Ancient and Medieval Technology - Question Thread

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Cheapness, really. Sure, the maintenance was more expensive than that of a brick house, but building with brick and stone was EXPENSIVE! More expensive than all by nobility, church, and especially rich cities could afford.

[Spiryt]

Mind, the current theory was also that they replaced their homes once every ten years.

Well, don't know about replacing whole home, but replacing straw roof is relatively easy - so it could be replaced quite often comfortably, as long as there was decent period of dry weather.

[Aux-Ash]

Well, don't know about replacing whole home, but replacing straw roof is relatively easy - so it could be replaced quite often comfortably, as long as there was decent period of dry weather.

When I visted the viking city this summer that's what they said. That they actually burned down the entire house with a controlled fire every so often. They guessed 10 years.
They had found lots of blackened earth at Birka, but very little in the earth suggested that very old rotten wood had burnt. So the current theory they had was that they literally burned down and rebuilt the home every so often.

I'll admit being a bit sceptical myself, but it is also just a theory. There's not much proof yet.

[fusilier]

When I visted the viking city this summer that's what they said. That they actually burned down the entire house with a controlled fire every so often. They guessed 10 years.
They had found lots of blackened earth at Birka, but very little in the earth suggested that very old rotten wood had burnt. So the current theory they had was that they literally burned down and rebuilt the home every so often.

I'll admit being a bit sceptical myself, but it is also just a theory. There's not much proof yet.

Accidental fires were very common! Especially when the structure lacked a chimney. Many medieval homes just had a fire in the center, and a hole in the roof to allow the smoke to escape. A dry thatched roof could catch fire from a stray ember.

Would have to hear more about the theory of controlled fires of course, but perhaps they had a glut of unintentional fires!

[flumphy]

Wood rots eventually, and warps, and gets termites. Building with stone or brick is expensive and more labor intensive in the short term, which matters if you're an isolated family that has to keep farming to sustain yourselves. I don't know about the Vikings, but I know early American colonists typically only expected their houses to last 10 years or so.

Besides, in 10 years time, there's a good chance you were wanting to move anyway. You probably would have cleared more land by that time (to keep from exhausting the soil, among other things), and you could put the new home in a more convenient location. And if your family had grown, you might need more space.

Although, again, I'm not sure how much of that reasoning applied to the Vikings. I'm not sure if they had more space and raw materials than time or money.

[Knaight]

I'll admit being a bit sceptical myself, but it is also just a theory hypothesis. There's not much proof yet.
This isn't a theory yet, by any reasonable definition of the word.

[The Reverend]

Life expectancy of a thatch roof is based on location. On top of a hill with plenty of sun and wind a thatch roof dries quickly and will last a century or more. Put in a valley no sun little wind and the best you can hope for is 20 years. Learned that at a national park in Ireland

[Archpaladin Zousha]

This question isn't really "technology" but it makes more sense to post it here than in the weapons and armor thread, since it's about musical instruments.

I'm thinking of playing a bard or a musically-inclined rogue in an upcoming Pathfinder game, but it seems like the one instrument people think REAL bards would play is the lute and and its cousins like the mandolin and balalaika, maybe even the guitar.

My question is, how bad of an anachronism would it be to play a bard whose instrument of choice is the banjo? My understanding is that while the banjo has found a place in Irish music, it was imported from the United States, which in turn imported the instrument from Africa via the slave trade, which took place WAY after Medieval times.

[flumphy]

This question isn't really "technology" but it makes more sense to post it here than in the weapons and armor thread, since it's about musical instruments.

I'm thinking of playing a bard or a musically-inclined rogue in an upcoming Pathfinder game, but it seems like the one instrument people think REAL bards would play is the lute and and its cousins like the mandolin and balalaika, maybe even the guitar.

My question is, how bad of an anachronism would it be to play a bard whose instrument of choice is the banjo? My understanding is that while the banjo has found a place in Irish music, it was imported from the United States, which in turn imported the instrument from Africa via the slave trade, which took place WAY after Medieval times.

It depends on what you mean by "banjo." If you mean a modern banjo, complete with their distinct sound, then I really don't think they would have had the metalworking techniques to pull it off it medieval times. Whether they could have or not, the first modern banjos were created in the US in the early 19th century.

There were earlier predecessors of the banjo that originated in Africa using gourds, animal skins, wooden necks and gut strings. These wouldn't have sounded like what we know as the banjo, however.

All that aside, presumably you are playing in Golarion or some other D&D-esque setting, not medieval earth. You already have firearms and lots of other anachronisms. You have magic! In a setting like that, I think a banjo wouldn't even raise an eyebrow.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

We are indeed playing on Golarion, specifically in Brevoy and the River Kingdoms (It's Kingmaker). I just thought it would sound out of place as, judging by the naming conventions of Brevic nobility, the culture in the area is based off Medieval Russia.

[Conners]

You know how in books and movies, they have the medieval cities? One thing that seems common with those movies, is there is the terrible, dirty, depraved district that the oppressed lower classes live in. Then, a little further on, there is the wealthy district, where it is all clean and pretty, but the people there are usually made out to be jerks.

How true is that? Was it common for the wealthy and the poor to be separated into districts?

[Rockphed]

We are indeed playing on Golarion, specifically in Brevoy and the River Kingdoms (It's Kingmaker). I just thought it would sound out of place as, judging by the naming conventions of Brevic nobility, the culture in the area is based off Medieval Russia.

That sounds like a perfect opportunity to pull out a balalaika.

[Eldan]

You know how in books and movies, they have the medieval cities? One thing that seems common with those movies, is there is the terrible, dirty, depraved district that the oppressed lower classes live in. Then, a little further on, there is the wealthy district, where it is all clean and pretty, but the people there are usually made out to be jerks.

How true is that? Was it common for the wealthy and the poor to be separated into districts?

I'm not sure about the poor and the rich, but I know a few things going into that direction from cities around here:

Inside the walls and outside the walls: I know quite a few old towns around here who still have more or less intact town walls. These walls are often quite tiny and adapted to geographical features like hills. So, the houses inside are really cramped. As towns grew, they built new districts outside the gates, where houses could be larger, but weren't protected from attacks.

