Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI [Archive] - Page 3

Galloglaich

2016-08-11, 05:24 PM

Great posts G and snowblizz- however a few notes:

Tobtor, thanks for your excellent post.

'good tempered steel armour', is really a rarity in the 15th century.

Even Augsburg armour wouldn't all fit modern definitions of the term good tempered steel. Sure by medieval standards, yes. Not by ours.

I do see your point here though I'm not sure I agree 100%, though I'm not prepared (sadly no time!) to get into a drawn out debate over it. IIRC, Alan Williams who is kind of the autctore for us on medieval armor, had reported that tempered, as opposed to hardened, armor of a reasonably high (medium) carbon content was pretty routinely being produced out of Augsburg by the second quarter of the 15th Century, whereas in Milan where the were first to make steel armor, they were not really heat treating it that often. I think it became the niche in Augsburg and was also being produced in some of the other south German towns such as Nuremberg and several other smaller ones. The elevated quality of this armor was so well established by the mid-15th Century that the City Council of Augsburg started stamping all armor in the city with a pine-cone mark in 1461.

If you and everyone else can forgive me as an amateur from plunging into technical details, hardness isn't the only, or even necessarily the best indicator of quality here either, but rather 'toughness', i.e. the springy resiliency which we associate with tempering. And this doesn't need to be very high carbon for armor, medium carbon is plenty. I know you know this but not everyone else reading this does. Hardened or case-hardened armor with a 500 VPH might actually be less effective than tempered armor with a 350 or 300 VPH, because the former could be more brittle whereas the latter may be more elastic and 'tough'. At least that is my understanding. It's the transition from martensite to cementite if I understand the chemistry correctly. And of course all this changes and works differently with various different impurities or alloys (phosphorous for example changes the way things cold harden), as again I'm sure you are aware. Like the vanadium in wootz steel as well.

What I'm getting at is we obviously also have to be careful with the metallurgical analysis from a modern perspective- modern steel is very good for making washing machines, rebar, and i-beams, but it's not made in the same way or for the same purposes as medieval steel used for weapons and armor. I remember there was a while when the modern academic and collector community puzzled over why there was essentially wrought iron in parts of the blades of what appeared to be very nicely made medieval swords, whereas other parts of the same blade was high carbon steel with an excellent heat treatment. It wasn't until Peter Johnsson came forward with his theories on sacred geometry in sword construction, but more specifically on how precisely they were using iron cores with steel edges as a standard practice, that we understood that these blades were not actually less sophisticated than modern metalurgy, but considerably more so. Something you are probably familiar with yourself if you have ever handled and antique sword, I've yet to see a replica which can match them (very generally speaking) in terms of balance and 'feel', though these traits are hard to quantify.

I also remember they studied medieval armor in WW II when they were trying to improve tank armor, and concluded that the medieval methods while very effective couldn't be done cheaply enough for mass production (but they should have just instituted guild systems probably - ha!).

Admittedly I can't imagine any reason why you would want to have slag inclusions or streaks in armor, but I am aware as I'm sure you are too, that armor in this period was sold in various grades. For example the Italian guilds had un-proofed, proofed with the 'small' crossbow, and proofed with the 'big' crossbow, with the dents marked. Presumably this was the one reliable way to verify the quality. I suspect in fact that armor was getting harder and harder, to ridiculous levels approaching modern ballistic plates, in the late 15th and early 16th Century, because guns were starting to get really powerful. Before the 1470's or so, most guns were roughly the equivalent of a shotgun firing slugs. But with the arrival of heavy muskets from the Turks and then the Spanish and soon, everybody, you had armor piercing weapons of incredible power. 3000 joules if I remember right. So they had to make the armor with different properties perhaps including greater hardness (maybe the higher velocity changes the necessary balance between toughness, springiness and hardness).

Generally what I find is that often when we think at first they were doing something really simple or primitive, it later turns out it was surprisingly sophisticated.

Augsburg seemed to have cornered the market on the tempered steel armor which was already ubiquitous enough by the early 1400's that it is already frequently depicted in the artwork of the day, notably for example quite often in the Flemish paintings including depictions of ordinary soldiers and militia.

http://uploads6.wikiart.org/images/hans-memling/the-reliquary-of-st-ursula-1489.jpg!Large.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f8/52/e3/f852e31cfcedc1b4d9ba00154c729f12.jpg

Though admittedly this is later (1480's I think) the armor these guys are wearing in this Memling painting is a good example. You can recognize it by the dark, deep bluish-glassy reflection it shows. It looks like thick glass. Kind of hard to explain but you know it if you have played with a forge before as I would guess you have. Anyway my point here being that while I don't really know the story of St. Ursula, i don't think those guys are supposed to be elite princes or anything. They look like fairly ordinary soldiers to me. And yet high grade armor.

"The carbon content of the steel the armourers had to work with varied from .02 to .8% 6 which equates to low and medium carbon steels today.

I think there is a lot of document evidence, from MSS like the Thun sketchbook and various guild regulations, that they knew what the different grades of iron and steel were, and used them for the appropriate purposes - to make different grades of armor. They also as I'm sure you are aware used the strongest armor for the helmet and the breast plate even in a good harness.

The other point i was making earlier is that the armor of the highest grade just wasn't that expensive, at least in the 15th Century. Milanese Harness was selling in Gdansk in the 1420's for 4 florins, and Milanese Harness "of proof" (specific grade of proof not indicated) for 7 florins, 4 kreuzer in Wroclaw. A half armor for 90 kreuzer and a cuirass with pauldrons for 39 kreuzer, and a platendienst (coat of plates I think) for 12 kreuzer in Prague. Even the proofed armor there is well within the budget of most wealthier baueren and craft artisans, let alone knights or patricians. Or mercenaries if we can assume they were paid anywhere near what is recorded. The really expensive armor seemed to be the gold plated stuff, the fancy tournament armor which could be up into the dozens or even hundreds of florins, and curiously mail. I guess this was very fine mail and / or tempered mail (which is apparently hard to do). Mail haubergeon's were selling from between 2 to as high as 10 marks in Krakow around the 1450's.

This i from Uzbrojenie w Polsce średniowiecznej 1350-1450, “Armaments in Medieval Poland 1350-1450”, Andrzej Nadolski, Polska Akademia Nauk, Instytut Historii Kultury Materialnej, (1990) and Geschichte des deutschen Volkes seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters, “History of the German People at the close of the Middle Ages”, Johannes Janssen, 1896.

Swedish peasants and armour would have been different in 1361 than in 1450-1500. All those peasant victories over well armed troops happened after Visby and in the Kalmar period. Thus in 1361 I doubt Gotlandish peasants had had any possibility to gather up stores of armour (I cant think of a Danish-Swedish battle near Gotland in the period before Valdermar's attack).

That's true but they were already pretty wealthy by the time of that attack, in fact their disastrous decision to face Valdemar in the field was arguably out of greed or hubris, they could have hidden behind the Wisby city walls and together with the town militia probably could have fended Valdemar off, but they didn't want to loose their livestock and were probably stick of dealing with pirates. It was a terrible mistake for them, for Wisby, and for the Hanseatic League, and ultimately for Valdemar too who ended up with his country wrecked by the Hanseatic fleet, adbicating his throne and becoming a pirate back on Gotland if I remember correctly.

As snowblizz I think this is related to the low degree of feudal organisation in Scandinavia. But also to the tradition of parliaments in the 'things'. Until the 13th century the things (were every free man could speak and at least all freeholders had a wote) was the principal law creating institution. In the 13th century its power decreased greatly and in the 14th (for Sweden) and 15th (for Denmark) their role had been changed into only a court (with very limited influence). The peasantry in Sweden was however so important that it needed to be recognized as an part to be heard.

All that is true, but it was also common in many other regions all over Europe especially north of the Alps. Few among the Barbarian tribes started out as a serf or a peasant. Every place seems to think their own unique tradition of free and bellicose peasants is unique (like the English with their yeomen archers) but you see it all over the place. The most obvious example being the Swiss but in the neighborhood of the Nordic region you also have the Dithmarschen peasants, who were so powerful they were admitted into the Hanseatic League as a republic, several other tribal groups of Frisian and Saxon peasants, you have the Lithuanians and especially the Samogitians, who were able to fight off both the Teutonic Knights and the Livonian Knights for something like two Centuries. And you have the Cossacks in Ukraine and the Finns, and many of your Bohemian Hussites and so on.

