Inquire as to the things you've always wondered but never wanted to make a thread for; in regards to ancient culture/tools/arms/etc.
I intend to, but decided to make the thread open to all with questions as the OP.
>>44490223
Okay, I guess I'll start:
What types of horse breeds were used for light cavalry?
![1028556-london-night-watchman-going-through-the-streets-with-his-pike-and-lantern1569[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/2J0dWyw.jpg "1028556-london-night-watchman-going-through-the-streets-with-his-pike-and-lantern1569[1].jpg")
What flammable substances were used before the advent of oil(s) as we know/use it today?
Who was responsible for distilling these fuels?
What were torches dipped in?
What burned in the lanterns? Fat right? Would the hunters just put'm in a jug until someone needed to use some or was it someone's job to treat the stuff and then store it? What did that process even entail?
How bad was being a serf/peasant really?
What opportunities did a serf have to just stop being a serf and make something more of his life?
Why can the Iron Age kick the Bronze Age's ass?
How common were arms/armament?How expensive was it? I feel like there are a lot of contradictory stuff where every man has a sword and basic stuff to serve in militia/army but also it takes weeks for blacksmith to make a sword.
>>44490575
Iron penetrates bronze like niggers penetrate your mom.
>>44490307
Nafta and derivatives of it. We dunno what it exactly was but some stuff that was called nafta seems to have been crude oil - I remember a Muslim account of how much shekels some oil that bubbled up to the surface around the caspian was, and there was the story of when Alexander the Great had a shota set on fire.
http://thesecondachilles.tumblr.com/post/104913844890/plutarch-life-of-alexander-35
I dunno what torches were dipped in, but I've heard skepticism ancedotally about the abundance of torches in lieu of say candles or whatever since the torch would burn out quickly.
>>44490622
For the high medieval period, some facts from Ian Heath's "Armies of Feudal Europe" wargaming book.
12th century Mercenary Knight in England gets paid 6 denier (A quick glance on wiki says denier became sous at varying quantities, but suffice to say sous is more than denier), 8d a day in 1162, as much as 3s-4s a day by Edward I's reign. Sergeants and Infantry paid considerably less, between 2d and 6d a day in 1196. Do not know the accuracy of this wiki statement but it says by Charlemagne's time centuries prior 1 livre = 20 sous, and 1 sous = 12 deniers. Livre being = 1 pound of silver. The lack of a centralized currency as we know and the centuries that followed means you can just take this as a frame of reference.
Examples in next post.
>>44490962
Assizes were Royal edicts which I am only familiar with them dealing with stipulations of how much panoply you were expected to possess in a certain income range.
French 1284 document:
-Those possessing 60 livres or more had hauberk, helmet, sword, knife
-Those with less than 30 livres had gambeson, sword, knife.
-Those with 10 livres or more had helmet, sword and knife.
-Those with less than 10 livres had bow, arrow and knife.
-"Probably all but the last had a spear or polearm and doubtless had shields [and helmet for less than 30 livres]".
1303 "Well armed warrior of gentle birth mounted on a horse valued at 50 livres...coat of mail and coat of arms [barding] expected from 500 livres of revenue each" and "lower classes supply 6 sergeants for 100 hearths" but all Freemen over 18 except the old and sick expected to serve for 4 months.
Cheshire archers, 'looked upon as something of an elite apparently' got 3denier a day as early as 1277. Gascon crossbowmen getting 3d-4d a day. Constables a shilling.
>>44491042
Henry III's Assize in 1242 stipulates:
-Freemen with 40-100s (sous?) of land or 9-20 marks of chattle serve with longbow, arrows, swords.
-Freemen with less than 40s (sous?) or 9 marks of chattel serve with bow if they had one or otherwise make due with 'falces', gisarmes, knives and other 'peasant weapons'.
-"Quilted Aketons or gambesons appear to have been generally worn - the statue does not mention body armor for men with less than 100s. of land but interim edict of 1230 specifies helmet and gambeson for men with 40s. in chattel).
-The poorest category of 1230 edict, those with 20s. of chattel, was spear and axe.
Henry II's 1181 assize of Arms edict, three categories:
-Knights fief or those possessing 16 marks of chattel or rent (who would have to be equipped like a knight)
-Those with 10 marks of chattel or rents (hauberk, helmet, spear and others)
-Those with less than 10 marks of chattel or rents expected to supply with quilted wambais (gambeson), iron helmet and spear, shield not specified but likely.
-Burgeses were not allowed to possess more than the obligatory quota of arms and had to sell or give away anything in excess.
-Unlisted stuff like swords or daggers or spears would probably be carried too.
>>44491127
Centuries earlier according to Osprey the "Laws of the Rpiuarian Franks (mid 8th century)" lists the following item prices:
-Helmet, six solidi
-Brunia (hauberk) , 12 solidi
-Sword and scabbard, seven solidi
-Sword alone, three solidi ("which suggests the previously mentioned scabbard was elaborate")
-Leg guards, six solidi
-Lance and shield, two solidi
-Horse, 12 solidi
For comparison an ordinary riding horse is valued at three solidi and a cow from one to three solidi.
If a man belonged to a wealthy notable's retinue then he could and frequently was equipped beyond his means, of course.
Give me a sec and I can give you Islamic accounts of sword expenses.
>>44490223
Something has been bugging me lately.
Just how powerful were shock cav charges, in terms of inertia?
I mean, depending on games and movies, some seem reasonable and stop because of sheer infantry mass, others throw people around like bowling balls and never seem to decelerate despite hitting 100 kg of meat and metal every second.
Is there some research or good account of what a textbook heavy cav charge would make of its targets?
Note to all those asking questions:
If you ask "how was X object for Y people" it helps if you also ask for when.
How a sword was made is very different for 1066, and 1492. or 700, and 1700. things change constantly. an early medieval peasant and one from the late medieval are not the same thing. And military is even more disparate.
Asking without a time context is pretty much akin to saying "how long is a piece of string".
>>44491283
All this is from "armies of the Caliph" by Hugh kennedy:
For the early to classical Islamic period up to lets say 1100 or so:
-Yemeni swords were the most expensive, selling between 50-100 dinars
-Qala'i (?) sword of the same dimensions was only 5-10 dinars
-Swords from Basra might cost 2 and a half dinars
-Those from Damscus 15-20 dirhams
-At the bottom an Egyptian sword could cost 10 dirhams.