Guild streets: in larger cities you find these. Basically, craftsmen were licensed by the guild. Powerful guilds have huge guild houses, but there are also streets set aside for certain professions. I know Butcher's Alley, or Carpenter Street, and so on. Judging by the fact that licensed craftsmen and master craftsmen could probably expect a pretty fine income, and how big the houses in those alleys are, I'd say they were pretty rich.

[Conners]

You mean in some places, all the butchers would live on one street? Doesn't that lead to problems, in competing?

[Yora]

That's what I also always wondered. In my home city, we have an old and very well preserved Old Town (Lübeck, for that matter), and most of the streets in the craftsmen quarter have profession names.
"Smithy street", "Baker street", "Cooper street", "Fishermen street", "Butcher street" (which in fact is named "meat cleaver street" :smallbiggrin:) "Weaver street", "Tarpmaker street", "Horse Market".
Interestingly, "Tanner street" is quite in the middle of town and I don't have any idea how "Dog street" got its name.

When a friend showed phots from his travels through Pakistan, he also told, that there are many places with streets in which all shops sell the same things.

[Eldan]

You mean in some places, all the butchers would live on one street? Doesn't that lead to problems, in competing?

Not necessarily, actually. You have to keep in mind that these were guild streets. And part of the guild's duties was assigning licenses and specializations to people.

"This town needs three butchers. Hans, you are the pig and cow butcher. Fredrick, you are the Fish butcher, Jacob, you can have chickens and water fowl." or "Martin, you can do beams, walls and roofs, Georg, you can do expensive furniture and carvings, Joseph, you can do simple furniture and wooden tools."

Preserving monopolies, basically.

There could be, in most towns, other craftsmen in town, but they wouldn't have a quality license from the guild, they wouldn't be in the right street, and they'd be continually harassed by rich guild members.

[Aux-Ash]

I'll echo Yora and Eldan here. Old town here in Stockholm has also streets named after the profession that worked there. Butchers street, fisherman's lane, lawyers street, tollcollectors street.
I also saw the same phenomena in Edinburgh and Hanoi too. In fact, in hanoi they still had a semblance of that old idea. There were entire streets or even entire blocks dedicated to just selling shoes, hardware stores, toys and what not. Quite amazing really.

But as Eldan said, one important thing about the guilds is that they do not compete. They maintain an acceptable level of standard and a monopoly on that trade. And if one got into financial trouble or couldn't work due to being sick... the guild stepped in and helped them.

Once a young artisan was considered fully trained and there was no room for a master and a new workshop in town then they were sent to wander until they found a town that needed them. Journeymen.

[Yora]

Does anyone know about any existing ruins or reconstructions of pre-roman fortifications or castles in europe?

There are lots of reconstructions of farm houses, but for larger structurs usually all that remaines are small dents in the ground on which the original walls or palisades had been build.
But does anyone know how these places looked like?

[Spiryt]

Does anyone know about any existing ruins or reconstructions of pre-roman fortifications or castles in europe?

There are lots of reconstructions of farm houses, but for larger structurs usually all that remaines are small dents in the ground on which the original walls or palisades had been build.
But does anyone know how these places looked like?

There's a lot of stuff like that.

I don't know about any remains that really stick "above the ground" but from what's left people make plenty of reconstructions.

http://www.karpackatroja.pl/home.html

Oldest fortifications are from about 2000 BC here AFAIR.

[bebosteveo]

Conceptual speculation: Well, forts were generally important and expensive things, so they were either captured and converted by the invaders or completely destroyed. Also, (and I hope this doesn't start another derail) there wasn't as much urbanization and fort-building in the pre-roman era as compared to during/after. So, finding standing structures from 1500BC or earlier is pretty rare.

Facts-ish: That said, I think I remember something about a group of people that built a bunch of random stone towers across Iberia long before the Romans came. I think either the towers or people or something were called "motillas" or something like that. (Its been 4 years since my ancient Iberian course, cut me some slack here) If you look up archeology studies of Taressos or El Argar you might be able to find something. Even if you can't read spanish here's a site that has a bunch of pictures I stumbled across: http://www.culturandalucia.com/ALMER%C3%8DA/Los_Millares_Recorrido_fotogr%C3%A1fico.htm

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Out of interest, does anyone have any academically acceptable sources on the extraction of iron from "lake ore", specifically in Finland and, ideally, Russia?

[Yora]

Found this paragraph, but without any sources mentioned.


LAKE ORE

In Finland, the rustic manner of producing iron was based on the use of lake and bog ores. The lakes in Eastern Finland were very rich in ore. The ore was 2-5 metres deep in the lake, from where it was lifted by nets in summer and from the top of the ice in winter.

Lake ore is produced when iron hydroxide in the ground water drains through the gravel course and coagulates around a granulate of stone or the like. Lake ore is called pea ore, money ore or rusk ore according to its appearance. Its iron content is 20-50%.

At its best,15 000 tons of lake ore were lifted at Möhkö ironworks in the late 1800. They were used to produce iron in the blast furnace. Koitere lake was one the richest in ore. For rustic iron lake ore was lifted in small amounts as needed.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Found this paragraph, but without any sources mentioned.

Yeah, I found the same thing, and tried sending an email to their contact email, but their contact email doesn't exist anymore, and I don't wanna try phoning them.

[B!shop]

Does anyone know about any existing ruins or reconstructions of pre-roman fortifications or castles in europe?

There are lots of reconstructions of farm houses, but for larger structurs usually all that remaines are small dents in the ground on which the original walls or palisades had been build.
But does anyone know how these places looked like?

This place could be the one you are looking for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biskupin

[Eldan]

Depends on how old you want. Some of the oldest I'm aware of are in Malta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalithic_Temples_of_Malta). They are called temples, but I saw them live, actually. Rather massive ring walls, so I'd bet they make good fortifications too.

[Yora]

The word "clan" has been used for all kinds of social groups. But at what numbers of people are we roughly looking when speaking of a clan? Is it a few dozens or up to several hundred thousands.
Seems like the internet does not have any info on that in the english language. You failed me, internet!

[Thomo]

A Clan, by definition, is a group of families that can claim a common ancestor or lineage. As such, there really isn't a numerical definition or requisite that needs to be met before they can be called a clan.