G

Galloglaich

2016-08-11, 07:16 PM

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b5/Olav_den_helliges_saga_CK5.jpg/470px-Olav_den_helliges_saga_CK5.jpg

Speaking of cool stuff you don't see in genre fiction or RPG's, the 'thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_(assembly)), as cool as it is or was, also wasn't unique in Central or Northern Europe. You also had many other versions of that all over the place.

http://www.pictures-switzerland.com/glarus/landsgemeinde/landsgemeinde-42.jpg

Landsgemeinde (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landsgemeinde) (or landgemeinde) in Switzerland and various German areas (still used in two Swiss cantons last time I checked)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Jean-Pierre_Norblin_de_La_Gourdaine,_Sejmik_w_ko%C5%9Bc iele_(1785)_-_02.png

the Sejmic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sejmik) (or Sejmik) in Poland (integrated into the national Sejm)

The Wiec also in Poland

The laukas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laukininkas) in Lithuania

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Pskov_Veche_Vasnetsov.jpg/640px-Pskov_Veche_Vasnetsov.jpg

The veche (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veche) in various urban versions in Novgorod, Tver and Pskov and in rural versions all over Russia, Berlarus, and Ukraine

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Zaporozhian_Sich_rada_(detail).jpg

The Sich Rada (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sich_Rada) of the Zaparozhian Cossacks (also in Ukraine, mostly)

Landfrýdy in Bohemia and the other Czech areas

the Senat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cologne_City_Hall#History) of the republican German towns

and the Städtebund (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_towns) between the German towns.

and so on. They seem to have been all over the place. but every individual place seems to think they were the only one that had them. And the general histories basically never discuss them. They certainly don't make it into the genre fiction. You also find them outside of Europe for example the Sikh Khalsa.

In fact it's interesting that a lot of the strongest and most ferocious people seemed to have had these.

BayardSPSR

2016-08-11, 07:28 PM

In fact it's interesting that a lot of the strongest and most ferocious people seemed to have had these.

Militia + democracy = cohesion?

snowblizz

2016-08-11, 08:28 PM

That's true but they were already pretty wealthy by the time of that attack, in fact their disastrous decision to face Valdemar in the field was arguably out of greed or hubris, they could have hidden behind the Wisby city walls and together with the town militia probably could have fended Valdemar off, but they didn't want to loose their livestock and were probably stick of dealing with pirates. It was a terrible mistake for them, for Wisby, and for the Hanseatic League, and ultimately for Valdemar too who ended up with his country wrecked by the Hanseatic fleet, adbicating his throne and becoming a pirate back on Gotland if I remember correctly.

That's not a description of it I recognize from reading about it in any Swedish sources.
The battle outside the walls was actually the third major battle and the peasants had already tried to stop the Danish at a rivercrossing and trying to use wetlands as defence. Basically doing what we discuss is the reason they often managed to hold out. Did not work out that time. Also resulted in a large massacre of some 1500 dead peasants apparently. I'll admit this was news to me.
The townspeople of Visby were usually in a sort of conflict with the countryside, and usually it's said they simply weren't let in. Which makes sense as town and countryside had very different interests. The town having it's laws and privilleges confirmed by the victorious Danish kinda suggests they picked the right solution. For them.
Either way the Danish reached Visby before the peasant militia did so, not a lot of options. Saying the peasants lost because of greed and hubris I'd sya is a grave injsutice to them. The peasants did what most of us would do (and they would be expected to do, eg by law), to try and protect their homes from ravages of war. There's no guarantee that the town would in any case been interested in helping the peasants, they had other priorities.

All that is true, but it was also common in many other regions all over Europe especially north of the Alps. Few among the Barbarian tribes started out as a serf or a peasant. Every place seems to think their own unique tradition of free and bellicose peasants is unique (like the English with their yeomen archers) but you see it all over the place. The most obvious example being the Swiss but in the neighborhood of the Nordic region you also have the Dithmarschen peasants, who were so powerful they were admitted into the Hanseatic League as a republic, several other tribal groups of Frisian and Saxon peasants, you have the Lithuanians and especially the Samogitians, who were able to fight off both the Teutonic Knights and the Livonian Knights for something like two Centuries. And you have the Cossacks in Ukraine and the Finns, and many of your Bohemian Hussites and so on.
Much as it pains me :smallbiggrin: I think you need to remove the Finns from that list. The reason I speak Swedish is that the nascent Swedish state quite effectively (if very slowly) piece by piece enforced it's hegemony on the tribes of the Finns. I've never heard of any miraculous holding off of the invading Swedes. The long conquest (and it wasn't much of a conquest, mostly they moved troops and stuff in, built a strategic castle and started bossning everyoen around) of what eventually was Finland was more due to it's remoteness, low economic value and haphazard committment to the job. For most of the medieaval period the points of interest was the coastal area and the traderoutes to Novgorod. When Sweden and Novgorod concluded peace the actual formally recognized border became a vague something over there a couple of hundred kms from the coast. Skillfully abused by later Swedish initiatives to move the border actually. "No, look here in this our copy of the peace treaty, it clearly states This River is to be the one used for determining the border". <- Actually, honest to god, what they managed to get away with (and yes they forged it), though they had better cards at the negotiation table too that time.

If you are reading what I wrote earlier as simply expressing a view of uniqueness and freedomloving you are sorely misunderstanding me. I'd blame it on a very American pov :smallwink::smallwink::smallwink:, it is not a Braveheart or the Patriot argument I was making. You said it yourself, in Scandinavia (and especially the Sweden) the peasant class was an actual and important power to consider beyond the traditional king, nobility and church. And it wasn't solely due to being armed. Many (in fact most) peasant uprising were brutally crushed by the central authorities, especially in the renaissance period and later. Just take as an example, those freedom fighting livonian peasants were still serfs in 1721, when such a thing had not existed in Sweden proper.
I was suggesting the answer to why the peasant class had a say was because all powers were comparatively weak in the region. In the 13th century Christianity in Sweden was barely 2 centuries old, and lacked much of the power over people it did on the continent, having been formally organised in the mid 1100s with it's own bishopries and archdioceses. It was also comparatively poorer. Similarly, nobilty wasn't formally recognized until the 1280s when both secular and spiritual nobility was "established" and church and nobles given tax exemptions (though researches argue to what extent nobility existed before it was drawn up, clearly there were nobles and powerful magnates before that, they did not spring into being then, but it was the first written record of a deal between king and nobility in Sweden). Same issues were true for kings, who during the 13th century were subject to taking oaths to the people for the right to be king, subsequent "Danish" union kings were similarly "ruling by consent". Wasn't until the 1500s and Gustav Vasa that Swede became a hereditary monarchy (yes that dude got a lot of things done). And even the absolute monarchs were quite adept at at least appearing to be working in the interest of the peasantry.
None of these powers really had the resources in men or money to effectively suppress all others. Another way to say it I guess would be that the powergap between the groups was substantially lower. If one group was weaker, say peasants (not quite as good weapons, armour and military forces) they could leverage geographical (good defensive terrain, difficult logistics), social and economics factors (kings and nobles just didn't have the money or ability to bring to bear enough force), or take advantege of their lack to push against thse would impose control.
None of the groups you mention got to share power (although that share could be small at times) through the entire history of their regions however and have a place in "parliament" all through from iron age to modern times, except the Swiss I guess. Even Gustav III's coup d'etat in 1789 was voted through parliament by the non-nobility. Again, parliament was formally codified only in 1617 so I wouldn't suggest we are talking about an unbroken tradition of peasant rule exactly. I think you could say that the 4 part (peasants, burghers, priests, nobles) parliament then established was an expression of a de facto sharing of power between these groups. Not saying this is unique, there are currents of this every where, Magna Charta, the English parliament and so on.

It's 4am and I am probably rambling by this point, but I find this interesting to think about. I guess in short I'm trying to say it's bit more than just about having weapons (which strikes me as a very American thing to suggest :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:) and a nice defenisible posiiton. In many cases these were eventualyl overcome. What seems somewhat different in Scandinavia is the shallowness of many of the continential social and economic factors allowing for a ruling the masses. I guess my question would be, where and when were most of the other bellicose peasants plowed into the dirt. So hoping this post isn't eaten by the forum.:smallamused:

Edit: I see during the hour I typed this more posts appeared. Get back to ya'll tomorrow.

Galloglaich

2016-08-11, 10:04 PM

That's not a description of it I recognize from reading about it in any Swedish sources.

Either way the Danish reached Visby before the peasant militia did so, not a lot of options. Saying the peasants lost because of greed and hubris I'd sya is a grave injsutice to them. The peasants did what most of us would do (and they would be expected to do, eg by law), to try and protect their homes from ravages of war. There's no guarantee that the town would in any case been interested in helping the peasants, they had other priorities.

Well don't get me wrong, the failure there was on both the side of the town and the peasants, and yes, they did have their tensions. It was the same in many other places but typically, (based on what I know of the history of Visby without knowing all the details about their relationship with the other estates on Gothland in 1360's) they could have made an alliance and apparently the two sides disagreed on strategy in this case, which cost both of them dearly.