-The most expensive Yemeni sword could cost more than a hundred times the cheapest Egyptian.
-"Difference lay not in rich ornament or jewel encrusted hilts but in the quality of the blade"
-Soldier of the early Abbasid period, on 60 dirhams a month, could easily buy an Egyptian sword but would have to save at least 10 month's salary for a Yemeni one.
At the time of the Prophet it was said that 1 dinar = 10 dirhams. Silver inflation persisted so that by the 9th century 1 dinar = 20-25 dirhams. There's a bunch of different salaries for the early caliphate notables (Aisha getting 12000 dirhams a year, the earliest companions of the Prophet getting 5000, those who joined only after the ridda wars given 2000-2500, ect and later Arab immigrans who joined well after the conquests were underway (post Qadisiya and Yarmuk) getting only 200.
For future reference, the arms and armour, song of swords and historical wargames threads are all great places to ask this shit if you don't want to make a whole thread, and might be easier/quicker.
>>44490527
Generally, life was great. The medieval period had high quality of life, especially the late medieval period; late medieval people had the greatest life expectancy in civilised history until a few decades ago.
Opportunities depended. It could range from quite limited to very not-limited depending on time and place. For example, Sir John Hawkwood was the son of a tanner or something, and he ended up owning huge tracts of land in Italy. But to be honest, you might not want to "make something of your life"; being a peasant could be very profitable in itself. But it could also be shit; like I said, it depends. Bit of a useless answer, sorry.
How do looms work?
>>44490223
>tfw someone posts the picture you shopped like five years ago as the OP for their thread
Pike warfare. What would happen if the pikes of two armies were different lengths?
Also how effective was a pike? Seems a bit awkward to actually stab a bunch of people to death with one, idk maybe I'm wrong.
>>44490962
> Nafta
You mean naphta? because that's what I found after getting a bunch of North American Free Trade Agreement results.
You just boil tar/peat and naphta comes out?
What type of armors were used for light cavalry of the 13-14th century?
![looms[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/OEcLPJK.png "looms[1].png")
>>44491635
you string up the verticals (the white ones in your picture) and then run collored thread/yarn/etc through it patterns. Then you cut the whole thing out and ta-dah: a rug (or whatever).
That's the basic version.
There are many different kinds of looms that make different kinds of things, but in short it's like weaving but you've got a frame holding all of the vertical/white/one-way's strings still and taught for you, and you only have to worry about wrapping the adjacent half.
>>44492189
Not OP.
I know that during the height of macedonian phalanx, longer pikes were used to win over vanilla pikes.
Many factions wouldn't or couldn't have good cavarly for hammer and anvil, going just on grinding pike against pike. A half meter of extra reach could make the difference.
Macedonian phalanxes were lineholders, getting the enemy stuck for flanking and charges from other units.
Renaissance pikes had more agressive and offensive tactics, perhaps because of better training and coordination. And they created the square of pikes towards all sides, which compensated the extreme vulnerability the macedonian phalanx had if hit from the sides or the back.
A single pike is extremely awkward, useless. The collective spear wall was the key. I've read that perhaps Phillip created the macedonian phalanx to use his northern hill tribes more effectivelly, because they only really had to train to move as one, the rest was easy.
>>44492348
Well you can also boil Mexicans, Canadians and Americans together and nafta comes out.
But yeah I misspelled it you're right. We don't know the exact makeup - boiled tar/peat likely won't give you the formula as it was more complex than just using the base material and varied - sometimes it sounds like they just used the base material when the Muslims or Franks or Sassanids used it but then you get the Byzantines whose naptha seemed to be of a different make - be impossible to put out, water would just make it ANGRYER, ect.
>>44492436
But you have to weave each individual strand up and down with every string? Wouldn't the really fine fabrics, not the stuff where you can see individual threads easily like your pic, take a billion years?
>>44491635
https://youtu.be/pkqhppD4_AU
Pretty good watch for the uninitiated. Enjoy with my blessings.
>>44490307
>>44490962
>>44492348
>>44495284
I lol'd at NAFTA. And by the way it's naphtha; I actually checked to make sure I wasn't being full of shit.
>>44490575
From what I understand, once you get your furnaces hot enough to smelt iron, you can make metal for hella cheap compared to the guys working bronze. Then you can arm bigger armies and win wars that way, even though the individual pieces of equipment aren't that much better.
>>44497741
A few things:
1. "Not much better" can mean a hell of a lot in the context of a prehistorical warrior mindset, and as always the lazy inversion of the Pareto Principle applies.
2. While wrought iron is not that much better than steel in actual use, steel is, and was being produced since before the Iron Age began. Actually, the Iron Age is really only considered to have started when it is because of the collapse of Bronze-age entities along with their trade / distribution networks and the changes and discoveries that initiated because of that.
3. You are correct about ironsmithing's scalability compared to bronze, but it was less a matter of price and more a matter of availability.
>>44494040
Thanks for that, very useful. I was thinking more of 17th pikes. I mean surely if you get past the end of their pikes you are safe?
>>44498967
>I mean surely if you get past the end of their pikes
Then it becomes a shoving contest
>>44498967
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=625iTKITRoA
Then it's swords.
The pike X pike is about two minutes in. This particular scene is suposedly the most realistic pike and shot fight in a movie.
>>44490575
Iron is all over the fucking place and cheap and easy.
>>44492189
>What would happen if the pikes of two armies were different lengths?
The army with longer pikes would demoralize the other with penis jokes.
>>44499835
not if the other army gets to them with compensation jokes first
>>44499234
just like you're mom lol
>>44490223
What are recipes for potatoes, tomatoes and chilis in medieval England?
>>44498967
Then it gets real ugly.
>almost no space
>people stabbing, hitting and biting all around you because their pikes are useless now.
Think it as a free for all match regarding weapons or the lack thereoff. Shit went damn brutal.
Hence everyone tried to avoid it. oppoising Gewalthaufen would terrorize each other so one side would would think "fuck this shit" and run before the free for all began.
>>44490527
Well that's a pretty broad fucking question but the main answer is "not that bad really". You farmed a lot, and could make a decent living off the land in most places, and you could end up with a proper trade and do pretty well for yourself depending, particularly if you got quite good at it and managed to find your way to an urban center.
>>44492189
While pike blocks appear to have been quite good at killing, that was probably by having enough pikes in small enough a space so that there wasn't really any way for someone to not get stabbed.