From Dictionary.com:

clan   /klæn/ Show Spelled[klan] Show IPA
noun
1. a group of families or households, as among the Scottish Highlanders, the heads of which claim descent from a common ancestor: the Mackenzie clan.
2. a group of people of common descent; family: Our whole clan got together for Thanksgiving.
3. a group of people, as a clique, set, society, or party, especially as united by some common trait, characteristic, or interest: a clan of actors and directors.
4. Anthropology .
a. the principal social unit of tribal organization, in which descent is reckoned exclusively in either the paternal or the maternal line.
b. a group of people regarded as being descended from a common ancestor.

[Rockphed]

So it depends entirely on when and where people are talking about. A clan is pretty synonymous to a tribe, which, judging by what I know about American natives, pretty much ranged up to several hundred thousand if not millions. On the other end of the scale, you might term my siblings, our parents, our spouses, and our children a clan, which is about 15 adults and 10 children.

[fusilier]

So it depends entirely on when and where people are talking about. A clan is pretty synonymous to a tribe, which, judging by what I know about American natives, pretty much ranged up to several hundred thousand if not millions. On the other end of the scale, you might term my siblings, our parents, our spouses, and our children a clan, which is about 15 adults and 10 children.

When dealing with Native American societies, I would say that a tribe contains several or many clans. For example, the Navajo tribe is made up of many clans. However "clan" and "tribe" might be used interchangeably, and sometimes the word "band" is thrown into the mix too! Finally, one might even say that the Navajo "Nation" is made up of several "tribes" (or "clans"). Although I don't think it would ever be acceptable to use the phrase "Navajo Clan" when referring to the entire nation. So understanding the context is imperative, as the terms can have relatively broad meanings, with some people having preferred words to use in certain circumstances, due to geographical, ideological, or simply historical conventions.

Yora, to answer your question, you have to figure out what is meant by clan by the context. Or ask somebody to help clarify for a specific example.

[Yora]

I know that the term tribe has generally fallen out of use in scientific contests, as it really describes anything and nothing at all. In most cases it seems to imply a concept similar to an ethnic group, but there's lots of problems with that as well.
(For example, wikipedia lists Germans and Austrians as ethnic groups even though the concept of Germany and Austria as the two seperate countries they are today is less than 150 years old and you'll find lots of people who will tell you that Germany is a multi-ethnic country of dozens of distinct germanic people.)

But for the context of Clan, let's assume the scottish or japanese clans, as those seem to be the most thrown around in fiction and lasted as concepts with actual importants to society until relatively recently.

[Eldan]

I'd assume a clan would just grow over time. My "clan", so to speak, consists of about 40 relatives I know. The longer you continue to write down your family line with all relatives, the bigger your clan gets.

We got visited by a very distant cousin of my father once, who brought us an about room-sized family tree on paper he had made. There were thousands of people on there.

[B!shop]

But for the context of Clan, let's assume the scottish or japanese clans, as those seem to be the most thrown around in fiction and lasted as concepts with actual importants to society until relatively recently.

In this case you can number a clan around 100 members, most of them with a common ancestor or tied to the main family by marriage, loyalty or interest (for the latter you can think of the as roman clientes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage_in_ancient_Rome)).

There will be smaller clans (perhaps less famous ancestors) or bigger clans, but usually all the clans belong to a chiefdom, a nation or a major etnic group.

[Yora]

Then what about "servants" in the most open definition of the term? For such small groups to be important power groups in an entire country, they would need lots of farmers and soldiers and other people in their employment as well. What you describe sounds like an extended noble family.


@Eldan: But under that assumption it is very likely that a cousin or a nice has an entirely different group of people they regard as their extended family.

My aunts husband? Yes, he's part of my extended family. His brothers and their children? No, I only saw them twice and don't even know their names. But they are certainly part of my cousins family.
I think "classic" concepts of clans could have been quite clearly defined and did not depend on the individual person, except for the leader probably.

Speaking of that, what about the arab and central asian ethnicities that seem to have their own internal structures outside but also next to the government structure of the state. How big do those get on average?

[Eldan]

I think that part of the clan assumption would also be much more close social contacts between clan members than between extended family members today, of course.

[B!shop]

@Eldan: But under that assumption it is very likely that a cousin or a nice has an entirely different group of people they regard as their extended family.

It depends if the clan is patriarchal or matriarchal.

The idea of clan born in the past, when traveling was difficult and families tended to live all in the same place.

In a patriarcal society for example your aunt belong to her husband's clan after marriage, and so your cousins.
But your uncle's wife (and her sons) belong to you clan when she marry him.

[Aux-Ash]

Then what about "servants" in the most open definition of the term? For such small groups to be important power groups in an entire country, they would need lots of farmers and soldiers and other people in their employment as well. What you describe sounds like an extended noble family.

I don't know if it's very common in other cultures, but in the swedish "Ätt", which was comparable to clans, servants and retainers that live as part of your household were essentially considered part of the family. Some considered to be closer family than young children (if not related by blood).

These groupings thus included servants, knights, advisors and even thralls (when they were still around), freed or still in service.

[Eldan]

Around here, you even find old farm houses (three to five hundred years old) that are four or five stories tall and have between ten and thirty (tiny) bedrooms. That would include one family (up to four generations of it), all their servants, and the servant's families.

[Rockphed]

Around here, you even find old farm houses (three to five hundred years old) that are four or five stories tall and have between ten and thirty (tiny) bedrooms. That would include one family (up to four generations of it), all their servants, and the servant's families.

When you say "farm house" what sort of farm are we talking about? I don't know Swiss(?) history, but that doesn't sound like the dwelling of subsistence farmers.

[Yora]

Probably something like this (http://fotowettbewerb.hispeed.ch/original/218577/pramiertes__typisches_berner_bauernhaus_im_emmenta l/bauernhaus_bern_emmental.jpg).

[Eldan]

Probably something like this (http://fotowettbewerb.hispeed.ch/original/218577/pramiertes__typisches_berner_bauernhaus_im_emmenta l/bauernhaus_bern_emmental.jpg).

Pretty much, yes. And that's not even a very big example.