Ultimately what happened at Visby was terrible for Visby because Valdemar broke holes through their walls. They were broken as a power. They had been a rival to Lubeck in the Hanseatic league, after the 1361 humiliation, they never really recovered and Lubeck became the queen of the Hanse, for better or worse. Pirates sacked Visby several times in the 14th Century. The victual brothers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victual_Brothers) pirate group sacked them repeatedly and made the city their HQ in 1394.

Much as it pains me :smallbiggrin: I think you need to remove the Finns from that list. The reason I speak Swedish is that the nascent Swedish state quite effectively (if very slowly) piece by piece enforced it's hegemony on the tribes of the Finns. I've never heard of any miraculous holding off of the invading Swedes. (snip) For most of the medieaval period the points of interest was the coastal area and the traderoutes to Novgorod.

My understanding of the situation in Finland is a hopefully bit more nuanced than maybe what you thought I was saying. I didn't mean the Finns resisted the Swedes all that much, I think they didn't really (from what little I know about it) because the Swedes gave them basically the same rights that Swedish peasants had, which as we have noted a few times already, was a pretty good deal. The Finns also benefited from the 'tax' or 'tribute' arrangement because they were able to trade furs and other forest products (pine tar, potash all sorts of things) which (the furs especially) were in huge demand in Europe, for things they needed and wanted and mostly didn't have a lot of like butter, beer, textiles, steel tools and all sorts of other luxuries.

I do think the Finns were tough and independent but I don't think they were particularly antagonistic to the Swedes in the long run, not like the Swedish or Norwegian peasants were toward Danish overlords or toward the Hanseatic League in some cases. And I don't think the Swedes tried to squeeze the Finns very hard either, or get very involved in their business beyond the trading ports and the power struggle with the Russian city-states, which is why it worked.

When Sweden and Novgorod concluded peace

From what I have read of the Russian border, in Karelia etc. that was where the Finns had more problems - the Russians including Novgorod were a little rougher with the Finns and that is where most of the battles I know of from that era occurred.

You said it yourself, in Scandinavia (and especially the Sweden) the peasant class was an actual and important power to consider beyond the traditional king, nobility and church. And it wasn't solely due to being armed. Many (in fact most) peasant uprising were brutally crushed by the central authorities, especially in the renaissance period and later. Just take as an example, those freedom fighting livonian peasants were still serfs in 1721, when such a thing had not existed in Sweden proper.

Livonian peasants were serfs, they were crushed in the Northern Crusades in the 13th Century. I was talking about Samogitians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samogitia#History), arguably the core tribe of the various tribes that made up Lithuania. They were ruled by a council of elected tribal elders until the 18th Century. From the wiki:

The Grand Duke of Lithuania Casimir Jagiellon acknowledged the autonomy of Samogitia in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and then issued a privilege to the Eldership of Samogitia to elect its own elder (starost) in 1441.

Because of its prolonged wars with the Teutonic Order, Samogitia had developed a social and political structure different from the rest of Lithuania. It had a larger proportion of free farmers and smaller estates than in Eastern Lithuania.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Samogitia

Everything eventually changed in the Early Modern period, my main interest (and knowledge) is on the medieval. I'm just trying to point out that the Monty Python / Walt Disney situation wasn't as universal as we tend to assume.

I was suggesting the answer to why the peasant class had a say was because all powers were comparatively weak in the region. In the 13th century Christianity in Sweden was barely 2 centuries old, and lacked much of the power over people it did on the continent,

Yes I agree, and I'm not necessarily criticizing you specifically, it's just something I run into with Europeans in general, and i wanted to point out these things were not so unique after all. Let me be clear, you as a Swede understand Sweden far better than I ever will. I just find sometimes Europeans don't realize how interesting some of the other countries around them (also) are.

So for example riffing off of what you were saying... The Swedes converted in what, the 9th or 10th Century right? Well, the Saxons also converted around that time (by force from Charlemagne). So did the Poles, who put most of their actual tribes into the nobility - something like 20% of the population were still technically nobles in some part of Poland as late as the 17th Century, and all of them with veto rights. The Czechs converted in the 9th- 10th Century, but nominally, and the Hussite Wars in some ways had to do with their resisting the pressure to make certain social changes being pushed on them by the Vatican. The Prussians Livonian's, Estonians et al were forced to at the bloody point of a sword in the 12th-13th. Most of the Lithuanians nominally converted in the 14th but the Samogitians still hadn't converted in the dawn of the 15th Century. What's more, the Lithuanians very wisely made a rule banning foreign prelates so conversion was done basically on their own terms, gently as it were, so they could keep a lot of their own ancient traditions longer ... though they did get into Feudalism in a fairly big way over the unfortunate East-Slavs in the vast territories Lithuania conquered from the Mongols.

What I'm basically saying is that while we all tend to assume, generally, that everyone in the middle ages had already been fully and fairly neatly brought into the cliche Feudal system, with the Three Estates well established and a strong Monarchy and all the rest of it. The reality is though that in the Middle Ages most of Europe existed in some level of what we would today call a 'failed state' with a chaotic mix of local power centers and a patchwork of the old tribal system with feudalism layered over it very unevenly.

How people came into Latinized culture, i.e. voluntarily or by force of conquest, often defined how they lived within it. The stark example in that Baltic region being the Lithuanians vs. the Estonians. or their cousins the Finns. As we pointed out already the Finns had a pretty good deal as free peasants with basically the rights as the estates in Sweden, and not too many Swedes died to gain (lets be honest, fairly nominal) control over Finland. In Estonia tens of thousands died, brutally, with repeated uprisings and bloody rebellions going on even decades after the population was supposedly pacified, (as late as the 14th Century with the St. George's Night Uprising (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._George%27s_Night_Uprising)) but in the long run, those people were cruelly suppressed into serfdom. The Estonians are historically one of the most oppressed people on earth, in my opinion.

maybe that's why they make music like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dllo85ZSUk

Same issues were true for kings, who during the 13th century were subject to taking oaths to the people for the right to be king, subsequent "Danish" union kings were similarly "ruling by consent". Wasn't until the 1500s and Gustav Vasa that Swede became a hereditary monarchy (yes that dude got a lot of things done). And even the absolute monarchs were quite adept at at least appearing to be working in the interest of the peasantry.

It was quite similar in Poland, for example, where after a brief period of strong and generally very bad royal dynasty, the Poles essentially imposed their tribal government over their (elected) king, and their greatest dynasty the Jagiellonian's were imported from Lithuania intentionally so they wouldn't have enough of a power base within Poland to out-muscle the Szlachta or nobility / gentry.

In Bohemia the kings were also elected and tended to be foreign, and when they didn't like them they just rebelled and threw them out. Their most impressive and capable king in the 15th Century, George of Podebrady, was elected from the lower nobility, on the basis of comeptence.

And after the big interregnum's in the 13th Century The Holy Roman Empire, which as Voltaire noted was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire, was the very definition of a failed state with an elected (albeit by a very small group) Emperor with very limited power. Regional powers like the Hanseatic League were fairly plausible rivals to the power of the Emperor in many periods.

Flanders and the rest of the Low Countries were basically run by the towns, as was northern Italy and Switzerland, and a whole lot of Europe. That is my point. I think Europeans tend to see the ancient history of their neighbors somewhat through an American lens, which in turn is basically through a British \ French lens. But England and France were not really typical of medieval Europe, in my opinion.

None of the groups you mention got to share power (although that share could be small at times) through the entire history of their regions however and have a place in "parliament" all through from iron age to modern times, except the Swiss I guess.

I disagree - maybe not forever, but they did for a long time. Poland was basically a republic or a constitutional monarchy from the 1300's until the Deluge in the 1650's, and it even limped along after that for a few more years. Bohemia was basically ruled by a combination of their Estates for 200 years, from 1420 util the beginning of the 30 Years War at the Battle of White Mountain in 1620. Dithmarschen was free for almost the whole middle ages, and wasn't conquered until the late 16th Century. Samogitia was autonomous until the 18th as I already noted. The Cossacks also remained free (if in a constant state of war) until the 18th Century. Many if not most of the larger Free cities in the Holy Roman Empire lasted as republics all the way until Napoleon, Lubeck didn't lose their rights until Hitler took them away in the 1930's (because they had refused to let him speak there).

Nothing lasts forever but I think it's a mistake to dismiss these institutions, they did actually share power for a long time in a lot of Europe, in many places during long stretches of the Middle Ages they were the power.

