered lands. Here's the thing to consider: the English Channel is narrow enough in spots that some people are capable of swimming across it. Yeah, the Vikings were amazing ship builders, but you didn't exactly need to be a seasoned seafaring culture to make it across the English Channel. Basically anybody that was anywhere near that area of the world and capable of making something that floated for more than a week could have made a trip to England. As for the why, it probably isn't some deep reason. My assumption is the typical reason that people migrate. Some people looked around the place they were living and said "You know what? gently caress this place." and went to live somewhere else.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:some central asian steppe people were ok with women fighting, too. From what I've read there's been a recent realization that far more cultures than were previously thought had women fighting. For a very long time if somebody was found buried with weapons and their skeleton showed signs of having been injured/killed in battle it was obviously male. Closer analysis of the skeletons found that far more cultures were totally cool with women fighting and even commanding. If you aren't going for perfect historical accuracy (which is especially fine when you consider that records of much of the medieval era suck and it was, you know, several centuries long) just get a good enough idea that it seems authentic. Actually another thing I'll say is a quote my painting professor said that applies to pretty much anything creative. "Never let reality get in the way of a good painting." Since you're writing fiction go ahead and twist reality to suit your needs. You don't need it to be perfect; writing a good story should be your main concern.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Is there much of a connection between the massive amounts of coin due to these armies and the evolution of paper money and checks and money orders and those sorts of things? If memory serves most of using banknotes happened because merchants wanted an easier, safer way to transfer money. If the gold is in a vault and you have a piece of paper that says "X person can go to Y vault and get Z amount of gold whenever he wants" then the paper is as good as having the gold. In the end you'd have seals, signatures, and whatever put on the paper for it's legitimacy. Then you'd have things like "Richy McDutchguy has transferred the ownership of this gold to Wealthy McEnglishman" and then "Frenchy McMerchant now owns this gold." If soldiers got paid the pay was complete rear end; not nearly enough to make bank notes matter. This was a time when the common soldier was probably also illiterate and unlikely to understand the banknote or do the math necessary to tell if he was getting ripped off or not. Paper was also not exactly cheap so the paper itself was probably worth more than the soldier would get paid. Armies were mostly maintained more informally; think militias, levies, and whatnot. It was more likely that the army was kind of sort of fed and mostly expected to forage whatever area they were in for their supplies. Guns existing was one of the things that led to more organized armies. Early medieval armies were not only smaller but could get whatever they needed from wherever they happened to be. Gunpowder was a logistical nightmare.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2016 09:34
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:What made the treasure fleet so (relatively) safe? It sounds like if it was such a big deal, every other power with a navy would want to take a shot at it. What kept them from succeeding most of the time? Was it just that the spanish protected it with enough strength to make trying to attack it Not Worth The Trouble, or were there other factors? A thing to remember is that during much of the colonial era Spain was the world's super power. They were later dethroned by the British Empire but generally speaking pissing off Spain was a poor idea. That is also why the defeat of the Spanish Armada by the English was such a huge deal. Before that the Spanish looked nearly invincible.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Why was grain such a preeminent part of Olde Tyme diet rather than veggies? Grain can be stored for years. Though I do think you're underestimating the amount of vegetables they ate. Depending on the region some things kept forever This is one reason that dirt-floored cellars exist, actually; if you harvest a turnip and then bury it in your basement it will keep for like four years or something. Like was said picking was also a thing, as was brining. This is where you get stuff like sauerkraut. That stuff keeps forever so if you have access to jars, salt water, and cabbage you can do some really long-term food storage. Grain was a huge deal though because it's good for calories and you can grow poo poo loads of wheat on fertile land once you figure out crop rotation, which vegetables, beans, and whatever were part of. The other reason was because you could gather all sorts of things but gathering grain wasn't easy. Grain is also what makes booze and that is very, very important. Humans can eat practically anything and are pretty adaptable when it comes to our diets. However, only pretty specific things can turn into booze.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 07:07 |
|
|
LordSaturn posted:Only indirectly related: Flash photographs are very, very bright; generally speaking museums actually have special lights that degrade stuff more slowly/not at all that they shine on things. You might think "well what is just one flash photograph?" but when you have popular artifacts being photographed by thousands or millions of people that poo poo adds up. Somebody once told me that a single flash photo is the same as leaving a think in the sun for a month. I think that might be a bit of an overstatement but it does illustrate it. It's like that old quote; "no drop of rain believes itself responsible for the flood."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2016 02:26
|
|