These people weren't exactly rich, Switzerland was for a long time one of the poorest countries in Europe (hence the need to work as mercenaries), but it was just traditional that the entire extended family would live in one house. These farms were expanded over centuries. Some have more than one house, and normally, they at least have several stables, barns and so on.

[Yora]

It kind of reminds me of a similar types of building from a completely different part of the world.

In Japan, they call them castles (http://www.genkin.org/gallery/japan/himeji/jphj0018.jpg). :smallbiggrin:

[Eldan]

Heh.

True on one part: I've seen smaller "castles" around here. The kind that is one stone tower on a small hill. But then, we also have the more classical ones. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Aarburg-Burg-02.jpg)

[Jayabalard]

Does anyone know about any existing ruins or reconstructions of pre-roman fortifications or castles in europe?

There are lots of reconstructions of farm houses, but for larger structurs usually all that remaines are small dents in the ground on which the original walls or palisades had been build.
But does anyone know how these places looked like?There's Maiden Castle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maiden_Castle,_Dorset) and other similar fortifications (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillforts_in_Britain).

[Yora]

Which is one of the mentioned small dents in the ground. I had been thinking more about buildings.

[Jayabalard]

Which is one of the mentioned small dents in the ground. I had been thinking more about buildings.Hmm... well it's not a small dent from palisades or original walls. Maiden castle it was an earthwork so the ridges you see there ARE the defenses, not dents from where the walls used to be.

That article also has some discussion on the structures that were inside the walls.

[Yora]

I found this Bronze and Iron Age deocumentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LekBYvoLCBs&feature=related) on youtube. Lots of small details in it that I didn't knew before.
If you're interested in the subject, I recommend it.

[Jayabalard]

I found this Bronze and Iron Age deocumentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LekBYvoLCBs&feature=related) on youtube. Lots of small details in it that I didn't knew before.
If you're interested in the subject, I recommend it.Good find.

[Yora]

There are a couple of more episodes that seem to be equally good.

[Grac]

The word "clan" has been used for all kinds of social groups. But at what numbers of people are we roughly looking when speaking of a clan? Is it a few dozens or up to several hundred thousands.
Seems like the internet does not have any info on that in the english language. You failed me, internet!

Well there's the thing, people translate tonnes of different things into words that bear little relationship. I will break it down into the Roman divisions, but the only real differences between Rome and any other tribal society was the names of these divisions and how many there are in each. Rome was at a comparatively high level of development and had formalised things and they had altready ceased to be organic, and were stale and ossified:
After the household, there was the Gens. In Rome, 10 Gentes made up a Curia, and 10 Curiae made a Tribus, with the three tribes making up the tribal confederation: the Populus Romanus

I don't know about the Japanese clans, but the Scottish clans appear to be the gens. The Gens is pretty much the extended family, descended from a female originally, then over time the identification moved toward men. The most basic form of this social organisation is of a tribe with two gentes, with members only able to marry people from the other gens. As these live separately and rely on their own resources, they can grow to such a size that they need to split. In this case the old gens becomes a curia containing two, now separate gentes.

If a tribe is in a rather barren area with few resources and not much competition, the gens, or clan, may be only a few dozen households, or even only a few dozen people. However in more populated areas, the clan can become rather large. Note that in 479bc the Roman clan, the Fabii sent 306 men of fighting age (along with a bunch of their supporters) to war with the city of Veii, all of whom died, excepting one, so the story goes. 300 men of fighting age, meaning well over double that if we include non-combatant women, children, and elders seems a reasonable assessment of the numbers we can expect from a clan in that period and place.

[Conners]

How common was brothel use? I know Muslim countries had a ton of sex slaves, so it was probably fairly common around there (might still be). However, what I'm mostly considering, is the fact that in Game of Thrones and other novels, they make it sound like everyone and their dog goes to the brothel every Thursday, and twice on Saturdays...

Considering affordability, and morality, how often would regular people and aristocracy of medieval Europe visit brothels?

[Aux-Ash]

It is not for naught that prostitution is refered to as "the world's oldest profession". As long as there have been money, there have been prostitutes. Humanity has never been more, or less, moral than it is today.

As for how often people visited? Brothel use falls square within "luxury services" (that is not saying it was expensive). Which is to say it is something people indulge in when they need comfort. So it all falls down on the individual I guess. You'll have some that never visits, some that only visits once, some that goes on a regular basis and some who visit every day.

All depending on how well they could afford it, how much they felt they needed/wanted it and how easy they thought they could get away with it.

[Knaight]

It is not for naught that prostitution is refered to as "the world's oldest profession". As long as there have been money, there have been prostitutes. Humanity has never been more, or less, moral than it is today.
In all probability prostitution predated currency by thousands of years.

[deuxhero]

How would a mercenary send money to dependents?

[Spiryt]

Well, another huge question.

Often, he would have no "dependents" just because of his lifestyle.

He could also pretty much keep his significant people with him, in camps, etc.

Famous illustration

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Landsknecht_with_his_Wife.jpg

Roman legionaries were notorious for settling with local women, and spending their money to build new life after the soldier carrier was over. They were not really mercenaries, of course, but worth noting.

In many cases, mercenaries would be in fact just getting back home with money whenever possible, wars, and even more so contracts didn't last forever.

Alternatively, they could make use of some trusted merchants and other traveling people, as well as other forms of transport, depending on place and time.

So there's a lot of possibilities.

[Eldan]

Young Swiss men would usually sign up with a local mercenary company, which would take over the payments and sending back the money, since they had local offices.

[Conners]

What sort of methods were employed, in the more feudal times, to make men go to war? It's easy enough if they're about to be invaded, and the invaders might very well rape their wives, destroy their homes, and etc.. But what about trying to get your people to invade other lands?

[jpreem]

Promises of raping other peoples wives, destroying their homes etc..
Or look at your average DD campaign - loot loot loot.
:D
Also the feudal system of oaths. And y'know violence as the most favorite answer two anything. (If sir Robert does'nt want to fulfill his promis to take his men to a crusade then sir John and sir Gerald (or other men loyal to King will march theyr men to his keep and well you really don't want to share his fate)
Also somehting a bit less used was whipping the people up to somekind of ideological ( in these times usually religious) frenzy. (Look Children's Crusade etc., or maybe an older times example of rhetoric "I think Cartage must be destroyed")(Hope these are long away in history to mention these or maybe they are too political?)