It's 4am and I am probably rambling by this point, but I find this interesting to think about. I guess in short I'm trying to say it's bit more than just about having weapons (which strikes me as a very American thing to suggest :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:) and a nice defenisible posiiton. In many cases these were eventualyl overcome. What seems somewhat different in Scandinavia is the shallowness of many of the continential social and economic factors allowing for a ruling the masses. I guess my question would be, where and when were most of the other bellicose peasants plowed into the dirt. So hoping this post isn't eaten by the forum.:smallamused:

Well, maybe it's American these days, though I would argue the anti-weapon mentality is also American, it's just another faction. A lot of US world pop culture is influenced by American firms for example, almost all the biggest social media outlets.

As far as I can tell, once a population is disarmed in medieval Europe, they pretty quickly became serfs or slaves. That wasn't the only factor by any means, money or prosperity was important, diplomacy (which failed at Wisby) and when it came to peasants, terrain was at least equally important. If you go around the map of Europe and look at all the places that still had independent peasants by the end of the Middle Ages, they were basically all either in swamps, thick forests, or mountains, or some combination of the above. Burghers had their freedom because of their town walls, peasants had to find some other form of protection from the mad max / game of thrones world of the warlords and mercenaries ... or build a town and some walls ;)

Money was also really important, and even lawyers. A lot of the seemingly miraculous freedoms of the Poles, the Lithuanians who they eventually merged with, and the (mostly German) towns in both regions, was in part due to some very skilled Polish lawyers and clerics who worked out rationalizations for their peculiar arrangements. But if they hadn't also been well armed enough and brave and skilled enough to resist the Teutonic Knights they would have been serfs, and if they hadn't had the weapons and the cojones to fight off the Mongols and the Turks they would have all been slaves or dead.

Anyway cheers, I apologize if I ruffled your feathers at all. You are obviously well read and passionate about history, and know a lot of the history of the part of the world where you live, I don't claim to know more, like I said I know I never will. Everything I know about your part of the world I learn from people like you who are from there and either write it down or tell me (or scan and post stuff online). I just try to collect stuff from a lot of different places.

One last thing, speaking of the Estonians, this is a terrific, strange animated fairy-tale cartoon from Estonia, which also deals with the Baltic Crusades in a poignant way. Or at least, I liked it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0mTEVlJgC8

G

Tiktakkat

2016-08-11, 10:14 PM

Side shots. Most MBT's, (the challenger 2 is a notable exception and is very dammed heavy because of it), just aren't designed to stand upto even that kind of fire anywhere but in their front armour. Flank a modern tank with anything much over the 20-25mm low power autocannons found on most IFV's, (actual 20-25mm AAA tends to be much higher power than these cannons, stuff like 30-35mm Oerlikon 40 and 57mm Bofors are even nastier than that), and it's armour becomes worthless.

Ah, that makes sense. And the link mentioned 57mm guns.
Thanks.

BayardSPSR

2016-08-11, 11:47 PM

Well, maybe it's American these days, though I would argue the anti-weapon mentality is also American, it's just another faction. A lot of US world pop culture is influenced by American firms for example, almost all the biggest social media outlets.

I believe you're overestimating the depth of US cultural influence (if not the surface coverage of it, but I'm going to leave my commentary there for the sake of avoiding political discussion.

On the topic of global social media market share, though, I think I'm qualified to make the observation that while two populations may use Facebook (for example), they aren't necessarily interacting with each other on it - especially if there's a language barrier. A particularly salient example is the use of Twitter in the US (highly divided on ethnic community lines). This is even more the case where different communities use different services - knowing what Slack is, for instance, indicates that someone is in (or has friends in) a particular industry. Alternately, to bring the examples closer to the point of this thread, the existence of Sofrep doesn't do much to bridge the civil-military divide in the US, let alone outside it. Online communities tend to be pretty insular.

EDIT: That said, US passive soft power by social media is definitely a thing in comparative terms, partly due to the relative accessibility and desirability of the English language.

Tobtor

2016-08-12, 05:25 AM

I do see your point here though I'm not sure I agree 100%, though I'm not prepared (sadly no time!) to get into a drawn out debate over it. IIRC, Alan Williams who is kind of the autctore for us on medieval armor, had reported that tempered, as opposed to hardened, armor of a reasonably high (medium) carbon content was pretty routinely being produced out of Augsburg by the second quarter of the 15th Century, whereas in Milan where the were first to make steel armor, they were not really heat treating it that often.

Yes Williams is the best source, I didnt have his work lying so I used another (an internet but a legit one and one which quotes him extensively). The thing is: yes many of the Augsburg armours have enough carbon to be steel (And so do some of the mid period Milanese - they seem to abandon it at somewhere around 1500, just when they mastered it), and smaller parts can be very good. But the production process mean that larger parts are difficult to get an even hardness. Mostly helemts are of really good quality (as also the most important piece this makes sense).

If you and everyone else can forgive me as an amateur from plunging into technical details, hardness isn't the only, or even necessarily the best indicator of quality here either, but rather 'toughness', i.e. the springy resiliency which we associate with tempering. And this doesn't need to be very high carbon for armor, medium carbon is plenty. I know you know this but not everyone else reading this does. Hardened or case-hardened armor with a 500 VPH might actually be less effective than tempered armor with a 350 or 300 VPH, because the former could be more brittle whereas the latter may be more elastic and 'tough'.

I completely agree. Though parts (as in areas of some pieces) of Augsburg armour only reach 250VPH, and other armourers even lower (such as 100vph). Also Williams argue that slag is a poor sign, or a sign of incomplete hardening. Also slag makes armour more brittle, not less (as slag will result in very hard but easily breakable spots). Thus the best medieval armour (and weapons) have less slag, not more. The RC values are also given, and again the best ones are decent (as modern mild steel).

Another problem is that the way the armours are hardening only sometimes affects the surface, weakening the total.

What I'm getting at is we obviously also have to be careful with the metallurgical analysis from a modern perspective- modern steel is very good for making washing machines, rebar, and i-beams, but it's not made in the same way or for the same purposes as medieval steel used for weapons and armor.

Hmm, modern steel can be made with very different aims. Williams at least seem to think that the steel without slag is better. I do agree though that some parts of the craftsmanship (balance, detail, skill etc) are better in originals. However metal-properties are not one of them.

Admittedly I can't imagine any reason why you would want to have slag inclusions or streaks in armor, but I am aware as I'm sure you are too, that armor in this period was sold in various grades. For example the Italian guilds had un-proofed, proofed with the 'small' crossbow, and proofed with the 'big' crossbow, with the dents marked. Presumably this was the one reliable way to verify the quality. I suspect in fact that armor was getting harder and harder, to ridiculous levels approaching modern ballistic plates, in the late 15th and early 16th Century, because guns were starting to get really powerful. Before the 1470's or so, most guns were roughly the equivalent of a shotgun firing slugs. But with the arrival of heavy muskets from the Turks and then the Spanish and soon, everybody, you had armor piercing weapons of incredible power. 3000 joules if I remember right. So they had to make the armor with different properties perhaps including greater hardness (maybe the higher velocity changes the necessary balance between toughness, springiness and hardness).

I agree. The "late" armours are very good and the high quality could withstand alot of pressure. Possibly as good replicas with mild steel. However they were still uneven, and even good workshops produced material not fully up to standard.

Also crossbows and bows were also adjusted to deal with the 14th century plates (more power, and specificly designed arrowheads). Also stuff like spiked hammers etc and thin squared speas (we have previously discussed the ahlspiees), possibly also contribute to the desire for harder plates during the 15th century.

Augsburg seemed to have cornered the market on the tempered steel armor which was already ubiquitous enough by the early 1400's that it is already frequently depicted in the artwork of the day, notably for example quite often in the Flemish paintings including depictions of ordinary soldiers and militia.

How early in the 15th century can be debated, but from somewhere around 1480'ies certainly. Any date before that seem to be based on assumptions rather than proof.

In my opinion, this is tempered steel armor

Quite possibly. Thoug if it is GOOD tempered steel is unknown (as it is a picture....).

Also I am less inclined to used pictorial evidence to judge quality of armour, as the artist likely had a pre-conception of how armour was supposed to look like. Pictorial evidence is good for examining the spread of styles of armour and the presence of armour, not quality.

Though admittedly this is later (1480's I think) the armor these guys are wearing in this Memling painting is a good example. You can recognize it by the dark, deep bluish-glassy reflection it shows. It looks like thick glass. Kind of hard to explain but you know it if you have played with a forge before as I would guess you have. Anyway my point here being that while I don't really know the story of St. Ursula, i don't think those guys are supposed to be elite princes or anything. They look like fairly ordinary soldiers to me. And yet high grade armor.

See above. St Urusla is from the 5th (?) century, and thus the depictions of armour is already highly improbable.

I think there is a lot of document evidence, from MSS like the Thun sketchbook and various guild regulations, that they knew what the different grades of iron and steel were, and used them for the appropriate purposes - to make different grades of armor. They also as I'm sure you are aware used the strongest armor for the helmet and the breast plate even in a good harness.