Have the cohesion disrupted and the pike block will be in trouble. And one on one, well, a Swedish officer around the year 1700 is to have remarked that killing a pikeman was much the same as killing a completely defenceless person.
>>44500766
Those came to england after the age of exploration, in the early modern period.
>>44500858
US board, Anon.
Ancient History is the period before the Pilgrim Father's first Thanksgiving.
>>44500766
There wern't any
What sort of food did soldiers and knights ACTUALLY eat on the trail? I've heard they used to eat a cakey/fruity/sweet field ration called Panforte (now ironically known as an italian pastry), kind of like a medieval power bar
Shouldn't this thread be on /his/?
>>44501743
no fuck off
Hiroshima takes our history/arms&armor threads when Tokyo burns in nuclear fire
>>44501566
Those old military stand-bys of hardtack and salted meat were a feature of medieval rations.
But in many cases soldiers are eating the same kinds of food they would at peace for a couple of reasons.
The first is that medieval armies, as many forces did throughout history, tended to supplement their rations or subsist entirely on "foraged" food. This hallowed military tradition is where you scrounge, steal and bully food from the surrounding population. So anything edible and in season that could be feature.
Another factor was that (especially in the High Middle Ages) feudal troops were expected to support themselves as part of the obligation of service. So a fief was expected to provide men armed, armoured and provisioned at thier own (i.e the landowners) expense. It is only when the term of service exceeds that agreed on (40 days is a common figure) that paying the soldiers becomes the lieges problem. Pay and provisions are also part of the cost in addition to the arms required when vassals opted to supply cash instead of personal service.
Scutage (shield money) became more and more common as the period wore on, and Kings would use that money to pay for mercenaries in place of vassals who chose scutage over service.
What's the actual (if any) historical inspiration for the Ranger archetype? You know; guy in cloak, good with a bow, expert tracker, familiar with the wilderness.
It's easy to see where archetypes like the Fighter and Paladin were inspired by, but so far as I can tell, medieval archers looked more like pic related than anything out of modern fantasy. I assume most of it was just made up, but surely the concept of the sharpshooting huntsman wasn't just invented in a vacuum.
What legal rights did a knight have over those acting in his land in terms of law and punishment? Would they have had to go through the king's courts and such, or were they allowed to dispense jutice by themselves?
>>44501743
if /his/ actually had the slightest clue about history, perhaps, yes
but that board is just /pol/ mk2, with spectacularly idiotic comments, and rarely anything even approaching a basic understanding of what history was.
>>44502770
Someday, friend. The seeds we and other like us have sown will grow and sprout to form a permeable barrier of knowledge in /his/ that will retain water, soil, and sunpower. Then there will be shelter for all the right kinds of healthy posts there and an ecosystem of valuable historical opinions can form.
Nostalgia:
http://www.sfcenter.ku.edu/Sci-Tech-Society/Dune-AppendixI.htm
>>44502587
Yeoman
>>44501566
Cheese and bread douse in brandy. At least that's what a german knight suggested to his brother's son in a letter.
>>44502587
Bandits, hunters and poachers.
>>44502587
>>44503227
On yeomen
Copy pasted because I am not a scholar
The term had a military sense as in the Yeomanry Cavalry of the late 18th century and Imperial Yeomanry of the late 1890s. The 'yeoman archer' was unique to England and Wales (in particular, the south Wales areas of Monmouthshire with the famed archers of Gwent; and Glamorgan, Crickhowell, and Abergavenny; and South West England with the Royal Forest of Dean, Kingswood Royal Forest near Bristol, and the New Forest). Though Kentish Weald and Cheshire archers were noted for their skills, it appears that the bulk of the 'yeomanry' was from the English and Welsh Marches (border regions).
The original Yeomen of the Guard (originally archers) chartered in 1485 were most likely of Brittonic descent, including Welshmen and Bretons. They were established by King Henry VII, himself a Briton who was exiled in Brittany during the Wars of the Roses. He recruited his forces mostly from Wales and the West Midlands of England on his journey to victory at Bosworth Field.
Yeomen were often constables of their parish, and sometimes chief constables of the district, shire or hundred. Many yeomen held the positions of bailiffs for the High Sheriff or for the shire or hundred. Other civic duties would include churchwarden, bridge warden, and other warden duties. It was also common for a yeoman to be an overseer for his parish. Yeomen, whether working for a lord, king, shire, knight, district or parish served in localised or municipal police forces raised by or led by the landed gentry.
Some of these roles, in particular those of constable and bailiff were carried down through families. Yeomen often filled ranging, roaming, surveying, and policing roles.
>>44503312
In the oldest stories of Robin Hood, such as A Gest of Robyn Hode, Robin Hood is a yeoman, although later retellings make him a knight. According to Sir Walter Scott's Ivanhoe, Robin Hood's Band of Merry Men is composed largely of yeomen
In falconry, the bird for the yeoman is the goshawk, a forest bird.
>>44502587
PnPRPG archetypes get their historic bent through the filter of fiction, and not directly from history. The inspiration for these archetypes came from fantastic figures like Conan of Cimmuria, King Arthur's Merlin, Aragorn son of Arathorn - not historical figures like Genseric of the Vandals, Ambrosius Aurelianus, or Oswald of Northumbria.
Tolkien's Aragorn is the inspiration for the Ranger archetype, and arguably for the Paladin archetype as well.
Years ago on /tg/ I filled out one of those image templates with spaces for each of the D&D archetypes and made a thread which enjoyed some success and garnered some heated debate. Come to think of it, I'm not sure that image didn't go to the digital graveyard on one of my old HDDs.
>>44503645
D&D's primarily based on US pulp scifi/fantasy stories though.
>>44503690
Are you agreeing, or disagreeing? Oh, I see.
What US pulp sci-fi fantasy figure do you think is a better candidate for the prototypical Ranger than Aragorn? For reference, the Ranger class made its first appearance in 1977.
>>44503823
>What US pulp sci-fi fantasy figure do you think is a better candidate for the prototypical Ranger than Aragorn?
You realize that Tolkien was not an US writer, right? And Aragon's stereotype is that of a king of medieval literature. His power of healing comes from tropes about the powers of royal blood, not from a pact he personally entered with a god.
>>44503954
>You realize that Tolkien was not an US writer, right?