Edit: To think of it you could find lots of good examples of any of these in "Song of ice and fire" series.

[Coidzor]

Every person of note in an area had to contribute X number of men or cash to hire mercenaries/recruit freemen.

I think the Anglo-Saxons of Britain had it more on a settlement-basis than noble-type basis.

No idea how exactly the Norse and other sea-rovers put together their ships' crews for trading and plundering, much less how the Norse organized enough of them to pull off the invasions they did...

[Spiryt]

What sort of methods were employed, in the more feudal times, to make men go to war? It's easy enough if they're about to be invaded, and the invaders might very well rape their wives, destroy their homes, and etc.. But what about trying to get your people to invade other lands?

Feudal obligations, general household duty obligations, opportunity to actually get some money etc.

Generally, people who were "taken" to war in modern conscript or even similar, system where obvious rarity, and rarely were worth much, from obvious reasons.

Depending on local laws and obligations, villages and towns were obliged to issue their own contingents, usually such laws started to appear towards end of Medieval period.

As far as rallying some humble peasants etc. to arms, then it indeed mostly was happening in order to defend certain territory that was being raided.

In Poland since XIV century defensio terrae, as name indicates had territorial character - peasants from certain territory were obliged to help in defending it from assault.

Urge to defend your stuff, together with social pressure of all other men you know contributing was probably strong enough stimulus in most cases. All kinds of shirkers were probably being persuaded with different arguments...

Said peasants and other servile people usually were just joining more "professional" retinues of majors, knights, etc.

If they actually served in fight, or were taking care of camp, horses etc. obviously would depend on their equipment, experience and general capability.

There are also mentions of mostly rural squads, only leaded by some knights or nobles, in cases when such common people were only available force.
Like battle of Zaniemyśl in 1331.

As far as "invading" something, or general abroad expedition went, countryfolk generally wouldn't be part of it at all, from majority of reason, from the fact that they couldn't just afford to leave their property without care, to the fact that there would be indeed no good way to force them to go, and be of any real value.

[Conners]

Ah, so regular peasantry wouldn't be involved with large-scale invasions, then?


How possible is it to field an army composed entirely of elite troops (such as knights)?

[Spiryt]

Ah, so regular peasantry wouldn't be involved with large-scale invasions, then?


How possible is it to field an army composed entirely of elite troops (such as knights)?

That's pretty broad, but if talking roughly medieval Europe, pretty impossible, and mostly unprofitable, due to structure of feudal armies. Elite troops will usually need a lot of 'crew' as well as support in the battle.

Also, "knight" wouldn't be by any means synonymous with "elite" - sometimes one could be indeed elite, and superiorly equipped fighter, sometimes not elite and not well equipped at all.

So it all depends, really.

[Calmar]

Often vassals were required to do military service for their superiors for some 60 days per year, or as long as their lands were under attack.

[gkathellar]

In all probability prostitution predated currency by thousands of years.

Considering more intelligent species of animals practice it, this is a relative certainty.

[fusilier]

Also, "knight" wouldn't be by any means synonymous with "elite" - sometimes one could be indeed elite, and superiorly equipped fighter, sometimes not elite and not well equipped at all.

"Elite" also has a social meaning, and in that case the "knights" could represent the elites of society. Military and civilian distinctions could also be blurry at the time. For example, an excellent mercenary company would probably not be called "elite" because that would be inappropriate from the societal point of view. Probably best to avoid the term elite in such situations.

Peasants that were levied for foreign campaigns might have only a support role. As life was communal, I suspect that the trick would be to spread the levying around so that a particular village felt no extreme burden when people are taken away for a military campaign.

[Yora]

In Germany there are plans to build a monastery that was planned in the 9th century, but never got to be build.
Here's an article in English. (http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,15437495,00.html)

Apparently, something similar is already done in France.

[Yora]

A new question. Supposed I get a sealed letter and want to read it and then reseal it. That's the point of the seal, proving that it has not been opened.
Couldn't I just press a piece of soft clay on the seal to get a cast and make a new seal stamp from that?
Sure, forging a seal would probably severely punished, but when I am intercepting confidential messenges, I am already quite deep in trouble when I get caught.

[Knaight]

A new question. Supposed I get a sealed letter and want to read it and then reseal it. That's the point of the seal, proving that it has not been opened.
Couldn't I just press a piece of soft clay on the seal to get a cast and make a new seal stamp from that?
Sure, forging a seal would probably severely punished, but when I am intercepting confidential messenges, I am already quite deep in trouble when I get caught.

The clay would have to be far softer than the seal for this to be even remotely possible. As far as I know, that isn't really possible, given that clay soft enough doesn't exist.

[Yora]

But isn't sealing wax quite hard? I worked with clay a lot in school, and it always seemed soft enough to make a good imprint without crushing the seal.

Also, how did the economics of marriage work in the middle ages? Why would people pay for the opportunity to lose a member of the household, while the other household gets a new person plus extra wealth?

[Knaight]

But isn't sealing wax quite hard? I worked with clay a lot in school, and it always seemed soft enough to make a good imprint without crushing the seal.

It doesn't need to deform very much for the counterfeit to be completely terrible, and sealing wax isn't hard enough for that.

[Xuc Xac]

Also, how did the economics of marriage work in the middle ages? Why would people pay for the opportunity to lose a member of the household, while the other household gets a new person plus extra wealth?

Long story short: when women were valuable members of the family (another set of working hands) then you had to pay a bride-price to compensate her family for the loss of her labor. When women were a net loss for their families (just another mouth to feed) then the women had to pay a dowry to compensate her new family for the extra financial burden. Dowries were also bribes to buy your way into a higher social class: no master how rich a merchant gets, he is still a commoner unless his daughter's dowry is big enough to attract a groom with a title.

[Beleriphon]

A new question. Supposed I get a sealed letter and want to read it and then reseal it. That's the point of the seal, proving that it has not been opened.
Couldn't I just press a piece of soft clay on the seal to get a cast and make a new seal stamp from that?
Sure, forging a seal would probably severely punished, but when I am intercepting confidential messenges, I am already quite deep in trouble when I get caught.