Helmets - yes. Breastplates - on the front mainly. The very existence of various grades suggest that it wasnt always achieved maximum quality. This supports what I am saying: the best armours are good, the others less so. We dont know the exact quality of the law enforced armours of poorer soldiers, but I find it likely that if you only have weapons in order to fulfil a law, it will be cheap armour.... If everyone owned good armour on their own account, the laws would be redundant.

The other point i was making earlier is that the armor of the highest grade just wasn't that expensive, at least in the 15th Century. Milanese Harness was selling in Gdansk in the 1420's for 4 florins, and Milanese Harness "of proof" (specific grade of proof not indicated) for 7 florins, 4 kreuzer in Wroclaw. A half armor for 90 kreuzer and a cuirass with pauldrons for 39 kreuzer, and a platendienst (coat of plates I think) for 12 kreuzer in Prague. Even the proofed armor there is well within the budget of most wealthier baueren and craft artisans, let alone knights or patricians. Or mercenaries if we can assume they were paid anywhere near what is recorded. The really expensive armor seemed to be the gold plated stuff, the fancy tournament armor which could be up into the dozens or even hundreds of florins, and curiously mail. I guess this was very fine mail and / or tempered mail (which is apparently hard to do). Mail haubergeon's were selling from between 2 to as high as 10 marks in Krakow around the 1450's.

Yes, the proofed ones were likely to be affordable to wealthier citizens of towns and nobles etc. They were also much richer than the peasants (judging from what is found in archaeology in towns contra rural areas the townsfolk had more "ready" money which could be invested in luxury.... and armour). However, we don't know that 1420'ies armour quality was, it likely wasnt as high as the 1480-1550 Augsburg ones (judging by metakl analysis).

That's true but they were already pretty wealthy by the time of that attack, in fact their disastrous decision to face Valdemar in the field was arguably out of greed or hubris, they could have hidden behind the Wisby city walls and together with the town militia probably could have fended Valdemar off, but they didn't want to loose their livestock and were probably stick of dealing with pirates. It was a terrible mistake for them, for Wisby, and for the Hanseatic League, and ultimately for Valdemar too who ended up with his country wrecked by the Hanseatic fleet, adbicating his throne and becoming a pirate back on Gotland if I remember correctly.

As snowblizz this is not a recognizable account. The general story is that the Visby merchant believed their membership of the Hansa protected them and didn't want to get involved... a mistake but certainly, but not on the part of the peasants.

All that is true, but it was also common in many other regions all over Europe especially north of the Alps. Few among the Barbarian tribes started out as a serf or a peasant. Every place seems to think their own unique tradition of free and bellicose peasants is unique (like the English with their yeomen archers) but you see it all over the place.

I know that it was traditional all over northern and central (and north eastern) Europe. But at least in England, France and northern Germany etc, these institutions had lost power somewhat earlier than the 13th/14th century. Before the 13th century you really don't have a feudal structure in Scandinavia... Thus when the Swedish peasants got admitted into the parlament, they were still use to have a say and had a self-awareness as a powerful group.

So for example riffing off of what you were saying... The Swedes converted in what, the 9th or 10th Century right?

Not really. Sure first Christian missionaries are seen in the 9th century, the first Christian King isnt seen before Olof Skotkonung (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olof_Sk%C3%B6tkonung) in the early 11th century. But still central parts of Sweden (Uppland etc) remained pgan. And these rich provinces wasn't really Christened before 1050-1100 (some more distant parts had pagan groups into the 13th century). Denmark converted as the first in something like 960 - almost two centuries after the Saxons..... (which was forced in the late 8th century, not the 9th).

First with the laws in the 13 th century do we see a "nobility" and the church gaining real power in Denmark, for Sweden it was even later. Before that tenants/serfs hardly existed as a class.

Galloglaich

2016-08-12, 09:17 AM

I believe you're overestimating the depth of US cultural influence (if not the surface coverage of it, but I'm going to leave my commentary there for the sake of avoiding political discussion.

On the topic of global social media market share, though, I think I'm qualified to make the observation that while two populations may use Facebook (for example), they aren't necessarily interacting with each other on it - especially if there's a language barrier. A particularly salient example is the use of Twitter in the US (highly divided on ethnic community lines). This is even more the case where different communities use different services - knowing what Slack is, for instance, indicates that someone is in (or has friends in) a particular industry. Alternately, to bring the examples closer to the point of this thread, the existence of Sofrep doesn't do much to bridge the civil-military divide in the US, let alone outside it. Online communities tend to be pretty insular.

EDIT: That said, US passive soft power by social media is definitely a thing in comparative terms, partly due to the relative accessibility and desirability of the English language.

While I think the soft cultural power of Anglo-American media is a major factor, (and a lot of, if not most of that is actually anti-weapon without a doubt) what I'm really referring to here is the social media software itself. Social media, big data in general are very effective tools for steering conversations and influencing opinions. Mostly for commercial reasons, obviously, to get you to buy what their advertisers are selling, since that is how they make (enormous amounts of) money. But they also steer culture and have political agendas of their own. How could they not? And most of those Big Data firms, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Instagram, Snapchat, Tumblr, etc. are American firms.

I work in the software industry so maybe I have an overly cynical perception of it. But Facebook etc. have been pretty open about their manipulations, at least as "experiments".

G

Galloglaich

2016-08-12, 09:53 AM

Yes Williams is the best source, I didnt have his work lying so I used another (an internet but a legit one and one which quotes him extensively). The thing is: yes many of the Augsburg armours have enough carbon to be steel (And so do some of the mid period Milanese - they seem to abandon it at somewhere around 1500,

According to Williams, Milan was making steel armor but never really did heat treatments, whereas Augsburg did. Milan seemed to move toward a niche of making parade armor for nobles in the 16th Century. Augsburg seems to be where they figured out the difficult aspects of heat treating large pieces of armor. Which is partly how they were able to start making it so much thinner, which became a general trend in Gothic harness. Much thinner and lighter than previous harness.

Hmm, modern steel can be made with very different aims. Williams at least seem to think that the steel without slag is better. I do agree though that some parts of the craftsmanship (balance, detail, skill etc) are better in originals. However metal-properties are not one of them.

I'm not sure. We still can't seem to make wootz steel right? And my point was really that what we thought were flaws in some medieval swords have been shown now by Peter Johnsson and others (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaT3GXdr5kM) that these were actually design features which made them better. Something we incidentally already knew about Japanese swords many years ago.

I agree. The "late" armours are very good and the high quality could withstand alot of pressure. Possibly as good replicas with mild steel. However they were still uneven, and even good workshops produced material not fully up to standard.

I think most workshops made different grades of armor, not because they didn't know what they were doing, but for the same reasons that Nissan makes the Altima and the Infiniti - different grades for different customers.

How early in the 15th century can be debated, but from somewhere around 1480'ies certainly. Any date before that seem to be based on assumptions rather than proof.

Quite possibly. Thoug if it is GOOD tempered steel is unknown (as it is a picture....).

Also I am less inclined to used pictorial evidence to judge quality of armour, as the artist likely had a pre-conception of how armour was supposed to look like. Pictorial evidence is good for examining the spread of styles of armour and the presence of armour, not quality.

See above. St Urusla is from the 5th (?) century, and thus the depictions of armour is already highly improbable.

We can agree to disagree on there. I think the assumption with medieval paintings is that they basically depicted the contemporary fashion, clothing and kit, they weren't trying to make things look like in the actual past. Again, per the usual pattern this used to be assumed because they didn't know what say, ancient Greek or Roman armor looked like, but we know now they actually did know perfectly well, in fact that is one of the specialties that some armor workshops was making armor that looked just like Roman and Greek armor. And of course sculptors copied all kinds of Greek and Roman pieces which they were constantly seeking out and digging up.

Medieval art, especially religious art, typically had multiple layers of meanings, but quite often had a lot more to do with contemporary politics, culture and even jokes related to the life of the artist than whatever biblical or mythological scene was being depicted. This could be another interesting conversation to have but it's a bit of a segue.

Helmets - yes. Breastplates - on the front mainly. The very existence of various grades suggest that it wasnt always achieved maximum quality. This supports what I am saying: the best armours are good, the others less so. We dont know the exact quality of the law enforced armours of poorer soldiers, but I find it likely that if you only have weapons in order to fulfil a law, it will be cheap armour.... If everyone owned good armour on their own account, the laws would be redundant.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/00/f8/f8/00f8f8182aa87a06b8fc5de056bbd9cb.jpg

The point I was making was that by the 15th Century the top grade in terms of protective quality was really the middle, or lower-middle grade in terms of cost. The expensive armor was the really nice looking armor. The armor with gold and silver and all kinds of scrollwork and etchings and so on. Armor with monsters carved into it or made to look like Roman or Greek armor.