Yes. That's why I asked you which US literary figure would fit better, to replace Aragon. You know, so you wouldn't be triggered by the violation of your made-up political lines across which apparently game developers cannot possibly draw inspiration.
>His power of healing comes from tropes about the powers of royal blood, not from a pact he personally entered with a god.
The powers of royal blood COME from a pact with God, in the form of the Divine Right of Kings, which states that a King derives his right to rule and the powers thereof directly from the will of God the Almighty. Powers including, you guessed it, the "Laying on of Hands".
Hell, I did say it was arguable, so I'm not sure why your leaning into it as if I said it was 100% a sure thing or something. If you really want to get into it, you can look it up. Ranger comes from Aragorn, despite Tolkien being English, and Paladin comes from Ogier the Dane by way of Poul Anderson - who is, yes, an American writer.
Like, I don't mind discussing such things, just don't be dense or an asshole about it.
>>44490295
Whatever was available. The idea of special breeds is mostly a modern thing. Training matters more.
>>44490622
Depends on exact time period. Anyone who wanted to be armed, was armed.
If you wanted to be well armed, outside of the early medieval period, you would be, it owuld just take some time.
>>44490724
It doesn't, actually.
>>44492189
>Pike warfare. What would happen if the pikes of two armies were different lengths?
Nothing special.
the swiss were known for using a very high grip that would reduce effective length, and it never harmed them.
>how effective
Very. Medieval pikes weren't that long and people could and did fence with them.
>>44494040
Hellenic troops are known to have formed square(s) at least twice. Worked as well as you'd think, too.
>>44498967
Then they star grappling, cutting, and stabbing with sidearms.
And the guys with other weapons push up to check any advance, stabilize their line, and then push into the hole left by your failed attack.
>>44499000
This is wrong. They do that stupid shit for safety reasons, nothing else. Interleaved pikes means they get dropped, and you go to sidearms and kill each other.
.
>>44504308
>the swiss were known for using a very high grip that would reduce effective length, and it never harmed them.
The swiss also were - comparatively - armoured out of the wazoo and apparently the only infantry that was capable of fast maneuvers without breaking formation.
>>44504371
Germans were better known for heavy armor than the swiss.
The swiss were actually entirely average for their day.
>>44504502
I remember that the common wisdom was that the Swiss managed to outfit a pretty high percentage of theirs with armour after they had smacked the French around a few times while the Germans basically paid people who brought their own their armour along twice the normal rate.
>>44504308
>>44490295
Well, we've been breeding horses for thousands of years, and whilst the international horse-breeding standards of
today are a recent development, general categories of weight, quality and ancestry have always distinguished draft, riding and war horses.
Rounceys and Courses are athletic horses suited for personal transport, and can be trained for battle, a Courser is also a hunting horse and is the more valuable of the two.
A heavy war horse like a Destrier is the equivalent to a Ferrari, powerful and impressive but somewhat inefficient, often having explosive strength but poorer stamina than some lighter breeds.
Draft horses like the Shire are large, strong and resilient, great for pulling loads that would ruin a pony or mule, they are more expensive than Oxen, although they are weaker they can be ridden, which makes them a more versatile choice of draft animal.
>>44491761
good job guy
>>44490622
it takes a while to make one, but they last for fucking ages as long as you don't do something stupid like bury it
>>44491420
its like running someone over with a lightweight car, except theres a stupid number of cars and they are galloping over the poor cunts that got trampled
>>44495284
the verticals are in two (or more) palette alternately so one is above and the other below and you feed the horizontals through the V that creates, then the pallets swap and you do the other direction
its the same trick as a bacon weave, just writ large and mechanised
>>44500766
they used Turnip, apple and mustard in roughly the same ways as brits use the new 3 now
>>44502587
the border reivers fit the mold, when they weren't being light cav raiders
also Robin Hood
>>44502720
depends on the country and era
the only non-regnal peer I can think of that could ignore his liege's courts and run his own was the Lord-Bishop of Durham (presumably other Prince-Bishops could as well, but i've not looked into the others)
>>44504134
Hey. I wanted to apologize for my outburst. My fault for letting RL stressors influence my online interactions.
I know it's quite late to do any apologizing, but it took me a while to get over my issues and I'd rather admit my mistake late than not at all.
Does anyone here have any accounts on what ancient and medieval skirmishes looked like, or how did they happened?
I know they did, but I've never found written texts about them and what happened in them. I'm talking about engagements between 20-30 people on each side. And I know there were a lot of them.
Did they use any specific tactics?
Any info would be appreciated
how often did people actually duel each other to the death?
>>44512017
Often enough that they had to codify a dueling ruleset so that they wouldn't just end up killing each other every time there was a duel.
>>44511044
You gotta narrow it down, bud. You want links and pdfs, or are you willing to go to a library to look up a citation given here? What languages do you read? Do you care about specific corners of the world over others?
And that just scratches the surface. Does primitive Zulu vs late 1800s English regulars count as an ancient / medieval battle, or must both sides be at said technological level? Or did you mean to use ancient and medieval as purely chronological terms, rather than as technological descriptors?
>Did they use any specific tactics?
Yeah, some definitely did.
>>44513479
Links, pdfs, I'm willing to check them out on a library of course. I read english, spanish, italian and a little bit of german.
I care mostly about ancient Europe, but anything could go. My favorite part of history is from around 500 BC to 100 AD. I know those dates are pretty arbitrary.
Zulus vs English regulars would be an interesting read, but it's not what I was looking for specifically. If you have any links, feel free to post them though.
If they used specific tactics, which ones?
>>44511044
For a Roman perspective, Caesar's Gallic Wars includes a few descriptions of skirmishes as well as descriptions of much larger campaign tactics.
>>44513935
>>44513735
There are a number of good english translations, but if you can read italian and spanish, the latin itself wouldn't be too hard (It is often used as a second semester latin text for english speakers learning the language.)
>>44513935
It also includes some discussion of Celtic skirmish and battle tactics that Caesar's armies encountered in both Gaul and Britain.
>>44513935
>>44513984
>>44514073
The problem with the Gallic Wars is that it's mostly Caesar's propaganda
>>44514283
>Mostly Caesar's propaganda
Have you read it?
The Gallic Wars is a play-by-play description of the events that happened when Caesar was in Gaul and when Caesar marched on Rome. It's generally considered to be a very good piece of historical reference.
It has a lot of information about what people of that era did when they went to war, how they lived and organized themselves, etc., but it has very little of what a modern person would consider "propaganda".
