Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Shade2142
Oct 10, 2012

Rollin'
Thanks for the thread, this is a great read.


Did anyone in Europe join the Crusades for non-religious reasons? I just saw Kingdom of heaven and it got me thinking. Are 100,000+ size armies even possible to maintain in a small area? The logistics had to be a nightmare.

Shade2142 fucked around with this message at 08:39 on Feb 4, 2013

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Frosty Mossman
Feb 17, 2011

"I Guess Somebody Fixed All the Problems" -- Confused Citizen
This is a fantastic thread. Thank you.

You talked a bit about fitness training for knights, but how about combat training? Tournaments were a thing, and I'd like to know more about what actually went on in one apart from the jousting. And of course I assume the knights didn't just hang around all sedentary and poo poo if there wasn't a tournament or a proper fight around to go to.

Obdicut
May 15, 2012

"What election?"
Are there any signs that the "Sweating Sickness" of the early English Renaissance was actually present in Medieval times as well?

SlothfulCobra
Mar 27, 2011

Were there any formalized systems for unarmed combat during the medieval era, and if so, what were they like?

Nektu
Jul 4, 2007

FUKKEN FUUUUUUCK
Cybernetic Crumb

ammo mammal posted:

Are there any movies or shows with accurate depictions of medieval combat?
Not a movie, but as good as it gets:

Some drills based on a fencing book (Lichtenauer) from the 14. century. This long sword style was made for fighting without armor. Obviously, noone ever saw a moving picture of 14. century fencing, so people started interpreting the few existing books.

The swords used are fairly accurate for the period in regards of size and weight - they just dont have a cutting edge, no point and are more flexible to avoid injuries:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln94E9AGYTc

Another group based on other sources:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=DE&hl=de&v=HC5FIyfI8TA

A training video of sword/buckler:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46QpBY73lMk

Nektu fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Feb 3, 2013

Schenck v. U.S.
Sep 8, 2010

SlothfulCobra posted:

Were there any formalized systems for unarmed combat during the medieval era, and if so, what were they like?

There are groups like the Association for Renaissance Martial Arts (ARMA) that study surviving medieval and renaissance manuscripts to figure out how people actually fought in those days. Here's their website, which has some nice articles. The earliest such document dates from about 1300 CE but the techniques depicted are almost certainly older, and we just don't have earlier documents because (A) the manuscripts didn't survive or (B) people just passed the techniques on through practical training and didn't think to publish them until the 14th-15th century. I think there was a post about literacy somewhere earlier in this thread, where someone said that literacy was mostly isolated to clergy and professional scribes, and most noblemen didn't bother learning to read until the 12th century, which would have made manuals of arms useless to the people who actually did the fighting.

Anyway, the techniques documented for unarmed fighting are mostly focused on wrestling and grappling, rather than striking. This is probably due to practical considerations about the nature of combat at the time. Everyone down to peasants carried at minimum a knife or dagger of some kind as a tool, eating utensil, and for purposes of self-defense, so even in a "street fight" scenario you would most likely be faced with an armed opponent. Trying to box with a guy who has a knife is pretty inadvisable, and it's imperative to grab onto them and take control of the weapon, or the arm holding it. In a wartime melee, if a knight found himself disarmed he would be facing opponents in full body armor carrying weapons of their own, meaning that kicks and punches would be almost totally useless and it would be even more important to get to grappling range where they couldn't bury an axe in his head.

Ground-fighting seems to be notably absent, and again this is most likely due to practical concerns. Simply put, grappling on the ground immobilizes a fighter and ties up his hands, making him extremely vulnerable if there is another assailant, particularly since everybody had knives. The manuals indicate that they understood how to trap and break limbs with locks and holds, but most of the illustrations show these holds being applied on standing opponents. The purpose of grappling was instead to throw the opponent to the ground and land on top of him, or remain standing. There are some historical descriptions of grappling for sport (Henry VIII was a notable wrestler), and bouts are described as being decided when one man was able to throw the other to the ground, which may indicate that being thrown in a real fight also tended to end the combat quickly, probably by being stabbed in a vital area with a dagger.

The modern martial art that bears the greatest resemblance to these systems is probably Judo, which is not a coincidence since Judo traces its lineage to unarmed combatives (jujutsu) used by samurai, who faced some of the same conditions (armed and armored opponents) as knights. The varieties of European "folk wrestling"--from which modern Greco-Roman, freestyle, collegiate, and other sport wrestling styles evolved--may be descended from medieval combatives, but that can't be known for certain as folk wrestling was practiced mostly by the lower classes and nobody bothered to record what they were up to until quite recently. Of these, Greco-Roman is probably the closest because of its emphasis on clinch grappling and throwing the opponent, rather than controlling position on the ground, but this is probably down to coincidence rather than direct descent (it also has nothing to do with classical Greek and Roman wrestling, the name was just adapted as advertising since people were very fond of the classics at the time the sport was invented in the mid-19th century).

Chamale
Jul 11, 2010

I'm helping!



How vicious were medieval soldiers to their downed opponents? When someone in good plate armour got knocked to the ground, how did his enemy go about actually killing him?

Schenck v. U.S.
Sep 8, 2010

Chamale posted:

How vicious were medieval soldiers to their downed opponents?

When they wanted to kill them they were as vicious as they needed to be to do that. If an enemy surrendered they usually didn't want to kill him. Medieval combatants generally preferred to take prisoners because holding them for ransom could be very profitable. A downed man would usually only be executed as above if he seemed too badly wounded to survive, or in cases where it was unlikely that he could be safely held prisoner. The English longbowmen killed most of the downed knights they found after Crecy, because they couldn't spare the men to guard all of the prisoners. Men who seemed unlikely to have money for ransom, like mercenaries, might also be denied quarter because there was little use in keeping them alive, but they could also be granted parole on the condition that they removed themselves from the fight for the duration of future hostilities.

quote:

When someone in good plate armour got knocked to the ground, how did his enemy go about actually killing him?