As snowblizz this is not a recognizable account. The general story is that the Visby merchant believed their membership of the Hansa protected them and didn't want to get involved... a mistake but certainly, but not on the part of the peasants.

Maybe we could plunge into this a bit more, it might be worth further exploration. I basically only know the story from the point of view of the town, but I would be surprised if the townfolk of Visby expected friendly treatment of Valdemar, that invasion was part of a long series of increasingly nasty beefs between the Hanse and the Danish monarchy.

I know that it was traditional all over northern and central (and north eastern) Europe. But at least in England, France and northern Germany etc, these institutions had lost power somewhat earlier than the 13th/14th century. Before the 13th century you really don't have a feudal structure in Scandinavia... Thus when the Swedish peasants got admitted into the parlament, they were still use to have a say and had a self-awareness as a powerful group.

Not really. Sure first Christian missionaries are seen in the 9th century, the first Christian King isnt seen before Olof Skotkonung (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olof_Sk%C3%B6tkonung) in the early 11th century. But still central parts of Sweden (Uppland etc) remained pgan. And these rich provinces wasn't really Christened before 1050-1100 (some more distant parts had pagan groups into the 13th century). Denmark converted as the first in something like 960 - almost two centuries after the Saxons..... (which was forced in the late 8th century, not the 9th).

First with the laws in the 13 th century do we see a "nobility" and the church gaining real power in Denmark, for Sweden it was even later. Before that tenants/serfs hardly existed as a class.

My point is that this is basically the same pattern in a lot of other places, definitely in Bohemia for example, also in a lot of parts of Germany too. Again maybe something we can explore a bit further, I think it's an important subject. When did Christianity, monarchy, and feudalism take over in various given areas, and where did it fail or get unraveled?

G

Galloglaich

2016-08-12, 10:19 AM

I think very broadly speaking, Central and Northern Europe consisted of a very patchy, uneven, mixture of Roman style Latinized Feudalism with Barbarian (Norse, Germanic, Slavic, Gaelic, Baltic, etc.) tribal culture, and various odd hybrids of the two. This is essentially what defines the middle ages for me.

Conversion to Christianity and to Latinized, Roman style culture started in some areas as early as the 8th or 9th Century, but often proceeded sporadically and unevenly. In many places it still wasn't really complete (especially among the peasants) as late as the 14th Century. In other places odd hybrids of Christian \ Latin and much more ancient tribal cultural traditions took hold, notably in many of the towns all over Europe as well as several rural zones. Look at Carnival and Krampus as a kind of famous pop culture example.

There seems to have been a push toward Feudalism and serfdom in the Carolingian era, but that did not seem to have stuck in Central or Northern Europe and was largely undone in many places by the commune movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_commune), by the growing power of towns, and by various estates during the chaos of interregnums and wars between would-be monarchs. The Atlantic Kingdoms of England, France and what is now Spain went further than most of the rest of Europe but were in many ways not as culturally, technologically or economically advanced (compared to for example Northern Italy where the Emperor had been militarily defeated and evicted in the 12th Century)

The strongest cultural centers of Europe, notably Northern Italy, Flanders, the Rhineland, as well as some other zones (Baltic and North Sea fringes, Catalonia, Bohemia) were the areas of the weakest (or non-existent) monarchies and least effective conversion into Feudalism.

G

snowblizz

2016-08-12, 10:28 AM

While I think the soft cultural power of Anglo-American media is a major factor, (and a lot of, if not most of that is actually anti-weapon without a doubt) what I'm really referring to here is the social media software itself. Social media, big data in general are very effective tools for steering conversations and influencing opinions. Mostly for commercial reasons, obviously, to get you to buy what their advertisers are selling, since that is how they make (enormous amounts of) money. But they also steer culture and have political agendas of their own. How could they not? And most of those Big Data firms, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Instagram, Snapchat, Tumblr, etc. are American firms.

I work in the software industry so maybe I have an overly cynical perception of it. But Facebook etc. have been pretty open about their manipulations, at least as "experiments".

G
No I think you are spot on there. My colleagues at uni worked with datamining and it's pretty scary how much impact such things have. I realised my best friend's wife was pregnant due to the targeted ads on Facebook when she was showing me some stuff on her computer (yes, cat videos). Because I knew from my colleagues work that such things are not random. We had an article we'd pass around how effective Target's (yes talk about ironically named) customer informatoin mining was too.

Tobtor

2016-08-12, 10:28 AM

According to Williams, Milan was making steel armor but never really did heat treatments, whereas Augsburg did. Milan seemed to move toward a niche of making parade armor for nobles in the 16th Century. Augsburg seems to be where they figured out the difficult aspects of heat treating large pieces of armor. Which is partly how they were able to start making it so much thinner, which became a general trend in Gothic harness. Much thinner and lighter than previous harness.

The source I refer to states: "The North Italian makers stopped hardening armor regularly fairly suddenly around 1500-1510", and quoted "Private communication with Dr. Alan R. Williams".

I'm not sure. We still can't seem to make wootz steel right? And my point was really that what we thought were flaws in some medieval swords have been shown now by Peter Johnsson and others (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaT3GXdr5kM) that these were actually design features which made them better. Something we incidentally already knew about Japanese swords many years ago.

I sated that I agree that they were great designers and craftsmen. Though not metallurgists.

I think most workshops made different grades of armor, not because they didn't know what they were doing, but for the same reasons that Nissan makes the Altima and the Infiniti - different grades for different customers.

Yes and no. Clearly the 'fancy gilding stuff' needed to not be treated to be able to do them. However the variation within individual pieces are very high - it thus seem that they indeed tried to heat treat them and tempering them, but with varied success (even in Augsburg).

We can agree to disagree on there. I think the assumption with medieval paintings is that they basically depicted the contemporary fashion, clothing and kit, they weren't trying to make things look like in the actual past.

Well on that we agree. However its like a modern TV series: I think someone calculated the prise of the outfits in the "Friends"-show and found out that none of the female characters could afford their wardrobe based on their suposed salary for their profesion (even if they spend their entire salary on that).

Medieval paintings show the height of fashion, not the real world. Its like looking at a (high end) fashion magazine to determine what the average persons wear.

The point I was making was that by the 15th Century the top grade in terms of protective quality was really the middle, or lower-middle grade in terms of cost. The expensive armor was the really nice looking armor. The armor with gold and silver and all kinds of scrollwork and etchings and so on. Armor with monsters carved into it or made to look like Roman or Greek armor.

I didnt disagree with that, but clearly there where a price difference between the 4 floring milanese armour and the 7 florin one (a 75% higher price).

Maybe we could plunge into this a bit more, it might be worth further exploration. I basically only know the story from the point of view of the town, but I would be surprised if the townfolk of Visby expected friendly treatment of Valdemar, that invasion was part of a long series of increasingly nasty beefs between the Hanse and the Danish monarchy.

The Swedes strongly accused Visby of not opening the gates at least. Also the conflict with the Hanse exploded after he went into Visby and taxed them. So they were not wholly unfounded in the belief that it was a bad idea for him to take the town.

My point is that this is basically the same pattern in a lot of other places, definitely in Bohemia for example, also in a lot of parts of Germany too. Again maybe something we can explore a bit further, I think it's an important subject. When did Christianity, monarchy, and feudalism take over in various given areas, and where did it fail or get unraveled?

Behemia was Christianized a century before Denmark and had faster feudalasation (and Seden lacked behind Denmark). I was merely making the point that when 'parlaments' began in the 13th century in Europe, some countries had seen the loss of power of the peasants several hundred years before, while others (as Sweden) it hadn't really happened yet.

Galloglaich

2016-08-12, 11:06 AM

Valdemar did more than "tax" (plunder) Visby, he broke a hole through their town walls, which is why they could no longer defend themselves. It led basically to the end of Visby as a regional economic and political power. And it also changed the Hanse for the worse because Wisby had been by far the most international \ multicultural of all the Hanseatic towns, and after all the nasty business between the Hanse (led by Lubeck especially) and Denmark the Hanse became much more specifically German and somewhat culturally jingoistic. They were downright cruel to the Norwegians in Bergen for example (Bergen being another town that got repeatedly sacked by the Victual Brothers and other pirates)

Behemia was Christianized a century before Denmark and had faster feudalasation (and Seden lacked behind Denmark). I was merely making the point that when 'parlaments' began in the 13th century in Europe, some countries had seen the loss of power of the peasants several hundred years before, while others (as Sweden) it hadn't really happened yet.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Adalb.jpg

See this is where the historic shorthand gets us in trouble. Lets compare Denmark and Bohemia. Denmark starts converting in the 10th Century and is considered basically Christian by the 11th, is that right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity_in_the_Czech_Lands#Middle_ Ages_.28976.E2.80.93c._1410.29

On paper Bohemia converts to Christianity somewhere around the 9th Century, depending on how you measure it. However, much later in the end of the 10th Century we see the Bishop of Prague Adalbert forced to flee Bohemia because he was trying to make the local nobles give up polygamy and they decided to kill him instead. He later got martyred by the Prussians. At this point clearly even the nobles of Bohemia still aren't very Christian.