And most of the statements Caesar makes that could be considered value judgements- like the Romans being better architects and siege engineers or the Germanic Tribes being fiercer in battle than the Gauls- most of these statements are pretty provably true.
>>44504308
>Whatever was available. The idea of special breeds is mostly a modern thing. Training matters more.
Then what's the purpose of medieval and ancient writers distinguishing diferent breeds?
>Hellenic troops are known to have formed square(s) at least twice. Worked as well as you'd think, too.
When? And how well?
>>44507338
So the cavarly could just keep going without being forcibly "breaked"?
The riders of Rohan trampling lots of orcs non-stop makes sense then?
>>44501743
>Shouldn't this thread be on....
Fuck you
>>44500844
Pikes got less and less important as gundpowder weaponry improved and became the main killing weapon. The first thing to go was the supplemental weapons like the sword and buckler combo or the halberd. These were used to break the push of pikes so when people started using pikes only defensively they got rid of them. The Swedes were among the first the realize this during the 30 years wars. In that war they had a 1:1 pike/musketeer ratio and a large number of field cannons (light cannons able to be carted around by a 3 men or a horse). They pretty much shot the Imperials to death. Once the bayonet came around, the pike went away forever.
>>44517512
Yes I've read it. If you analyze it thoroughly it's propaganda.
He needed that because he had to prove that a) attacking Gaul was a good thing to do, cause he needed the gold, resources and fame that would give him. b) He needed to prove himself better than his political counterparts
The numbers in the Gallic wars are completely over inflated, saying that celtic tribes could field more than 250.000 soldiers is something out of this world. A tribe could barely support 5.000 soldiers, and probably the total number of Gauls in all the region was around 1.5 million or 2 millon (not counting the ones in Germania, Galatia or Hispania)
A lot of academics DOUBT Caesar's Gallic Wars
>>44490575
Cheaper, there were more of it, easier to work with and its the main component for making steel.
>>44519600
The largest tribes were at most several thousand people. In an emergency, 1/5 of them could fight. In an offensive war, only 1% could fight without everyone starving to death.
>>44520002
That reinforces my point even further.
Caesar talks about 250.000 soldiers trying to relief Alesia. Yeah right buddy, just like 1 million persians trying to attack the greek city states
>>44520361
Numbers in most campaign histories tend to be wildly exagerated.
Herodotus tells us that Xerxes lead over million troops into Greece, while Bishop Guy of Amiens records that Harold Godwinson commanded 1.2 million men at Hastings.
The trick is usually to try to guess whether such numbers are either a gross exageration of the actual figure (do 12k English become 1.2M?) or simply made up completely with no reference to reality.
Not being a Romanaboo I can't comment on Bello Gallico, but it's usually better to focus on the events and relationships between the key characters than get hung up on numbers that are almost always inflated.
>>44491626
That isn't true under Russian Serfdom which was brutal.
what was probably the least unpleasant substitute for tampons?
>>44490223
Hygiene and all things about it really... I know they didn't even begin to comprehend waste management but what about oral hygiene? I know African tribes used some fiber plant or something. What other alternatives were there for the civs?
Did they drink water that wasn't potable? I've heard they drank lots of low ABV beer rather than subject themselves to bad water
Grooming did they just use shears for their finger nails or did they just allow them to become worn down from work? I never really believed the whole wear and tear method to finger nails feels like a good way to suffer mechanical injury and with old rates of infection a hangnail can go south pretty fast.
what types of arms would civilians have? just farm tools like Asian cultures?
How common were STDs? I assume there was an extreme lack of porn.
What did they make the bottom of shoes out of? obviously not rubber and leather is too low in tinsel strength
>>44521099
> what about oral hygiene?
Dentistry was practiced, and there's a bit of evidence they had a form of cavity filling in the 12th century (a book references 'bone compound' for filling the hole in a tooth) in terms of cleaning they recommended forms of mouth wash ( chronic bad breath was grounds for divorce in England at least) and possibly did very basic tooth cleaning with mallowroot.
> Did they drink water that wasn't potable?
Clean water was a basic part of the medieval diet. The idea that they only drank very light beer isn't the whole truth. Milk was also another favourite non-alcoholic drink.
> Grooming did they just use shears for their finger nails or did they just allow them to become worn down from work?
As I understand it they used a knife.
> How common were STDs? I assume there was an extreme lack of porn.
Not very. STDs only became common after the New World opened up. There were some that came through the Middle East, but most date to the age of discovery.
> What did they make the bottom of shoes out of?
I'm not 100% on this but I think wood was often used. That's just a guess though.
>>44521099
>Hygiene and all things about it really... I know they didn't even begin to comprehend waste management but what about oral hygiene?
Teeths were brushed or cleaned by chewing stick into rough brushes and then using various types of ashes to clean your teeth. I'd guess that some of the polishing on the teeth was done by the grindstone sand that inevitably ended up in flour.
Nails can be cut with scissors or filed down.
I'd guess that some of the polishing on the teeth was done by the grindstone sand that inevitably ended up in flour.
The rate of debilitating STDs in Europe was apparently pretty low before the colonization of the Americas started and eastwards international trade picked up again.
>What did they make the bottom of shoes out of?
Thick leather, sometimes reinforced with nails. Metal heels apparently only entered the Euro fashion vocabulatory during the 16th-17th century. Wooden overshoes were worn with various types of leather shoes as well.
>what types of arms would civilians have? just farm tools like Asian cultures?
Anon, pretty much all premodern cultures had some level of mandatory military service and no formalized police force. That includes Asia. Pretty much all tiers of the population were either armed to some degree or had access to common stocks of weapons they'd rely on in case of emergencies with disarment being a peacekeeping policy you probably only know about from medieval and early modern Japan.
>>44502587
My understanding is that it was a winter skill farm hands picked up for hunting.
All the skills in modern bow hunting line up with medieval methods. Despite the fact that people still believe you knock and draw a bow before you aim... in reality they aimed with their shoulders and stance. To knock and arrow draw the bow and release was ONE fluid motion you aim before.
Imagine you've got an bow your grandfather made with just sinew willow and leather? if you draw that for an extended period of time it'll simply warp. Not to mention the physics on how an arrow travels being counter-intuitive to most sport archers way of thinking.
In war they'd be tasked with boring jobs just like real life modern war.