The go-to method for killing a downed man in full armor was to lift his arm and slip a dagger through his armpit into his chest, which would pierce the axillary artery and cause him to quickly bleed out internally. The need for mobility in the shoulder joint dictates that the armpit could not be fully armored, which made it a weak point. There would still be mail, but not plate, and there also has to be a seam where the sleeve joins the torso which makes it easier to get through. Other major blood vessels like the carotid and femoral artery were much better protected by gorgets and armor skirts (respectively), so the armpit was the best bet. Alternatively the dagger could be thrust through the visor and into the face, to kill instantly by piercing the brain. There were a few different varieties of thrusting knives with very narrow, acutely pointed blades, which were specially designed to pierce mail and kill armored men by these methods.

Baconroll
Feb 6, 2009
The skeleton of King Richard III of England has now been positively identified with DNA - whats interesting is the range of wounds - Suggestions are there was an arrow in the spine, and also a halberd and dagger wounds.

Promontory
Apr 6, 2011

Baconroll posted:

The skeleton of King Richard III of England has now been positively identified with DNA - whats interesting is the range of wounds - Suggestions are there was an arrow in the spine, and also a halberd and dagger wounds.

Here's the BBC article on the find: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882

I know archeology is pretty awesome, but sometimes the things people can discover with it are downright amazing.

Buried alive
Jun 8, 2009
I've heard of a medieval thing called the Murder Stroke. I'd always assumed it was the dagger to the face/armpit mentioned above, but a quick google shows it's some kind of half-swording technique I guess? Can you elaborate on what it is? I'm curious mainly because murder stroke just sounds :black101: as heck.

Xiahou Dun
Jul 16, 2009

We shall dive down through black abysses... and in that lair of the Deep Ones we shall dwell amidst wonder and glory forever.



Yeah, Mordhau.

It's grabbing by the blade and bashing the other guy's head in with the crossguard like it's a big ol' hammer.

It's exactly as :black101: as it sounds.

Schenck v. U.S.
Sep 8, 2010

Buried alive posted:

I've heard of a medieval thing called the Murder Stroke. I'd always assumed it was the dagger to the face/armpit mentioned above, but a quick google shows it's some kind of half-swording technique I guess? Can you elaborate on what it is? I'm curious mainly because murder stroke just sounds :black101: as heck.

If you're asking me, I don't actually know anything about this stuff beyond what you can pick up reading general works of medieval history and online articles. I'm interested in it but not that knowledgeable. Maybe somebody else actually knows a lot about renaissance fencing and can go into some detail, but I'd just be looking at the same google results you are. It looks like a bunch of people think the technique is mostly found in manuscripts that are basically advertisements for fencing instructors, like "come train with me and I'll show you how to do the murder stroke!" This would indicate it was unusual and eye-catching but there's no telling how much it was actually used in practice. Functionally it seems like a kind of trick, where you quickly transition from a half-sword grip to holding the blade with both hands and then strike with the crossguard or pommel as if using a hammer. This could be used to surprise your opponent and stun him, allowing you to follow up with something more effective.

To explain half-swording, it's a way of controlling range. Swords (and other hand-to-hand weapons for that matter) have a certain range at which they are most effective; too far away and you simply can't reach your opponent, too close and you can't make contact correctly. It's like batting in baseball, where you get the best results if you hit the ball with the sweet spot of the bat at just the right instant during your swing. Generally speaking the longer the weapon, the further the sweet spot will be from your body, and if your opponent steps inside that range he prevents you from getting full extension and stifles your power. Half-swording moves the grip further up the weapon, effectively making it shorter and moving the sweet spot closer to your body, so you can strike more effectively at short distances.

The murder stroke might be used if the opponent was trying to close range in this way; you would move your right hand to the blade just above the crossguard for a halfsword grip as he came inside your range, but then you would flip the weapon around and move your left hand from the hilt to a point on the blade nearer the tip, making it even shorter, which would allow you to land a forceful blow at much closer range than would otherwise be possible. It wouldn't be as effective as using the sword normally, but it might take a man by surprise and it seems like it would be pretty hard to defend against, again because of the very short distance. You could clock him on his helmet and force him back, then while he was recovering go back to half-sword or a normal grip and establish your range to deliver a full-power strike with the business end.

Vincent Van Goatse
Nov 8, 2006

Enjoy every sandwich.

Smellrose

Baconroll posted:

The skeleton of King Richard III of England has now been positively identified with DNA - whats interesting is the range of wounds - Suggestions are there was an arrow in the spine, and also a halberd and dagger wounds.

Quick update because this fascinates me:

It turns out the "arrow" was actually a Roman nail that got mixed into the site. Meanwhile it seems that he did have a majorly hosed up spine (scoliosis seems to be the modern diagnosis) and did have a bit of a hunched back, though likely not to the point that Tudor propaganda claimed (much like how Anne Boleyn wasn't a demonic hag as was later claimed by the Elizabethan equivalent of haters).

From the injuries he sustained, it seems the story about him leading a headlong charge towards Henry Tudor's position is true. His horse was killed or became stuck and he ended up dismounted and surrounded by Tudor troops and at some point lost his helmet. After that it was over for him pretty quickly.

Grand Prize Winner
Feb 19, 2007


Was cat burning really a thing? If so, then what the gently caress, people of the past?

Railtus
Apr 8, 2011

daz nu bi unseren tagen
selch vreude niemer werden mac
der man ze den ziten pflac
Still going to be delayed, essay takes priority. However, I am having trouble sleeping tonight and I thought I would put it to good use.

cda posted:

The depth of knowledge represented in this thread is astounding. Thanks for making it.

How were prisoners of war treated? I'm particularly interested in your average soldiers rather than knights or nobles but any info would be cool.

On an unrelated note, what was up with the Children's Crusade?

Prisoners of war seemed to vary. There are indications that the practise of ransom did extend beyond just soldiers, there is a new book on the subject you might want to check out, it’s so new I don’t have it yet - http://www.southampton.ac.uk/history/news/2013/01/24_not_just_a_kings_ransom.page

It raises a good point that recruitment would be far more difficult if the non-knights would all be slaughtered out of hand. There also had to be some incentive to surrender.

In the cases of towns, there was an incentive. Towns that surrendered when besieged rare usually left unharmed. The massacre of Jerusalem at the end of the First Crusade was not a religiously motivated extermination (although the fact all the Christians had already been thrown out the city might have been a factor), it was simply what happened when a city was taken by storm – i.e. if they fought until the end rather than surrendering.