In the 12th Century the Italians were shocked by the appearance of the Bohemians who showed up as part of the German Emperors army, and noted that they painted themselves blue before battle, baked little cakes shaped like children which they bit the heads off of before attacking, and showed zero hesitation in sacking and looting Christian churches, convents, monasteries and abbeys, nor even from digging up graves. The Italians considered them still pagan.

Bohemia didn't have Christian parishes until the mid 12th Century, and the Church didn't have a proper infrastructure until 1143, and this wasn't complete until around 1200. Most of the local priests were Bohemian though up to that point and it wasn't long after that when there started to be serious trouble between the Czechs and foreign priests as more came in from Germany and Italy, who objected to their (seemingly bizarre) local interpretations of Christianity, which per the usual pattern were strongly mixed up with the old local pagan practices. This apparently included almost all the priests keeping concubines and or being married.

In the early 15th Century, of course, Rome got fed up with the peculiarities (and reform tendencies) of Bohemian Christianity - which incidentally included specifically a lot of issues related to the role, legal status and religious designation of women- and burned their most popular local theologian, Jan Hus, followed shortly after by the failed Hussite Crusades. The Hussites practiced all kinds of variations of "Christian" practices which included many behaviors which are hard to describe as Christian. On one of their beautiful rides which went all the way to the Baltic, Hussite troops were reported by the Germans to have performed a provocative 'pagan' ritual with water from the Baltic sea, proclaiming that only the Sea Gods could stop them.

You could look at it one way or another I'm sure.

G

Tobtor

2016-08-12, 11:53 AM

The strongest cultural centers of Europe, notably Northern Italy, Flanders, the Rhineland, as well as some other zones (Baltic and North Sea fringes, Catalonia, Bohemia) were the areas of the weakest (or non-existent) monarchies and least effective conversion into Feudalism.

Northern Germany already had an established "Knight"-class (whatever the various names) and some nobility when Denmark began moving in that direction. The first "knights" were Germans moving into Slesvig and in 1200 no "Danish" nobles existed at all (only the counts of Holstein). There were only leading peasant families. Some nobles and knights existed in Flanders and Northern Italy and the Rhineland at least. It is true that in some of those regions towns were more important politically, that doesn't mean there wasn't a nobility and feudal structure in the rural districts. There wasn't in Sweden.

Galloglaich

2016-08-12, 12:02 PM

Northern Germany already had an established "Knight"-class (whatever the various names) and some nobility when Denmark began moving in that direction. The first "knights" were Germans moving into Slesvig and in 1200 no "Danish" nobles existed at all (only the counts of Holstein). There were only leading peasant families. Some nobles and knights existed in Flanders and Northern Italy and the Rhineland at least. It is true that in some of those regions towns were more important politically, that doesn't mean there wasn't a nobility and feudal structure in the rural districts. There wasn't in Sweden.

And yet you have places like Frisia and the Dithmarschen where you had those peasant republics and so on

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dithmarschen#History

It's still being debated if they had knights in Bohemia when they defeated the Mongols in 1241.

G

Galloglaich

2016-08-12, 12:08 PM

if you are interested in this subject, this s a pretty fascinating microcosm of the attempts to impose Feudalism by force on one little area in Frisia throughout the Middle Ages, somebody spent a long time writing this, it's a little hard to follow (which is typical for these stories) but it gives you an idea how hard it was to impose Feudalism in these areas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Wursten

G

Tobtor

2016-08-12, 01:49 PM

And yet you have places like Frisia and the Dithmarschen where you had those peasant republics and so on

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dithmarschen#History

Yes, we do have those places. The frisian area is quite interesting, we have discussed them before. That dosn't change that most of Germany was feudal... that is why they wanted to subdue the frisians so badly I suppose.

Denmark starts converting in the 10th Century and is considered basically Christian by the 11th, is that right?

Yes, with Norway and Sweden following later. In the

Bohemia didn't have Christian parishes until the mid 12th Century

Neither did Sweden (first after the bishopry of Upsala in 1164 did parishes arise), nor many other places in Scandinavia. There was an outright pagan king in Sweden as late as the 1080'ies Blot-Sweyn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blot-Sweyn)). However I do agree that many parts of eastern and central Europe also had a late feudalisation as well, and slow conversion.

A true nobility (where some families are considered important) does not begin to appear in sources from Denmark before 1500, though it clearly develop earlier, mainly in the second half of the 13th century with the introduction of some tenant-system supporting a heavy horse-riding class. Similar in Norway after the concept of Frälse was changed or codified in 1280 in Sweden and in 1277 in Norway (Frälse means 'free', as in not thrall, but changes meaning to be the warrior class from which 'knights' could be appointed - in Norway the hird is transfered to squries/knights depending on status). Before this all people from the bondi class (the vast majority of the population) was in theory equal (though some of course was richer and more influential than others). Thus discussing peasants become quite akward as the term meaning peasant in 1100, is the proto nobility of the 13th century.

Tobtor

2016-08-12, 01:54 PM

Valdemar did more than "tax" (plunder) Visby

Yes, sure he did. That what was done when you won a war. That dos not change that the town could easily had assumed he wouldn't do out of fear for the Hanse. Some historians think it was a mistake of him, others that it was necessary to secure the power base.

In any case the situation was that the peasant army was standing outside locked city gates and was slaughtered while the towns-folk looked from the walls.

The peasant army had already lost two battles, and had re-enforced themselves with old, young (and possibly women), and that the army was likely that raggy thing we see described in historical sources.

Galloglaich

2016-08-12, 02:24 PM

Yes, we do have those places. The frisian area is quite interesting, we have discussed them before. That dosn't change that most of Germany was feudal... that is why they wanted to subdue the frisians so badly I suppose.

Well this is one of the interesting things about looking back, isn't it? Today we see the places like Holland and Switzerland as kind of a separate deal from "Germany" but back in those days, it was all part of the same mix in the Holy Roman Empire. The parts which managed to remain independent, and non-feudalized for a really long time came to be looked at as distinct from our perspective, and most of those which "only" lasted a few centuries are largely forgotten today. I think there are a lot of other examples like this, the Frisians and the Swiss are just among the best documented. I'm more familiar with Prussia, Bohemia, Poland and that whole region around the Southern Baltic which is where I have really focused, but I keep running into a lot of other examples.

Neither did Sweden (first after the bishopry of Upsala in 1164 did parishes arise), nor many other places in Scandinavia. There was an outright pagan king in Sweden as late as the 1080'ies Blot-Sweyn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blot-Sweyn)). However I do agree that many parts of eastern and central Europe also had a late feudalisation as well, and slow conversion.

A true nobility (where some families are considered important) does not begin to appear in sources from Denmark before 1500, though it clearly develop earlier, mainly in the second half of the 13th century with the introduction of some tenant-system supporting a heavy horse-riding class. Similar in Norway after the concept of Frälse was changed or codified in 1280 in Sweden and in 1277 in Norway (Frälse means 'free', as in not thrall, but changes meaning to be the warrior class from which 'knights' could be appointed - in Norway the hird is transfered to squries/knights depending on status). Before this all people from the bondi class (the vast majority of the population) was in theory equal (though some of course was richer and more influential than others). Thus discussing peasants become quite akward as the term meaning peasant in 1100, is the proto nobility of the 13th century.

well this reminds me of the situation with the so-called ministerial class in Germany. Serf-knights. Always seemed like a strange concept. Also apparently goes back to the 11th Century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerialis

In the Holy Roman Empire, in the High Middle Ages, the word and its German translations, Ministeriale(n) and Dienstmann, came to describe those unfree nobles who made up a large majority of what could be described as the German knighthood during that time. What began as an irregular arrangement of workers with a wide variety of duties and restrictions rose in status and wealth to become the power brokers of an empire. The ministeriales were not legally free people, but held social rank. Legally, their liege lord determined who they could or could not marry, and they were not able to transfer their lords' properties to heirs or spouses. They were, however, considered members of the nobility since that was a social designation, not a legal one. Ministeriales were trained knights, held military responsibilities and surrounded themselves with the trappings of knighthood, and so were accepted as noblemen.[1] Both women and men held the ministerial status, and the laws on ministeriales made no distinction between the sexes in how they were treated.[2]

Another awkward adaptation of converting a (comparatively) free tribal society into Feudal society. In the early days a lot of them were in fact neither serfs nor knights by any definition. Basically I think it was just a legal justification for your basic tribal warriors. By the Late Medieval period these people were no longer serfs in any sense of the word, and in fact made up the majority of German knights.