With a bit of effort you could probably use a warm knife to pry the seal off of one half of the close and open it that way. This would be my preferred method, its not like seals were absolute guarantees of anything being unopened. The better options is to seal the inside, the outside, and write the thing in code if the message is truly important.

The other options is to do what the Chinese did at on point. Each commander of the army is given half of a broken seal. The emperor has the other half. Since its manually broken no two pieces will ever be identical, so the only way to make a false seal is to steal one half. This seems unlikely in an palace or a heavily guarded general's camp/city/etc.

[fusilier]

It doesn't need to deform very much for the counterfeit to be completely terrible, and sealing wax isn't hard enough for that.

My experience with sealing wax is that it is quite hard and brittle (unlike beeswax) - if it were soft it wouldn't survive much jostling in a mail bag.

The opening of sealed letters and the resealing of them is quite old. A few things must be understood: the seal sometimes breaks when opened, but other times it stays intact and the paper tears. If the paper is torn removing the seal, it may be very obvious that the letter had been opened.

That said, I believe forging the seal was fairly common. Clay would probably yield a rather poor mold (although some molding clays aren't too bad). Another kind of wax might actually be better -- I know that keys could be copied, using a kind of soft wax, the wax can also take a metal casting.

I think that carefully cutting the seal off, with a heated knife, then reaffixing it with a little bit of fresh wax, is probably the best way of doing it. But it may be possible to detect that the letter was tampered with. It also doesn't leave a counterfiet seal around as incriminating evidence. I think the main reason you would want to counterfiet a seal is to send counterfiet letters.

You can always experiment -- sealing wax is fairly easy to find, and not expensive.

[Beleriphon]

That said, I believe forging the seal was fairly common. Clay would probably yield a rather poor mold (although some molding clays aren't too bad). Another kind of wax might actually be better -- I know that keys could be copied, using a kind of soft wax, the wax can also take a metal casting.

The other one that occured to me is using wet sand to make a mould and then pour your metal into that. Lead would work, and it would be good enough to start reproducing your own fake seal. Its not like the things could be hugely complicated to start with given the fact you needed to actual be able to read them.

[fusilier]

The other one that occured to me is using wet sand to make a mould and then pour your metal into that. Lead would work, and it would be good enough to start reproducing your own fake seal. Its not like the things could be hugely complicated to start with given the fact you needed to actual be able to read them.

They typically involved imagery, more than words -- although a coin like device with both words and imagery could be possible. Some of them, used for important, official, state or church documents could be really big! Sometimes they were attached by ropes to a document or device. A seal could also be used like a signature, on the inside of a document or treaty.

Whether or not a forged seal worked would depend upon how good of a forgery it was, and how familiar with the seal the recipient is.

One of the neat ways of making your own seal today, is to find a metal button with a neat pattern and glue it to a dowel.

[Yora]

I have another question:

How it is possible to make multi-story buildings with non-wooden floors and not simply using 4 meter wide slabs of stone (which I wouldn't really trust either).
Is the only way to do it making vaulted ceilings? And if yes, how thick would the material between the floor and the veiling below it have to be?
If someone knows a bit more about the subject, I would like to have a more comprehensive reply that may go beyond the original question itself. Something like "the basic of stone ceilings" or something in that regard. :smallsmile:

[Shadowknight12]

I have another question:

How it is possible to make multi-story buildings with non-wooden floors and not simply using 4 meter wide slabs of stone (which I wouldn't really trust either).
Is the only way to do it making vaulted ceilings? And if yes, how thick would the material between the floor and the veiling below it have to be?
If someone knows a bit more about the subject, I would like to have a more comprehensive reply that may go beyond the original question itself. Something like "the basic of stone ceilings" or something in that regard. :smallsmile:

I'm no expert, but the basics of stone ceilings is readily seen in cathedrals and old palaces. You need a network of beams that can hold the ceiling and/or upper floors and arches are frankly the best way to support weight since they exploit a few physical phenomenons to redistribute weight with the least strain on the material. The arches or beam network MUST be sustained by thick, properly-built pillars and columns. Not walls (unless we're talking about an underground construction) but actual pillars. These pillars are, in turn, directly connected to the foundations of the building, which is why a key tactic to demolish an old building (or cause it to collapse) is to destroy the pillars that hold the ceiling and upper floors.

[Yora]

With a mostly random shot at trying youtube, I found this really great series on the engineering of buildings (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va0NCwQ_XHE&feature=BFa&list=PL812DC4917391DC06&lf=BFp).
I don't have any pervious education on any of these things, but it explains a lot basic principles on how really large structures are made possible. If you got a slight obsession with details for your fantasy world and a general interest in physics, I really recommend it.

[Beleriphon]

I have another question:

How it is possible to make multi-story buildings with non-wooden floors and not simply using 4 meter wide slabs of stone (which I wouldn't really trust either).
Is the only way to do it making vaulted ceilings? And if yes, how thick would the material between the floor and the veiling below it have to be?
If someone knows a bit more about the subject, I would like to have a more comprehensive reply that may go beyond the original question itself. Something like "the basic of stone ceilings" or something in that regard. :smallsmile:

As noted, arches are the way to go. There are techniques that can produce truly staggering arches that make it look like massive rooms are supported just by the walls. Flying buttresses for example take advantage of this.

If you want a fairly basic example the Coliseum is a series of stacked arches. So are most Roman aqueducts. Well Cathedral (http://www.sacred-destinations.com/england/wells-cathedral) in Somerset England is what you'd be looking at as far as arches go. That said most floors in most buildings are wood, even modern ones, for a reason. It's cheap, its light, and you don't generally need specialized tools to lift the stuff. Big difference between my apartment's floor an William Shakespeare's is that mine is made out of laminate plywood and his was probably made out of solid boards.

[Rockphed]

As noted, arches are the way to go. There are techniques that can produce truly staggering arches that make it look like massive rooms are supported just by the walls. Flying buttresses for example take advantage of this.