Some sources like Honore Bouvet, a priest from the mid-late 1300s, wrote “Nowadays we have abandoned the ancient rules of making slaves of our prisoners and of putting them to death after they have fallen into our hands.” Which certainly was not the case at Vernuil or Agincourt, so I do not know just how seriously to take that source, only that it indicates that the idea of mercy to the defeated was there.

On the other hand Henry V was alleged to have told his troops at Agincourt that the French would kill non-nobles if they surrendered, and the troops apparently believed him, which suggests that killing of prisoners was not too unusual either. Another thing is that Henry gave the order to kill the French prisoners partway through the battle (he was scared of them escaping), and what is interesting is that French sources do not condemn him for this.

William of Normandy in 1054 held on to prisoners from the battle of Mortemer until a peace treaty was made. I do not know the rank of those prisoners, however. There were also times in Spain when prisoners were exchanged with the Moors, and although Richard the Lionheart ended up butchering his prisoners when Saladin negotiated a trade (because it took too long) it seems like the idea of exchanging prisoners was fairly tolerated. These prisoners numbered in the thousands, so I imagine not all of them were noble.

Next, Children’s Crusade was actually two ‘Crusades’ – one in Germany and one in France. I hesitate to call them Crusades since neither was really a holy war.

The first was a shepherd boy named Nicholas who travelled around preaching, and a major part of his message was not to fight the Saracens but to defeat their kingdoms by persuading the people to convert to Christianity. They stopped at Genoa when the sea did not part before them. Seriously, they expected the sea to part for them. Anyway, the shepherd boy was told by the Pope to return to his home, died on the way back while crossing the Alps, while the families of people who had died following Nicholas demanded that Nicholas’s father be hanged.

As you do.

The second was again children who thought themselves miracle-workers. It gathered about 30 000 people, apparently people who saw the leader (Stephan) say they saw miracles. Anyway, Stephan preached a lot and started leading people around France, but instead of growing the movement started shrinking and kind of fell apart on its own.

Black Bones posted:

I get the impression that no one could tell Henry V anything. Like King Charles VI was like "No, your not the King of France, don't be ridiculous - ok fine! Here's the crown and my daughter, just please stop killing people, Jesus!"

What's the consensus on Henry's claims to the French throne, or just his person in general? Shakespeare's play is one of my favourites, but I doubt it's very historically accurate (except I suppose in how it reveals how well-liked Henry V was to the English). Looking at the basics of the things he did, it kinda seems like he would be in the running for "1400's Craziest rear end in a top hat".

Also, any information on Shakespeare is always interesting, all things considered this playwright's influence is pretty staggering. How dumb are the theories over his reality, or is there something to them? Is the influence of his plays detrimental to popular understandings of history, like in terms of promulgating misconceptions? How do historians unpack them?

I like your description of Henry V.

Shakespeare only got mentioned to me in English Literature class, never in History, which probably says something about the influence of his plays in history. :P It is possible that his plays promote misconceptions; the way he presents Henry V was as a victory for the gentry, he barely acknowledges the role of the archers or the common man – which is heading in the opposite direction to the main popular misconception (that it was all about longbows as a superweapon).


Shade2142 posted:

Thanks for the thread, this is a great read.


Did anyone in Europe join the Crusades for non-religious reasons? I just saw Kingdom of heaven and it got me thinking. Are 100,000+ size armies even possible to maintain in a small area? The logistics had to be a nightmare.

I imagine quite a lot of people joined the Crusades for non-religious reasons. Quite a few in the Prince’s Crusade (First Crusade with the lords) were partly influenced by family loyalties to each other, quite a lot of their retainers would be going because their lord (read: employer/meal-ticket) was going and they worked for him. I imagine Raynald of Chatillon was not a particularly good Christian, but we don’t know his real motives.

On Kingdom of Heaven, I would like to point out they had exactly the wrong people in Templar gear. Guy de Lusignon was not a Templar, nor was Raynald of Chatillon, both men hated each other. Also, the Templars were not mouth-foaming warmongers.

Rant over.

Anyway, the army Saladin brought to Damascus was the same he brought from Hattin, with maybe some reinforcements replacing casualties. The original army he brought out was around 30 000 men, not 200 000. We do not know if Barbarossa really brought 100 000 men, another figure suggested is 15 000.

I think an army that size might be possible, I would have to check the Mesoamerica thread but I think the Aztecs and Incas have fielded armies above 100 000. However, I think the question is how long is it possible to keep such a force in the field?


Sniper Party posted:

This is a fantastic thread. Thank you.

You talked a bit about fitness training for knights, but how about combat training? Tournaments were a thing, and I'd like to know more about what actually went on in one apart from the jousting. And of course I assume the knights didn't just hang around all sedentary and poo poo if there wasn't a tournament or a proper fight around to go to.

We do not know the combat training in detail. As others had mentioned, the manuscripts showing their martial arts were really more advertisements than comprehensive descriptions of their martial arts. Talhoffer was particularly notable for showing things in his texts that missed out an important detail, such as a diving suit without explaining where the air supply comes from.

We do know of devices called pells; essentially wooden posts in the ground to practise your strikes on, overreliance on sparring tends to result in developing a reflex to pull your blows that becomes a problem in a real fight. Another device they had was a quintain for lance practise, the most common design was a post with a shield on one end and a bag on the other – when you charged with the lance you hit the shield and then the quitain swung a sack full of sand at you (which you had to avoid).

Pages would also pull wooden horses on wheels to practise their lance skills without a real horse.

Another thing I have heard of in sparring practise is called the Afterblow, which is a rule where if you get hit you can negate the hit if you hit them back almost immediately afterwards. The idea is to train you to keep fighting if you get hit (rather than to stop).

Tourneys could be less training and more licensed warfare. Early on it was just literally a friendly battle. The melee was essentially knights gathering together, organising themselves into teams (or not, it could be a free-for-all), then just laying into each other. William Marshall once needed a blacksmith to hammer out a dent in his helmet so he could take it off.

Those are just some general interest points.