Think minutemen line up. They all volly on command and if they're good they'll land MAYBE 1 arrow per 20 vollies... Archery was not an effective war strategy; it's simply an adaptation of a farm hands skill set.
In modern war the US military uses around 250,000 rounds of ammunition per enemy target down. This is the cost of raising an army as sun tzu once said. "Such is the cost of war"
or "One cart load of our enemies provisions is equal to a dozen of our own, thus your men must be able to scavenge upon the enemy"
I could go on and on believe me. You should listen to the audiobook of "The Art of War" on youtube it's only like 1 - 2 hours
Of course the element of real war people often don't understand is soldiers receive orders to fire in locations where the enemy COULD be just on the chance that they are there. This is because it only takes 1 bullet to kill you but 1 man down in a platoon and morale is gone the group becomes highly inefficient.
Arma 2 was actually developed as a simulation for the military from what I understand if you played it you'll understand what I mean when I say you'll consider yourself lucky to even spot the enemy in a game. LET ALONE KILL THEM BEFORE THEY KILL YOU. You're more likely to kill the enemy on accident.
>>44521327
>pretty much all premodern cultures had some level of mandatory military service and no formalized police force. That includes Asia. Pretty much all tiers of the population were either armed to some degree or had access to common stocks of weapons they'd rely on in case of emergencie
I'm not really thinking every last farmer had a sword or a smithed polearm either. Iron's pricey and who the hell is going to use theirs for a sword when you could have a pitch fork so you don't have to clean up cow shit with your hands? Or a scythe so you can harvest your wheat easily?
>>44521382
>played arma once
>now an expert in gorilla warfare
>>44521465
Actually it's second hand account. I much preferred call of duty ;)
On a more serious topic I get this information from accounts of the Bosnian war in the 1990s
>>44521394
Yeah asked the question in terms of availability. I highly doubt an type of unorganized militia or government could manage disarmament let alone a modern police force.
>>44521394
Look, there is no way to give a more detailed answer than: "Freedmen in most of Europe were required to own certain weapons by law" without giving specific regional examples from specific periods, but you generally weren't allowed to participate in local politics if you could not demonstrate that you owned the tools to defend the village or arrest criminals.
>>44521394
Peasant elvies are a persistent myth that owe more to the ideal of national service and conscription in the the 19th and 20th centuries than anything medieval.
Men of PROPERTY were often required to bear arms according to their wealth bracket. However there is a huge difference between the landowning classes owing armed service or cash to hire mercenaries than every peasant tenant labourer showing with a pitchfork and cooking pot helmet.
Medieval armies tened to be atleast semi-professional, and drawn from a class that defined itself by military service. Even town militia were drawn from the merchant elite, and being merchants and bankers they were very well-equipped. Conscripted armies in the modern period might draw most of the manpower from the lower class, but in the medieval period even the "common" footsoldier is likely in the top 50% of society.
>>44490622
That's about like asking how common cars are and how much they cost. You have $10,000,000 supercars and you have Geo Metros and Ford Pentos with about the same level of price difference, and that's before you get into some of the REALLY nice ones that kings and emperors would gift one another.
Some were dirt cheap, as in a week or so's salary for a middle-class worker cheap, and they just kinda ranged upwards from there.
>>44521658
>generalizing about "peasants" in the middle age
Universal service was not a thing, but there were plenty of regions where peasants were in fact called up for military service, given that they were free or owned such service. There are also plenty of peasants who hired up for merchenary service, which would usually at least include being present at a siege.
And town militas were drawn from all inhabitants that had a household of their own and citizenship within the polity. People would risk their citizenship if they did not own or could not afford the arms required for service.
>>44521658
I'm pretty sure in a real war the nobility would call up every available man to serve, including the dirt poor farmers with their pitch forks. Think about it, your army has 250 mercernaries, along with your house guard and all the brothers in law you can muster. I only have 100 trained soldiers but I bring all my peasents to the battle and I've got nearly a thousand of them. I can use my plebs to flank you, or send them in first then have my soldiers strike from behind while you're busy, or just plain tired from slaughtering peasents.
>>44521813
Or I can just wait while your men starve cause you have to feed all your men while I can outmove you with my smaller yet more capable army (as I can feed them, while you have serious problems to do so).
And once your ranks are weakened I just attack.
>>44521752
I absolutely agree that generalising is fraught with difficulties over such a wide expanse of time and space as the european middle ages.
As you say free men or citizens of a town often owed service and were required to own arms. My point is rather that the "peasants" (i.e non-nobles) who possessed the suffcient land and property to be counted in the Assizes are not the same people as the bound labourers most people think of when you say peasant.
Merely being "free" and not tied by villienage/serfdom or the local equivilent places these people in the top half of society.
The real social divide (atleast for Britain and France), especially in legal terms is not between "peasant and noble" but free (landowning) and unfree (bound to the land).
>>44521813
Pretty much every peasant revolt (honourable exception to the Hussites) says otherwise when a trained army meets a plucky mob of peasants.
Not to mention that medieval armies only fielded a fraction of those who owed service. For example during the Barons Wars in England (Magna Carta and All That) the Earl of Devon brought 20 knights when he owed 89, Richard of St.John brough 5 out of 55.
When barons only bring a fraction of the knights what is the chance of fielding a mass of peasants? Not to mention that farmers with pitchforks are convieniently absent from the historical record so maybe they were onto something.
>>44521327
> then using various types of ashes to clean your teeth.
Roast rosemary was very popular.
roast it, powder it.
tasty too.
>>44490307
Rendering fat into lard/oil isn't too hard, but improvements in the process are a big deal.
In northern Europe, whaling was almost 100% about getting the oil, meat was a secondary benefit.
What's the pecking order when it comes to european nobility, like say in France during the 1200s?
I know an emperor can one up a king in certain context, but what about those lower in station? Like counts and dukes?
>>44521183
>STDs only became common after the New World opened up
For what definition of common, and with what justification was this definition chosen over others?
What about the question about porn?
>What did the make the bottom of shoes out of?
>wood
Which "they" are you referring to? In which time period? Non-asians? Isn't that a bit vague?
>>44521382
>Think minutemen line up. They all volly on command and if they're good they'll land MAYBE 1 arrow per 20 vollies...
This honestly depends on how useless their direct commander is, doesn't it?
>>44524512
>Counts rule counties
>Dukes rule duchies composed of many counties.