If you want a fairly basic example the Coliseum is a series of stacked arches. So are most Roman aqueducts. Well Cathedral (http://www.sacred-destinations.com/england/wells-cathedral) in Somerset England is what you'd be looking at as far as arches go. That said most floors in most buildings are wood, even modern ones, for a reason. It's cheap, its light, and you don't generally need specialized tools to lift the stuff. Big difference between my apartment's floor an William Shakespeare's is that mine is made out of laminate plywood and his was probably made out of solid boards.

Modern buildings are typically made of concrete boxes. I know the apartment I am moving in to next month has concrete slab floors and cinder block walls. An important question would be what pueblo floors were made of.

[fusilier]

Modern buildings are typically made of concrete boxes. I know the apartment I am moving in to next month has concrete slab floors and cinder block walls. An important question would be what pueblo floors were made of.

In a pueblo the ground floor would be of packed earth, the others were wood, supported on large beams called "vigas".

I think that wood was typically used to make floors and roofs -- although stone or tile could be laid over the wood. I don't know of any examples of pure stone roofs and floors, with the possible exception of vaulted cathedral ceilings (but I don't think that technique could be used to make a floor). I would be interested to know if it was possible.

[ForzaFiori]

Modern buildings are typically made of concrete boxes. I know the apartment I am moving in to next month has concrete slab floors and cinder block walls. An important question would be what pueblo floors were made of.

Most houses, however, typically have a concrete foundation (can also be the floor of a basement), and all the other floors are wood, which is then covered (if the owner wants) in something like carpet, linoleum, tile. At the very least, you put down a hardwood top layer, both for the aesthetics and because it can take the wear alot better than what's beneath it. It's only in commercial buildings thatyou'd find concrete boxes.

[Yora]

I think that wood was typically used to make floors and roofs -- although stone or tile could be laid over the wood. I don't know of any examples of pure stone roofs and floors, with the possible exception of vaulted cathedral ceilings (but I don't think that technique could be used to make a floor). I would be interested to know if it was possible.
Sure it works. A ceiling really isn't any different from a raised floor.
Here you have an example:
http://kansastravel.org/06clements2.JPG
The road on top of the bridge is a floor.

[fusilier]

Sure it works. A ceiling really isn't any different from a raised floor.
Here you have an example:
http://kansastravel.org/06clements2.JPG
The road on top of the bridge is a floor.

Heh -- I've seen tons of bridges like that before, and yet I didn't even recall them when considering the issue. Even though I was thinking of something very similar to that bridge -- arches being used to support a floor -- and I think I've even seen it in basements. :-/

[Rockphed]

Heh -- I've seen tons of bridges like that before, and yet I didn't even recall them when considering the issue. Even though I was thinking of something very similar to that bridge -- arches being used to support a floor -- and I think I've even seen it in basements. :-/

Well, isn't that what a barrel vault essentially is? You build a continuous arch in one direction, and then can build stone floors above.

[Aux-Ash]

I have another question:

How it is possible to make multi-story buildings with non-wooden floors and not simply using 4 meter wide slabs of stone (which I wouldn't really trust either).
Is the only way to do it making vaulted ceilings? And if yes, how thick would the material between the floor and the veiling below it have to be?
If someone knows a bit more about the subject, I would like to have a more comprehensive reply that may go beyond the original question itself. Something like "the basic of stone ceilings" or something in that regard. :smallsmile:

I recall a documentary about stone palaces in Ethiopia where (I think, it was some time ago) they had used a light stone to create long support "logs" which they anchored in the supporting walls and then built a floor on top of that (and then proceeded for a couple of additional floors).

In other words, they built a massive stone building the same way a lot of wooden buildings were built. I don't remember much details, nor what the documentary was called (or even who did it) but I think they did not make use of arches.

and then there's those churches that was carved out of the rock (also ethiopia). Though they weren't so much built as excavated.

[Yora]

The problem with stone is, that while it is far superior to wood when it comes to compression, it is very weak in flexing. If you cross a gap with a stone beam, it may even snap just under its own weight. Wood on the other hand performs extremely well when used as a beam since it will flex instead of snap. Which is why in lots of old buildings, the walls and pillars are made of stone, and the floors and roof are made from wood. Each material is used where it performs best.
To make raised stone floors, you need to use heavy and thick beams of stone and very short gaps between the supports. Which means very narrow corridors and lots of columns.
Like this:
http://karenswhimsy.com/public-domain-images/ancient-egypt-temples/images/ancient-egypt-temples-1.jpg
There really isn't much floorspace to use.

Arches and vaults get around the problem by pressing the stones that make the arch into each other, which means the stones only get compressed, but don't have to flex.

[fusilier]

The problem with stone is, that while it is far superior to wood when it comes to compression, it is very weak in flexing. If you cross a gap with a stone beam, it may even snap just under its own weight. Wood on the other hand performs extremely well when used as a beam since it will flex instead of snap. Which is why in lots of old buildings, the walls and pillars are made of stone, and the floors and roof are made from wood. Each material is used where it performs best.
To make raised stone floors, you need to use heavy and thick beams of stone and very short gaps between the supports. Which means very narrow corridors and lots of columns.
Like this:
http://karenswhimsy.com/public-domain-images/ancient-egypt-temples/images/ancient-egypt-temples-1.jpg
There really isn't much floorspace to use.

Arches and vaults get around the problem by pressing the stones that make the arch into each other, which means the stones only get compressed, but don't have to flex.

But in order to make a floor, wouldn't you have to fill in the gaps between the arches, with rubble or earth? That adds weight, and would mean that the upper levels would have to be smaller than the lower ones?

Would Trajan's Market be an example of something similar (using brickwork)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan%27s_Market

[Yora]

That depends on how big you are building, how large the arches are, and how heavy your building material is.
But most types of stone used in construction can take a LOT of compression before it is crushed. You could stack a tower of stones a mile high without the block of stone at the bottom being crushed by the weight of the stones above it. For bricks that tower would still be about 350 meters tall. The same thing goes for brick roof tiles and you can easily break them with your hands if you are trying to snap them.

This is probably the largest surviving example of roman arches, with the space above them filled with concrete.
http://sights.seindal.dk/img/large/8218.jpg
And those are just the side vaults. At the top you can see the bases of the arches that held the main vault.