Obdicut posted:

Are there any signs that the "Sweating Sickness" of the early English Renaissance was actually present in Medieval times as well?

Sweating Sickness was first recorded in 1485, so towards the end of the medieval period, but it fitted in there. It was used as an excuse to miss the Battle of Bosworth Field.

SlothfulCobra posted:

Were there any formalized systems for unarmed combat during the medieval era, and if so, what were they like?

Absolutely, unarmed combat was mostly grappling-based as others had mentioned. It was sometimes referred to as ringen (wrestling) or kampfringen (combat grappling) or abrazare. They were moderately mixed, although with a focus on joint locks and throws, but they do include a bit of minor strikes called the mort-stoss (murder-jolts). I call them minor strikes, they are actually very vicious, but the point is that the strikes were intended mainly as weakeners so you could get to the grappling part.

I should mention our sources are overwhelmingly German & Italian for this. Not that other areas lacked unarmed combat, but those are just the sources that survived.

Ultimately it was very similar to jujutsu for an obvious reason – it was developed with the same purpose in mind. Punches and kicks against armour are virtually useless, whereas a joint lock or a throw works well in battlefield conditions. The human body is very similar all over the world, so one grappling-based battlefield martial art is not going to be too different to another. There are only so many ways to lock the wrist, after all.

Another factor is the law in Germany specifically forbade fist-fighting, so Germans found other ways to fight each other. Aside from the obvious loophole abuse, it allowed a controlled level of violence. You cannot use punches effectively without injuring someone, but you can use wrestling techniques to restrain someone without harming them.

Chamale posted:

How vicious were medieval soldiers to their downed opponents? When someone in good plate armour got knocked to the ground, how did his enemy go about actually killing him?

Medieval soldiers seemed to be very matter-of-fact about their downed opponents. It would finishing them off quickly without too much fuss. I notice ringen am schwert (wrestling at the sword) rarely involves the degree of standing over people that you tend to see in the movies or games, instead you just got efficiency without lowering your defences too much.

Face-stabbing was generally the most reliable way. You can push someone’s visor up, and most knights fought open-visored anyway to breathe and see properly, so I think the face would probably be the easiest target. You could stab up under the groin, if they are down you could get under the armour skirt. Or the armpit was a good target as was mentioned.

This is of course assuming armour was a factor. If not then you can just hack off their limbs.

Buried alive posted:

I've heard of a medieval thing called the Murder Stroke. I'd always assumed it was the dagger to the face/armpit mentioned above, but a quick google shows it's some kind of half-swording technique I guess? Can you elaborate on what it is? I'm curious mainly because murder stroke just sounds :black101: as heck.

The murder stroke was as others mentioned reversing the sword (so holding it by the blade) and using the handle as an improvised hammer. Ironically one of the less lethal things you can do. Primarily it was done in armour – since it protected against most cuts and stabs, and attacking the joints was very difficult if the other person is trying to stop you, but you can use the sword as an improvised warhammer and slow them down that way. Either by stunning them or simply bashing their arms and legs in.

An example here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi757-7XD94

Metrilenkki
Aug 1, 2007

Oldskool av for lowtaxes medical fund gobbless u -fellow roamingdad

Grand Prize Winner posted:

Was cat burning really a thing? If so, then what the gently caress, people of the past?

Hey, if your life is brutal you get your amusement where you can. So maybe cat burning is not your thing, you should give fox tossing a go.

Railtus
Apr 8, 2011

daz nu bi unseren tagen
selch vreude niemer werden mac
der man ze den ziten pflac
Guys, I have never heard of cat burning or fox tossing until people brought it up in this thread.

And I was much happier for it. I would prefer the animal cruelty stuff be kept to a minimum please. Also, these things are getting a good 200-300 years after the medieval period.

Railtus fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Feb 5, 2013

Dr Scoofles
Dec 6, 2004

Railtus posted:

Medieval History. Anything from the Viking Age to the Teutonic Knights to Marjorie Kemp and what a strange person she was.

What on earth was up with Marjorie Kemp? I read her as part of a medieval literature module but the seminar leader refused to discuss anything to do with her mental health and insisted we focused entirely upon the text. Discounting spiritual possession, what do you think was wrong with her? She seriously did my head in, and that was just through the written word, can you imagine going on a pilgrimage and having her in your group?

Do you have any favourite works in Middle English?

Railtus
Apr 8, 2011

daz nu bi unseren tagen
selch vreude niemer werden mac
der man ze den ziten pflac

Dr Scoofles posted:

What on earth was up with Marjorie Kemp? I read her as part of a medieval literature module but the seminar leader refused to discuss anything to do with her mental health and insisted we focused entirely upon the text. Discounting spiritual possession, what do you think was wrong with her? She seriously did my head in, and that was just through the written word, can you imagine going on a pilgrimage and having her in your group?

Do you have any favourite works in Middle English?

Kempe first seemed to have gone delirious after childbirth, which implies maybe that was something to do with it. I would describe her as a religious ecstatic, which does not necessarily imply it was pleasant. She seemed to have delusions and hallucinations, but this might not have necessarily been genuine schizophrenia, it could have been something like Histrionic Personality Disorder.

On one hand, she claims to have changed quite a bit, which would not fit with the pride and resistance to change characteristic of Histrionic Personality Disorder, but she did have exaggerated behaviours (overdoing the appearance of purity), loud and inappropriate behaviours (making a point of dressing all in white as though to highlight her virginity… despite being a mother of 14 and being quite open about her lustful past), a high need for attention (seems likely) and generally being a pain in the neck. On top of that, she seemed to be resistant to change after she had her religious experiences.

I think attention-seeking describes her rather well. The time she propositioned a young man by the church and he ran away screaming always amuses me. In fact, reading up on her now reminds me just how much people wanted to get rid of her.

Actually I dislike reading Middle English. Most of the primary sources I deal with tend to be excerpts or letters or gobbets. The primary source I had the most fun reading was a translation of Malleus Malificarum, just because as a modern person it is kind of astonishing to read and know that someone was seriously suggesting these things. I should at this point mention that Malleus Malificarum was not entirely typical of the attitudes at the time – the author got thrown out of Tyrol, the Inquisition cautioned against relying on it, I think it even got denounced in 1490. Still, sometimes it is entertaining to read something spectacularly offensive.

ookuwagata
Aug 26, 2007

I love you this much!
How exactly did one go about fighting with a mace? It seems like a weapon very heavily skewed towards offense at the expense of defense, even if they were nowhere near as heavy as depicted in fiction.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

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?!