>Kings rule kingdoms made up of many duchies.
>Emperor is pretty much a title for either 'really powerful king' or 'king of specific place'
Seems pretty simple, but then there are cities, personal relationships between individual rulers/regions, independant counties/ duchies that owe allegiance to no-one, lands owned by the bihsop/church, and all sorts of other legal weirdness. Plus there are different names for different places depending on your language.
>>44524512
in terms of seating order and broad terms of rank:
Emperor
King-Emperor
King
Archduke
Grand Duke
Grand Prince
Prince / Infante
Duke
Sovereign Prince / Fürst
Marquess / Marquis / Margrave / Landgrave
Count / Earl
Viscount
Baron
Baronet / Hereditary Knight
Knight
Esquire
Gentleman
>>44522088
>Merely being "free" and not tied by villienage/serfdom or the local equivilent places these people in the top half of society.
That´s partially true. Social class and economic class were largely unconnected for most of human history. You could be a free knight who toiled his own land the same way you could be a poor brahmin who worked as a merchenary for the British for over half of the year. Bringing class and economic standing in line actually takes a lot of collective political will, which simply was not present most of the our history. What generally was true though was that being free or otherwise being of a a higher class meant that you enjoyed freedom from certain punishments, taxes and laws and generally had access to higher tiers of courts.
The Middle Ages was centuries before the rise of nationalism, but how did the people of the era feel about their king and switching from one side to the other? For example, what would happen if some minor German fief was suddenly conquered by France? Would they revolt? Simply shrug and continue working for their new liege? Start learning how to speak French?
In other words, to what degree were normal people (non-combatants) loyal to their monarch (if they had one) and country?
>>44526763
>The Middle Ages was centuries before the rise of nationalism, but how did the people of the era feel about their king and switching from one side to the other? For example, what would happen if some minor German fief was suddenly conquered by France? Would they revolt? Simply shrug and continue working for their new liege? Start learning how to speak French?
The English literally made it a strategy in their long war to walk all over France and force communities to transfer their loyalty from the French to the British king by making them swear fealty in return for a guarantee of their established rights.
Which is apparently how things worked on the ground level across most of Europe - local rights were not touched upon by kings very much in many cases, they just acted as the patrons of regional law in return for fealty.
>>44527053
In other words, it was possible for literally nothing to change in a conquered territory except who they pay taxes to? I guess that meant most people were entirely indifferent to the wars of kings and emperors.
>>44527156
Yes. But no, as wars usually meant murder and plunder of homes and commons and did not leave the civilian population untouched.
There also were plenty of places where people were happy enough with their local lords to rise in their defence or had lived under a specific king long enough that changing their feality to a new one was to them a transgression against established law forced upon them by armed foreigners.
>>44517583
>when
Magnesia, for one.
The Romans were totally unable to break it, and resorted to shooting the elephants who were in the squares.
They snapped and broke the squares and the men got slaughtered.
The silver sheilds formed square at gabiene when shit went south and marched off the field depsite being harassed by cavalry.
>Then what's the purpose of medieval and ancient writers distinguishing different breeds?
They usually don't. "destrier" and "rouncey' are types, not breeds.
>>44517583
>The riders of Rohan trampling lots of orcs non-stop makes sense then?
No.
Horses aren't cars, that anon is a retard. They'd lose momentum and stop, this is why cavalry attacked knee to knee. To keep foot soldiers from surrounding them once they bogged down.
>>44521099
>what types of arms would civilians have?
Whatever you can afford. "civilian" isn't a thing in most societies.
>>44521394.
>Iron's pricey and who the hell is going to use theirs for a sword
Everyone who possibly can.
>>44521813
>i'm pretty sure
And every source form the period, and anyone who understands war or economics will disagree. Strongly.
>>44528564
>this is why cavalry attacked knee to knee. To keep foot soldiers from surrounding them once they bogged down.
Not him, but doesn't this make heavy cavalry pretty useless after the initial charge? There's the shock of the wave, they're bogged down after losing momentum and then they have to fight. Even if they remain in a perfect line and aren't surrounded, you still have a lot less maneuverability than enemy footmen, and on top of that you're sitting on a gigantic target that is most likely a lot less heavily armored than you are. If it dies, you topple over and are at best incapacitated, at worst crushed under its weight. On top of that, even if enemy spearmen don't resist the charge, after you've come to a standstill they have a huge reach advantage.
In the light of the above, why was heavy cavalry considered the king of the battlefield until the introduction of pike and shot? I must be overlooking something major, because as far as I see they should've become obsolete a lot earlier, or at the very least be demoted to a flanking force rather than the king of the battlefield.
when did complex hilts become common? I've read that they "appeared during the 16th century (oldest find is 1545) and were popularized during the 17th century" but that is not very specific...
Wheellock firearms and basket hilted weapons would look great together but it kind of sounds like by the time basket hilts were common the wheellock was already obsoleted by 50-100 years
>>44529478
The short answer is because cavalry is fucking terrifying. The long answer I am too lazy to cite.
>>44490223
The only docu I've seen on ancient mining suggested the entire village worked all day to get what looked like a fistful of iron, they sent most of this to the lord and kept a little to make tools.
That doesn't seem plausible to me.
>>44529478
If several motherfuckers on horses rush at you that makes an impression. Which was enough to send many infantrymen running, or at least try to evade and thus breaking formation.
Anyway the infantry is most likely toast then.
>>44529478
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMuNXWFPewg
Because the men on them are very effective.
>>44530479
Have you seen how much stone has to be mined to produce any quantities of iron? Just have a look at any modern mining operation and you'll see. It's not easy to get metal from the ground.
>>44528564
Thank you very much for the info about Magnesia. I thought that tactic was only invented centuries later.
>They usually don't. "destrier" and "rouncey' are types, not breeds.
I wasn't refering to those. When it's mentioned that "thessalian horses" or "iberian horses" are valued because of this and that, wouldn't that constitute a breed?
>No. Horses aren't cars, that anon is a retard.
Thank god, it was weird considering that cars are suposed to have many units of horse-power. And it would have screwed up something I wrote once.
>>44490223
If only there were a board for this sort of thing.
>>44529578
Wheellocks were still being produced all the way up through the 16th century. It wasn't replaced all at once. This one is 1580.
>>44534419
SOem breeds were valued, but for the most part, it was about type and training, not breed.