At Trajans market, you can see a good cross section of the construction. While the walls are quite thick, the floors really are rather thin. They seemed to have used very flat arches like this, but it's still arches for the hallways.
http://www.builderbill-diy-help.com/image-files/brick-segmental-arch.jpg
In this case, all the weight that is put on top of the arches gets transfered almost sideways into the walls. Which probably is the reason the walls are so thick. But each floor only has to support it's own weight plus the people and forniture on it. All the weight of the floor rests on the walls, and these walls can carry temendous weight before they are crushed. Before that happens, the walls are much more likely to be pushed to the sides by the arches supporting the floors pushing sideways. But as can be seen, just using very thick outer walls is enough to prevent this in this case.

Preventing that from happening while using much tinner and higher walls is the main subject of gothic architecture, which uses a lot of tricks to make really high vaults without turning the building into a giant brick cube. :smallamused:

[fusilier]

The concern about building upwards with stone, wasn't that the weight of stone would crush the lower stones, it was one of stability. Heavy upper floors can make a building unstable. I'm sure a good foundation is part of the key, but there's still risk when making tall stone buildings. Many medieval towers fell over on their own, and others were pulled down so that they didn't have a chance to fall over. Something like the Washington monument, while tall and made from stone, doesn't have much usable space.

While filling in the space between arches with a lighter material like concrete isn't a bad idea, the original post was about constructing an upper story floor out of stone only. If the walls have to become thicker to support the weight, it means that the walls must be heavier, leading to potential stability issues if you are building straight up?

[Yora]

Heavier walls are always more stable, at least compared to lighter walls of the same height.

[fusilier]

Heavier walls are always more stable, at least compared to lighter walls of the same height.

Wouldn't walls that get thinner as they go up be more stable?

[randomhero00]

I heard 12 stories (120 ft) was maximum (from a documentary) when building with brick and such older material (i.e. no steel reinforcement).

PS don't forget wind forces that might blow down a building

PPS don't forget earthquakes!

[Yora]

That too, but that is often not an option. If you continue to shape it that way, you eventually end up with a pyramid. There is no danger of it falling over, but it's not practical for many purposes.
On the one hand, the base of the wall will be very wide and take up lots of space that could otherwise be used as floor space. At the same time the top of the wall is more likely to snap off. But that's really an extreme case. In practice, I think it is quite common that walls on floor level are thicker than at the top floor. Simply because packing additional stone at the top would get you little if any real benefit.

If you are really interested in the subject of walls and ceilings in large stone buildings, I highly recommend watching these videos.
[1] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OZfJOavTYc), [2] (www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW6vU0NR4vk), [3] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt_g2mubn0Q)
These ones deal directly with existing buildings from antiquity and the middle ages and why they are made as they are. The videos earlier in the series are also great, but deal mostly with the theoretical aspects, but since the structures of these videos deal with buildings that have been constructed without mathmatical calculations, I think they can be understood with only common sense and no theoretical background. Later videos are also interesting, but more complicated and deal with modern structures.

How high a brick building can be build depends on how it's constructed. But I think a stack of 300 feet of brick will crush the brick at the base, and since you want to include halls, rooms, doors and windows, the base bricks have to carry more weiht than just the bricks directly above them, so 120 feet really seems to be the safe limit.

[Beleriphon]

Lets not forget that modern skyscrappers use type of concrete flooring that is reinforced with high tension steel cabling in the floor. This allows it to support massive amounts of weight while the cabling is attached directly to the support pilings of the building. Its basically how all "concrete box" building have been constructed in the last 40 or 50 years, and it is terrific for building but a nightmare for demolition since the cables are under of tons of tension.

From a technical stand point you could build a structure using technology available to first century Rome entirely out of stone including the flooring, but from a practical one wood floors and beams are just easier to use. Even the Coliseum's show floor was made out of wood since it was huge open area above a series of vaults, pillars and arches.

[Yora]

I think the colliseums arena floor was made of wood for easy access. They had all kinds of cool gadgets below the floor and with stone vault ceilings, it would be very difficult to make any modifications without tearing the wole thing out and building a new one. With wood, you can just remove the planks, go to work, and put them back in place.

[Starshade]

The collosseum had wooden floor since the floor underneath it was able to serve as a pool. They regularly dismantled the wooden floor, elevators, etc, and flooded it, and used some days preparing, then made naval battles with small ships, etc, and drained it afterwards. something like how we uses multi use arenas today. Think they flooded it using one or two days, using several large capacity aqueducts, able to convert it from one week a normal show, and naval battles the next.

[Bouregard]

The collosseum had wooden floor since the floor underneath it was able to serve as a pool. They regularly dismantled the wooden floor, elevators, etc, and flooded it, and used some days preparing, then made naval battles with small ships, etc, and drained it afterwards. something like how we uses multi use arenas today. Think they flooded it using one or two days, using several large capacity aqueducts, able to convert it from one week a normal show, and naval battles the next.

You know, I would actually love to watch something like that today.

[Theodoric]

Most houses, however, typically have a concrete foundation (can also be the floor of a basement), and all the other floors are wood, which is then covered (if the owner wants) in something like carpet, linoleum, tile. At the very least, you put down a hardwood top layer, both for the aesthetics and because it can take the wear alot better than what's beneath it. It's only in commercial buildings thatyou'd find concrete boxes.
And most of Europe.

[Yora]

Would it be a good idea to build pueblos inside of large sinkholes? It makes for very cool hiddencities, but would it be a good location or simply a disaster waiting to happen? I assume one could make an extensive geological survey to check if any layers that could errode have already been washed out and all cavities have since collapsed, but I think the technology for that exists only since rather recently and would still be really expensive.

But they do make really cool looking locations for your new town:
http://www.bananamarepublic.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/canalafterquake.jpg
http://blog.mywonderfulworld.org/assets_c/2011/12/2010-06-14_0854090-thumb-475x316-4392.jpg
http://blog.mailasail.com/beezneez/1017/image/jpgSpwI3cZwWr.jpg
http://www.sithclan.net/SC4/write_access/depot_images/dossier/prelogie/easterrots/utapau.jpg