Chinese cinnamon, or cassia, though is pretty distinctive in appearance (as long as it's not already ground into a powder), when compared to True cinnamon. True cinnamon sticks are made up of multiple layers of thin, light brown bark, whereas a stick of cassia is made of a very thick single layer of reddish brown bark.

Poldarn
Feb 18, 2011

Fascinating thread. I've been an active member of a HEMA group for the better part of a decade so I can comment on the actual techniques involved with murdering someone with a medieval weapon if anyone is interested. I was going to comment on half-swording and the murder-stroke but this


pretty much sums it up.

Fat_Kiwi
Jun 30, 2007
William Marshal is one of my favourite figures from history, he seems like a real badass. He fought the French during the Baron Wars when he was an old man, almost hung as a child, helped save Eleanor of Aquitaine during some rebels and was loyal to his kings until death, even John. But was he really like that, or was it good propaganda after his death?

Schenck v. U.S.
Sep 8, 2010

ookuwagata posted:

How exactly did one go about fighting with a mace? It seems like a weapon very heavily skewed towards offense at the expense of defense, even if they were nowhere near as heavy as depicted in fiction.

Generally speaking a weapon of whatever type meant to be wielded in one hand would usually weigh in the range of 1.2-1.8 kg (2 1/2 to 4 pounds, roughly). This is shown by surviving examples of weapons held in museum and private collections, and it goes for swords, axes, maces, and so forth. A mace derived its crushing power not from its sheer mass, which was not dissimilar from other weapons, but from the fact that it carried a lot of that weight towards one end, which gave it more angular momentum than a weapon balanced along its whole length. This momentum meant that it imparted much more force at the point of contact, but conversely it took more effort to get it moving and to stop it and recover to a guard position if the stroke missed. A person fighting with a mace would need to keep aware of this and be sure to choose his attacks carefully to avoid overextending himself. However, this would only really apply when attacking, because that's when he would go to full extension in the swing to build that momentum. When holding the mace in a guard position and parrying attacks, he wouldn't be building momentum, and the mace is similar in weight to a sword. It's possible that it would be a little more awkward because of its balance, but probably only to a small degree.

There's also a popular image of the importance of parrying that doesn't necessarily mesh with actual practice. I think this probably comes from stage fighting, because clashing sword-on-sword and parrying reads well on stage and is exciting for the audience. This later spread from theater to film, and that's where most people get their idea of swordfighting. There is also sport fencing, in which parrying is very important, but that really bears little resemblance to historical methods of combat. Parrying with the weapon was one among several strategies for avoiding damage, and not necessarily the preferable one. A blow could be defended more efficiently by taking advantage of range, movement, armor, and possibly a shield.

Shields were specifically designed to block attacks, so they were good for that purpose, but by the later part of the middle ages the use of highly effective plate armor had made them less necessary. It became standard for knights on foot to rely on movement and their armor for protection, while using larger two-handed weapons to generate the power necessary to injure and kill a man similarly armored. To go back to what I said above concerning range, if you were wearing armor and you saw your enemy preparing to make a cut, you could move backward or to the side and put yourself outside his range at the time it would have hit you, so that he missed. You could also move forward and put yourself inside the arc of his cut, so that he made contact with the wrong part of his weapon at the wrong part of his swing so the strike has little chance to harm you through your armor (similar to swinging a baseball bat at an inside pitch and making contact with the handle instead of the barrel). Or you could rely on your armor to protect you, changing your stance slightly to accept the blow on a well-protected area, like leaning to one side so a cut toward your helmet glanced off your pauldron instead.

The advantage of these options over parrying is that they do not require the use of your weapon, so you can do them while simultaneously counter-attacking. Parrying is obviously still useful, because it stops the enemy hitting you, but--again--it's one among several options, and the situation would determine which was best. Like in that video about half-swording, that guy has no shield and isn't wearing any armor, so obviously he needs to rely very heavily on movement and parrying. If a mace really was less useful for defending against attacks than a sword (about which I honestly have no idea), then you would just have to rely on these other options more heavily.

Bip Roberts
Mar 29, 2005

Railtus posted:

Guys, I have never heard of cat burning or fox tossing until people brought it up in this thread.

And I was much happier for it. I would prefer the animal cruelty stuff be kept to a minimum please. Also, these things are getting a good 200-300 years after the medieval period.

So is there any historical evidence of diseased animals being launched into besieged towns to real effect?

Railtus
Apr 8, 2011

daz nu bi unseren tagen
selch vreude niemer werden mac
der man ze den ziten pflac

ookuwagata posted:

How exactly did one go about fighting with a mace? It seems like a weapon very heavily skewed towards offense at the expense of defense, even if they were nowhere near as heavy as depicted in fiction.

Fewer sources tell us anything about mace-fighting, although the Talhoffer 1459 book shows a duel between a man and a woman with the man using a wooden mace (while buried waist deep and the woman has a rock in a headscarf being used as a flail).

http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Talhoffer_Fechtbuch_%28MS_Thott.290.2%C2%BA%29

Mechanically the strokes of a mace would be fairly similar to a messer (one-handed cutting sword), although compensating for the extra weight of the head. Messers tend to be short, with the weight a little more towards the striking end. I think you could adapt messer techniques quite successfully with them. Another option is looking for any sources on using an axe, because essentially a mace is just the same as a similar-sized axe.

This is a big point why swordsmanship was so popular. The mechanics of using the longsword and messer could be transferred to most other weapons. According to Bill Grandy, there were even dagger techniques used with the pollaxe (similar to a halberd).

A general source I would recommend to people interested, although not quite answering the specific question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9JKmXzauD0

There is also a mace and duelling shield (aka: longshield).

http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Hans_Talhoffer/Complete

Maces are quite skewed towards offence. However, defensive options would be a shield or grappling, as well as armour.