>>44534444
/hist/ knows shit about shit. This is a worldbuilding thread and belongs on /tg/ just like how Arms and Armor threads belong here.
>>44529478
Heavy cavalry do not "stand and fight." They charge, and the shock of the charge either breaks the receiving body of footmen, or the infantry hold, and the horsemen then disengage.
When cavalry would engage other cavalry, it would be a running battle.
Not every charge had to be knee-to-knee.
How do I make a ship that can travel up-river?
>without rowing
>without steam
>without magic
>>44537702
You hope for favorable winds and a very straight river.
>>44490622
Think about guns today - you can get a cheapo Makarov for 150$ (maybe more nowadays, ask /k/). But in general most people don't own guns - they don't see or feel the need for one, and there are political or legal obstacles that need to be overcome in order to own one.
>>44502587
Robin Hood (the pop culture version with green tights) and Aragorn, mostly.
>>44537702
The standard solution used since times immemorial was having animals or people ashore pull the boat.
>>44534419
Horsepower is just a name, otherwise a 10HP lawnmower would be stronger than a horse, which is bullshit.
>>44509264
Am I still on 4chan?
>>44539919
Yeah.
>>44520784
Proper serfdom of the sort that developed in eastern Germany, Poland, Hungary and Russia really was considerably more widespread and restrictive than the western stuff. On the other hand much of it took shape very late in the Middle Ages and was very different from time to time. Kievan Rus Classic didn't have it to my knwoledge and was if anything better off than much of Western Europe in many ways.
I'd also add that a lot depended on your masters. There were quite a few whose serfs, while not legally free, still had a lot of de facto freedom and basically benefitted from a sort of feudal welfare state (free education, pensions, even healthcare - well, premodern healthcare, but that was the most anyone could hope for) and were better off than many "free" people in Russia and Europe. There were also some who got rich and were allowed to buy themselves out, or sometimes didn't bother to. But admittedly most of the examples I am thinking of are from the 18th century, which is when serfdom really solidifed over here. And it should be considered in the context of the serfs of poorer and middling nobles throughout the chernozem region which was generally soul-crushing drudgery to be sure.
>>44521099
>I assume there was an extreme lack of porn.
An odd assumption. Granted with many ancient cultures what we'd call pornography was in equal parts sacred art.
>>44519600
One should always be critical of such accounts, naturally, doesn't mean it isn't a useful account if read critically and keeping stuff like numbers inflation in mind.
>>44534578
good to know, but it still would mean that most wheellocks would be rather old by that point with flintlocks starting to become common, with matchlocks long gone
that works well enough I guess
>>44502587
Maybe falconers? Falconers were supposed to be big dick OG hunters/entertainers and they had plenty of connections to royalty so there are plenty of written falconry sources out there that somebody decided to use as inspiration.
>>44540071
>with matchlocks long gone
Flintlocks, matchlocks and wheellocks all co-existed in the 17th century.
The English Civil War is a great example of all of these designs being used in their own niche.
Matchlock muskets were the primary weapon of musketeers. Mostly because the mechanism was simple and cheap. This made them perfect for equipping large numbers of infantry gunners.
Wheellocks are better in that they don't require faffing about with matches, but the mechanism is expensive and tempramental. They are far more suitible to use on horseback and most pistols were wheellocks as were a good portion of carbines. Being more expensive is a bit less of an issue when mostly used by Officers and cavalry although later in the war the Royalists did struggle to equip all their dragoons with wheellock carbines.
Flintlocks were the new and shiny mechanism that combined the convinience of wheelocks while being more reliable. During the ECW flintlocks were used on pistols, carbines (notice a pattern here?) and muskets for Artillerist guards as they were safer to use near gunpowder stores than matchlocks.
It really is not a linear progression of matchlock<wheellock<flintlock.
Wheellocks would never be standard issue for the infantry whose muskets jumped straight to flintlocks from matchlocks towards the end of the 17th century.
Meanwhile matchlocks were almost never used on pistols and rarely on carbines as they are a pig to use on horseback.
They are quite a lot of resources on the ECW that detail the equipment used, and it is a good conflict to study as it was a period of transition with all three major lock types in use.
>>44539798
You mean those things one sees on american movies have 10HP?
>>44490223
I was actually quite recently asking myself this when it came to these threads: Why the fuck does every pike wanker go about how effective their weapons were against cavalry. My question isn't how effective those wobbly long pointy sticks are but how the fuck did any army that didn't have all jihadis in them ever convince anyone to charge directly into a god damn spear wall? What the fuck did they tell them "Oh yeah hey really expensive and costly military unit, why don't you go and suicide right into that there spearwall so that, as a sort of human cannonball you'll maybe, just maybe cause a short and easily fixable denture in their formation."
Like yeah no fuck that you could use them for superior flanking tactics and actually being a sort of incredibly mobile pike formation but you are wasting so much money on throwing away them. Armor was expensive and even worse were horses at least in western europe. It's not like an RTS, you can't just go "Hey you, go die for me" and he'll ask if you want him to sing the national anthem or the kings name when he does.
pinterest is bretty good, eh.
Found that they recently excavated brigandine bracers in Tartu. It's always fun whenever they find another piece of armour of a type that's reasonably popular in art but rare to nonexistant as physical examples.
>>44540921
Are you retarded? They were good because cavalry couldn't fight against them. So, yes, cavalry would not go near pike formations in most situations. But that's the entire fucking point because they're there to guard the riflemen and archers.
>>44526763
They didn't really give a shit. You said it yourself, nations didn't exist and neither did nationalism. Peasants were more attached to their village than to their kingdom. Also, remember that for most of the Middle Ages monarchs were rather weak, more often than not as powerful as their vassals (primus inter pares).
Fuuuuuuck, shame I missed this thread and only arrive this late, oh well.
>>44540921
Muh honor, and it worked from time to time. Horses are replaceable and cost money, losing a war costs more.
>>44542028
In most situations? Did you do read every primary source between Ancient Macedon and the Renaissance to construct some sort of statistical analysis?
>>44542263
maybe he does anon, you don't know his life
>>44542285
Or maybe he studied the subject in college, and had to read critical analysis from people that did read all of that stuff.
>>44542306
or he is just shitposting. We will never know
>>44542313
Could be. It just grinds my gears whenever internet people assume that nobody knows a thing because they themselves don't know it.
>>44542447
let's be honest for a moment, most people here won't know shit so it's a reasonable expectation.