Interestingly, there are apparently maces weighing as little as 1 lb, to gain the maximum striking speed possible. For larger or longer maces, I think the pollaxe or halberd techniques would work well. It is difficult to generalise, because a 1 lb small mace intended for maximum acceleration would be very different to a 6 lb mace that is around 5 feet long.

What EvanSchenck says about the importance of parrying is an excellent point. Blocking their weapon with yours was one of the least desirable forms of defence according to medieval swordsmanship. Instead it was better to attack from a safe angle (such as while grappling them with your other hand) or void the blow (dodging, sidestep) and immediately counterattack.

This is all guesswork, but I hope it helps!

Fat_Kiwi posted:

William Marshal is one of my favourite figures from history, he seems like a real badass. He fought the French during the Baron Wars when he was an old man, almost hung as a child, helped save Eleanor of Aquitaine during some rebels and was loyal to his kings until death, even John. But was he really like that, or was it good propaganda after his death?

William Marshal seems to have been quite genuine. When he was younger, no one really expected him to be that impressive, since as a squire he seemed to spend an awful lot of time eating and sleeping. I think he got captured in his first battle, but fought bravely enough that a lot of people helped him out, including Eleanor who paid his (then modest) ransom.

However, the guy did beat 500 knights in his tournament career (which were not the rule-heavy jousts, but were essentially battles without a cause).

Essentially he made his career from semi-sport battles rather than in war. One reason I like Marshal is he developed the land he had gained, making improvements while he owned it (although mainly expanding two castles).

We know he was generally loyal, although that might have something to do with the amount of royal lands he had been granted. We do know he was principled, because when he acted as regent of England he did not have to reissue Magna Carta, but he did so anyway. Personally I think if his life was propaganda the rest of the world would not have been so willing to buy it. The French seemed to take him seriously as the regent of England, and his prestige seemed to help England in dealing with foreign powers. That implies to me his reputation was already formed in his lifetime.

Railtus
Apr 8, 2011

daz nu bi unseren tagen
selch vreude niemer werden mac
der man ze den ziten pflac

Dusseldorf posted:

So is there any historical evidence of diseased animals being launched into besieged towns to real effect?

We know the Mongols did it, which is alleged to have led to the spread of the Black Death in Caffa. It happened at a few other sieges, such as Thun-l’Eveque in the Hundred Years War, the siege of Karlstein Castle in the Hussite Wars.

What is likely a myth is the idea that using bubonic plague victims was common. Plague victims were either too rare to easily have available to throw over the walls, or would be just as dangerous to the attackers as the defenders. Instead I think it was more common to just use corpses or carcasses that had rotted a bit.

I have not found much evidence that it was successful, although it occasionally was still tried until the 1700s. Personally I think the tactic would generally be counterproductive, it risks your own army, it could take weeks or months to kill people, and in that time anyone that dies would be one less mouth to feed (defeating the object of the siege in the first place). Another factor is if you do win then you have a disease-infested town, which is not the greatest of territorial gains.

Essentially, it happened, but it is overstated. The reason we hear about it is because it is a gruesome story, it probably was not particularly common or effective.

Buried alive
Jun 8, 2009

EvanSchenck posted:

Generally speaking a weapon of whatever type meant to be wielded in one hand would usually weigh in the range of 1.2-1.8 kg (2 1/2 to 4 pounds, roughly). This is shown by surviving examples of weapons held in museum and private collections, and it goes for swords, axes, maces, and so forth....

I've sometimes heard that english/western European weapons were essentially big metal clubs in the area of 10-20 lbs. Are there any surviving historical examples of those that were intended for combat? Or is that more from the mistaken attitude that katana > all.

Obdicut
May 15, 2012

"What election?"
Did the use of war-dogs continue during the Medieval period? I know that the use of them by the Romans and the pre-Roman Britons was mainly in scouting and guard duty, but they did actually use them it pitched battles too.

Subsidiary question: Since horses tend to be terrified of smoke (and, well, a lot of things) were the war horses of the era trained heavily to desensitize them to blood, smoke, etc?

Also a note to those saying that a cavalry charge is still going to take down the front row-- if the horse actually decides to avoid, they're going to suddenly run laterally. Horses can pivot really really freaking quickly-- something that's actually useful in missile cavalry, who can charge right at the infantry and then wheel in front of them to deliver the arrows, javelins, what have you-- and so if the horses actually resisted the charge onto the spearpoints they're more likely to turn away and get in the way of other horses than they are to try to stop and fail or whatever.

Jorghnassen
Oct 1, 2007
Glouton des fjords

Buried alive posted:

I've sometimes heard that english/western European weapons were essentially big metal clubs in the area of 10-20 lbs. Are there any surviving historical examples of those that were intended for combat? Or is that more from the mistaken attitude that katana > all.

Not an expert, but these guys appear to have some knowledge of the issue. Here's another page with an illustration: a 20 lb sword, even with a thick and wide blade, would be like 40 feet long.

Earwicker
Jan 6, 2003

Obdicut posted:

Did the use of war-dogs continue during the Medieval period?

It continues to the present day, I don't think people ever stopped using dogs in the military.

Obdicut
May 15, 2012

"What election?"

Earwicker posted:

It continues to the present day, I don't think people ever stopped using dogs in the military.

Yeah, but we don't ever have just like an enormous wave of dogs. The Romans and Britons, while it was infrequent, sometimes would have a big pack of dogs that would actually be used on the battlefield as an attack force. I wouldn't imagine that dogs would be any use against fully-armored opponents, of course.

Nektu
Jul 4, 2007

FUKKEN FUUUUUUCK
Cybernetic Crumb

EvanSchenck posted:

There's also a popular image of the importance of parrying that doesn't necessarily mesh with actual practice. I think this probably comes from stage fighting, because clashing sword-on-sword and parrying reads well on stage and is exciting for the audience. This later spread from theater to film, and that's where most people get their idea of swordfighting. There is also sport fencing, in which parrying is very important, but that really bears little resemblance to historical methods of combat. Parrying with the weapon was one among several strategies for avoiding damage, and not necessarily the preferable one. A blow could be defended more efficiently by taking advantage of range, movement, armor, and possibly a shield.

It's even more complicated - check out the videos of HEMA groups I posted above.
Parry and counter attack were one movement if all went well (and the opponent did not counter your counter).

EvanSchenck posted:

Shields were specifically designed to block attacks, so they were good for that purpose, but by the later part of the middle ages the use of highly effective plate armor had made them less necessary.

Big (full body covering) shields were used like that (aka, to hide behind). The smaller shields (and esp the buckler) were used offensively as well (again, check out the vid I posted earlier).

EvanSchenck posted:

The advantage of these options over parrying is that they do not require the use of your weapon, so you can do them while simultaneously counter-attacking.
See above - parrying does not mean that you are not attacking.

Railtus posted:

What EvanSchenck says about the importance of parrying is an excellent point. Blocking their weapon with yours was one of the least desirable forms of defence according to medieval swordsmanship. Instead it was better to attack from a safe angle (such as while grappling them with your other hand) or void the blow (dodging, sidestep) and immediately counterattack.
If you can hit him, he can hit you. Evading attacks for a prolonged time is hard to say the least and incredibly error prone (probably would be your last error).

The big problem with the way you imagine it is, that you allow the attacker to do what he wants (he wants to kill you), while doing nothing to further your own plans (killing HIM). Even worse, you are not even doing something to hinder him in his undertaking to kill you.

All in all a losing strategy.

Buried alive posted:

I've sometimes heard that english/western European weapons were essentially big metal clubs in the area of 10-20 lbs. Are there any surviving historical examples of those that were intended for combat? Or is that more from the mistaken attitude that katana > all.
Swords are not clubs - this is a typical misconception furthered by movies :) (just call them conan swords).

Or are you talking about the bigger pole arms like halberts?

Obdicut posted:

Subsidiary question: Since horses tend to be terrified of smoke (and, well, a lot of things) were the war horses of the era trained heavily to desensitize them to blood, smoke, etc?
Horses tend to be afraid of everything they dont know, but once they are used to something, it is no big deal.
I think you can take it as a given that the warhorses were trained for their job.

Apart from that, in many depictions of medieval cavalry you can see big and really sharp spurs and very sharp mouthpieces to keep the horses under control.

Obdicut posted:

Also a note to those saying that a cavalry charge is still going to take down the front row-- if the horse actually decides to avoid, they're going to suddenly run laterally. Horses can pivot really really freaking quickly-- something that's actually useful in missile cavalry, who can charge right at the infantry and then wheel in front of them to deliver the arrows, javelins, what have you-- and so if the horses actually resisted the charge onto the spearpoints they're more likely to turn away and get in the way of other horses than they are to try to stop and fail or whatever.
I own a horse, and I dont know if you could get a horse to rush full speed into what it would perceive as a wall. Maybe if the horse is completely and utterly broken (I'm contrasting this to the horse being well trained).
It would be easier to get it to try to jump over (and perhaps crash down onto) the shieldwall.

But mostly I think that a successful charge would mean that the infantry does not stand, but breaks the wall and tries to run away before the horses even hit. Or that there were gaps that could be widened by pushing 1000 pounds of horse into them.

Nektu fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Feb 6, 2013

Schenck v. U.S.
Sep 8, 2010

Buried alive posted:

I've sometimes heard that english/western European weapons were essentially big metal clubs in the area of 10-20 lbs. Are there any surviving historical examples of those that were intended for combat? Or is that more from the mistaken attitude that katana > all.

It's completely false, and slightly insane. The links that Jorghnassen posted do a good job explaining it. It's also useful to think of what these weapons really are at the most basic level: simple machines, specifically levers and wedges. Swords, axes, maces, and so forth are third class levers, with the grip as the fulcrum, the hands supplying the effort, and the striking surface as the resistance. The cutting edge of a sword or axe, or the flange of a mace, is a wedge, which uses mechanical advantage to separate a target in pieces rather than just smashing it.

The design of a weapon as a machine or tool has to balance different characteristics to be usable. For example, a longer lever arm has more mechanical advantage and will deliver a more powerful blow, as in a comparison between an axe (3' shaft) and a halberd (6' shaft), the latter of which can strike with much greater effect. However, beyond a certain length a lever just becomes impractical, which is why you don't see a 20' halberd. Of course if the weapon is too short, it won't have a very long lever arm to increase force, and it won't be able to reach an opponent. With respect to mass, more mass increases the kinetic energy of a strike and allows it to impart more momentum. As I explained above in discussing the mace, this can also be achieved without increasing overall mass by putting more weight at the striking end to increase angular momentum. But momentum cuts both ways, in that it has to be generated before it can be delivered, making a heavy weapon more difficult to swing, and more difficult to stop if a strike misses.

This is all kind of obvious stuff when you think about it but it explains why these weapons have the proportions they do, especially when you consider that these are tools designed to injure and kill human beings. It's just a matter of balance between being lethal enough to do that, while light enough to use easily without tiring. Most of these one-handed weapons massed 2-3.5 lbs. and were 33"-40" inches long, which indicates that's roughly where things balanced out. Later on towards the renaissance armor was more protective and the force necessary to stop an opponent increased, so two-handed weapons like the greatsword and pollaxe became the standard. These were larger and heavier but not dramatically so.

Nektu posted:

It's even more complicated - check out the videos of HEMA groups I posted above.
Parry and counter attack were one movement if all went well (and the opponent did not counter your counter).

Countering the counter is actually the problem with the videos you posted; all of the clashes shown last about a second and are basically kata based on the illustrations and instructions from fechtbücher. We can't actually be sure if those are entirely practical fighting techniques or ads for sword schools. I glanced at some other HEMA videos on youtube that were fights instead of staged parry-ripostes, and most of them look very different.

Chamale
Jul 11, 2010

I'm helping!



I've seen shoddily crafted modern day swords that indeed weigh 20 pounds or more. Usually these are imitations of an unrealistic sword from some anime or video game, so of course they're completely impractical. The myth of heavy medieval swords has been spread by some sport fencers who like to imagine that a foil has any military advantage over a sword designed for lethality, so they focus on the perceived clumsiness of a large sword.

Nektu
Jul 4, 2007

FUKKEN FUUUUUUCK
Cybernetic Crumb

EvanSchenck posted:

Countering the counter is actually the problem with the videos you posted; all of the clashes shown last about a second and are basically kata based on the illustrations and instructions from fechtbücher. We can't actually be sure if those are entirely practical fighting techniques or ads for sword schools. I glanced at some other HEMA videos on youtube that were fights instead of staged parry-ripostes, and most of them look very different.
That is a valid point you have there - thre is no way to be 100% sure.

Still: it is the same principle that applies to many asian martial arts today - the forms they pratice are absolutely not 1:1 transferrable to real fights, and still they contain the principles the fighting style is based apon.

The problem with HEMA groups (and many martial artists today) is that they only ever learned the drills - they were never taught how to apply them to fighting. They dont do "fight" training, they do "drill" training which can be used as a base, but is not sufficient. Also all HEMA groups and most martial artists today do not train to kill people on the battlefield.

Too be honest, I doubt that the old fencing masters outright lied in their writings about their own styles (I have no factual basis for that claim :)). It is a given however, that they would present themselves in the most interesting way.

INTJ Mastermind
Dec 30, 2004

It's a radial!
When and why did it become unpopular for (civilian) men to walk down the street armed with a sword or dagger?

Jamwad Hilder
Apr 18, 2007

surfin usa
Somewhat tangently related, but aren't fechtbucher fairly uncommon? I was under the impression that most were commissioned by a lord and were quite expensive, since they were generally put together by a master who had both the time and expertise to create such a thing. Since it's for an audience of one (the lord commissioning it, maybe his sons eventually) and generally focused on reinforcing skills the commissioner already had, I don't see why they would illustrate techinques that were impractical.

Railtus
Apr 8, 2011

daz nu bi unseren tagen
selch vreude niemer werden mac
der man ze den ziten pflac

Buried alive posted:

I've sometimes heard that english/western European weapons were essentially big metal clubs in the area of 10-20 lbs. Are there any surviving historical examples of those that were intended for combat? Or is that more from the mistaken attitude that katana > all.

Probably none. There were the occasional parade/ceremonial sword that weighed above 8 lbs, but the only example I can think of is very much disputed, Piers Gerlofs Donia was a huge man said to be able to bend coins with his thumb, index & middle fingers, and he had a sword that weighed 14 lbs and was 7 foot long – but even then we do not know if that was his fighting sword or not. I am leaning towards not, because he acquired it from plunder, so it was not made specifically for him.

Generally a longsword would weigh around 3 lbs (with some heavier war swords around 4 or 5 lbs), a pollaxe or halberd might weigh 7 or 8 lbs. In fact, according to Tsurugu-Bashi Kendo Kai, knightly swords were typically lighter than katana of similar size.


Obdicut posted:

Did the use of war-dogs continue during the Medieval period? I know that the use of them by the Romans and the pre-Roman Britons was mainly in scouting and guard duty, but they did actually use them it pitched battles too.

Subsidiary question: Since horses tend to be terrified of smoke (and, well, a lot of things) were the war horses of the era trained heavily to desensitize them to blood, smoke, etc?

War dogs certainly saw some use, I am not sure how deliberate it is or not. But at Agincourt, Sir Peers Leigh was wounded early on, and he was saved from capture because his mastiff fought off the French knights. We do not seem to have large waves of war dogs though, except for maybe very early medieval (kind of more post-Roman) or the conquistadores against Native Americans (and I am not sure that was entirely battlefield use).

War horses were certainly trained heavily, since a war horse was expensive. Some were even trained specifically to kick forward while the knight on top was fighting. So the answer is probably yes, but the sources I am familiar with do not mention the desensitisation specifically.

Nektu posted:

If you can hit him, he can hit you. Evading attacks for a prolonged time is hard to say the least and incredibly error prone (probably would be your last error).

The big problem with the way you imagine it is, that you allow the attacker to do what he wants (he wants to kill you), while doing nothing to further your own plans (killing HIM). Even worse, you are not even doing something to hinder him in his undertaking to kill you.

All in all a losing strategy.

Forgive me, but you appear to be responding to the exact opposite of the part of my post that you quoted. Unless you are actually agreeing with me, but the phrase “the big problem with the way you imagine it" kind of implies that you have gotten the wrong impression, because your criticism matches the opposite of what I describe.

INTJ Mastermind posted:

When and why did it become unpopular for (civilian) men to walk down the street armed with a sword or dagger?

About 1800-1850, although the swords popular to wear in public were becoming less threatening before then. By 1400 a knightly sword or longsword would be common, by 1600 a long rapier was in style, by 1700-1800 you get smallswords or sword canes, and then specialised duelling swords or epees designed to draw blood without being lethal.

The reason for the change was partly convenience. A longer blade was kind of inconvenient to carry around if you were not planning on using it. Later on duelling became more formalised and less accepted, and it was more likely to involve pistols etc. Under those conditions, there is less of a reasonable case for carrying bladed weapons in public.

Railtus fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Feb 6, 2013

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Schenck v. U.S.
Sep 8, 2010

canuckanese posted:

Somewhat tangently related, but aren't fechtbucher fairly uncommon? I was under the impression that most were commissioned by a lord and were quite expensive, since they were generally put together by a master who had both the time and expertise to create such a thing. Since it's for an audience of one (the lord commissioning it, maybe his sons eventually) and generally focused on reinforcing skills the commissioner already had, I don't see why they would illustrate techinques that were impractical.

The rarity and expense of the manuscripts is the exact reason that we can suspect that the techniques were not commonly used, because it would be a waste to devote that money and effort to depicting techniques that were common knowledge at the time. It's the same reason that when studying medieval cuisine, we have lots of recipes for delicacies but none for staple foods. When books are rare and expensive, you don't record recipes for foods that people eat all the time, because everybody already knows how to make them. You write down the recipes for foods that most people don't know, and are out of the ordinary. People remember and record extraordinary things, not mundane ones. Similarly, a master would probably use a fechtbuch to record techniques that were special, rather than the techniques that everybody used and were foundational to fighting. This doesn't mean that what's in the fechtbücher is impractical, only that they were out of the ordinary and most likely situational in their utility.

  • Locked thread