Arguably, the true serfdom in Germany didn't become widespread until the princes started using lawyers to remove all their rights in the 16th Century, leading to the German Peasant uprising and the various knights uprisings and so on. End of the medieval period in other words.

G

Galloglaich

2016-08-12, 02:45 PM

Whoever tried to PM me I made space in my box.

BayardSPSR

2016-08-12, 04:18 PM

While I think the soft cultural power of Anglo-American media is a major factor, (and a lot of, if not most of that is actually anti-weapon without a doubt) what I'm really referring to here is the social media software itself. Social media, big data in general are very effective tools for steering conversations and influencing opinions. Mostly for commercial reasons, obviously, to get you to buy what their advertisers are selling, since that is how they make (enormous amounts of) money. But they also steer culture and have political agendas of their own. How could they not? And most of those Big Data firms, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Instagram, Snapchat, Tumblr, etc. are American firms.

I work in the software industry so maybe I have an overly cynical perception of it. But Facebook etc. have been pretty open about their manipulations, at least as "experiments".

There's certainly open manipulation with the intent of producing data on user behavior, but I have yet to see evidence of a deliberate program of political intervention outside of employee conversations on the topic of the ongoing US Presidential election cycle. Curating users and user content in service of corporate public image, absolutely. Cooperation with law enforcement, absolutely. Active, coordinated Americanization of international pop culture? Hell no.

And I don't know if English language media is uniquely "anti-weapon," except insofar as firearm regulation is a much higher-profile political issue in the US.

Galloglaich

2016-08-12, 04:46 PM

There's certainly open manipulation with the intent of producing data on user behavior, but I have yet to see evidence of a deliberate program of political intervention outside of employee conversations on the topic of the ongoing US Presidential election cycle. Curating users and user content in service of corporate public image, absolutely. Cooperation with law enforcement, absolutely. Active, coordinated Americanization of international pop culture? Hell no.

And I don't know if English language media is uniquely "anti-weapon," except insofar as firearm regulation is a much higher-profile political issue in the US.

That is not precisely what I meant.

Their business, their job, is to make you and me, the users of social media, like and believe in certain brands - brands of companies that pay them to do this. They make a lot of money doing this (http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-profits-surge-on-strong-ad-demand-1469736762), not because firms think they are neat or cool or trendy, but because they are extremely effective at persuading people that these brands are good, and to buy them.

The brands, in aggregate, and the companies themselves, also have certain cultural and political agendas. When it comes to US media, old or new media, they tend to be culturally very much on one particular side, (even if economically they may be on a different side altogether).

Do you think given how little detailed oversight there is over their activities, how good they are at the art of persuasion, and how influential they are on culture in general, that they don't put their thumb on the scale a little bit?

If so we can agree to disagree. :)

G

BayardSPSR

2016-08-12, 05:00 PM

That is not precisely what I meant.

Their business, their job, is to make you and me, the users of social media, like and believe in certain brands - brands of companies that pay them to do this. They make a lot of money doing this (http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-profits-surge-on-strong-ad-demand-1469736762), not because firms think they are neat or cool or trendy, but because they are extremely effective at persuading people that these brands are good, and to buy them.

The brands, in aggregate, and the companies themselves, also have certain cultural and political agendas. When it comes to US media, old or new media, they tend to be culturally very much on one particular side, (even if economically they may be on a different side altogether).

Do you think given how little detailed oversight there is over their activities, how good they are at the art of persuasion, and how influential they are on culture in general, that they don't put their thumb on the scale a little bit?

I follow what you're saying, and perhaps only disagree with the way you're phrasing your conclusion: that is, my impression is that the aggregate cultural influence of Silicon Valley is more a product of rank ignorance of the second-order effects of their actions than anything else. Even then, the presence of intent and opportunity doesn't make a crime. Googling "gun," for instance, shows me a few headlines, editorials with varying opinions in the news section, and several places to buy them. I can't conclude that the political preferences of the coding demographic are guiding those results. They could - I just don't have evidence that they have.

Tobtor

2016-08-12, 05:27 PM

Active, coordinated Americanization of international pop culture? Hell no.

Well apart from deciding on whats appropriate/polite in public in regards to a long series of subjects (nudity, politics, gender etc) I agree.

Tobtor

2016-08-12, 05:29 PM

Arguably, the true serfdom in Germany didn't become widespread until the princes started using lawyers to remove all their rights in the 16th Century, leading to the German Peasant uprising and the various knights uprisings and so on. End of the medieval period in other words.

Well perhaps not true serfs, but more like tenants (that is completely free individuals, but not owning their own land).

snowblizz

2016-08-12, 05:59 PM

Valdemar did more than "tax" (plunder) Visby,
He most certainly di not plunder Visby. I've also never heard the thing about tearing a hole in the citywalls, except now checking a Swedish book about it that act is described as one of the myths added in the 1660s to the history, by one Strelow. His other descriptions are totalyl wrong too so his info is highly suspect. It's furthermore suggested that the economic downturn of Visby had started before the happened as better ships let traders sail for longer. But the island as whole was certainly hit hard, and many treasures were buried around this time that have later been found.

And there's no evidence of the popular image of "ransoming" the town, as famously depicted in national romantic paintings at any rate.

The closest we can come is apparently letters from Visby to the Hanse explaining payment was made to protect Hanseatic property in Visby. It seems no period sources actually describe any excessive extortion of the town.

Nor do the privilleges granted two days later affirming all the old laws and privilleges the town had. Dosen't sound very catastrophic as such.

Based on what I can find Visby did get off fairly lightly, likely for not participating and capitulating and swearing fealty, and the majority of the later rumoured loot was probably taken from the countryside which was relatively rich.

On the subject of peasant freedoms and the development of feudalism I was reading an old uni library book a friend bought cheaply, which made som interesting points vis a vis such developments, "Lineages of the Absolutists State". Now, it is written from a marxist perspective (so americans, fingers in ears right now), and suffers heavily from a "have hammer, all problems are nails" mentality. But not all of the things brought up were totally off the rocker. I may have to see what it had to say on these areas (it is very thorough).

Galloglaich

2016-08-12, 06:27 PM

He most certainly di not plunder Visby. I've also never heard the thing about tearing a hole in the citywalls, except now checking a Swedish book about it that act is described as one of the myths added in the 1660s to the history, by one Strelow. His other descriptions are totalyl wrong too so his info is highly suspect. It's furthermore suggested that the economic downturn of Visby had started before the happened as better ships let traders sail for longer. But the island as whole was certainly hit hard, and many treasures were buried around this time that have later been found.

And there's no evidence of the popular image of "ransoming" the town, as famously depicted in national romantic paintings at any rate.

(snip)

Based on what I can find Visby did get off fairly lightly, likely for not participating and capitulating and swearing fealty, and the majority of the later rumoured loot was probably taken from the countryside which was relatively rich.

.

I'll take a look at my own sources, I know that Philippe Dollinger in his definitive work on the German Hansa, widely considered in academic circles (I think) the 20th Century expert on the subject, has a lot to say about that incident, as do the other Hanseatic histories i have. I'm not sure how much is from primary source documents though but I'll check.

But think I can say Visby didn't start getting sacked until after this "Visit" by Valdemar, it can be argued whether she was already in decline but there is no doubt that the decline became precipitous immediately from that point onward. Visby was crushed, essentially, and my understanding is that it was mainly due to the damage to her walls and other defensive infrastructure caused by Valdemar.

Valdemar was also not acting in a vacuum but as part of a series of increasingly dangerous chess moves in competition with the Hanse. My understanding is that the thought taking out Visby would knock them down more than just a peg, and intimidate them into giving him his way with the Sound dues etc., but he turned out to be wrong as we know.

G

snowblizz

2016-08-12, 07:38 PM

I'll take a look at my own sources, I know that Philippe Dollinger in his definitive work on the German Hansa, widely considered in academic circles (I think) the 20th Century expert on the subject, has a lot to say about that incident, as do the other Hanseatic histories i have. I'm not sure how much is from primary source documents though but I'll check.
Be interesting to hear since many things you mention has never feature in the stories I've hear dabout it. Not that they are necessarily right either, but I was loooking now and all modern sources make the same point that there's precious little actual source material. And that many later accounts have taken popular myths into the descriptions.

But think I can say Visby didn't start getting sacked until after this "Visit" by Valdemar, it can be argued whether she was already in decline but there is no doubt that the decline became precipitous immediately from that point onward. Visby was crushed, essentially, and my understanding is that it was mainly due to the damage to her walls and other defensive infrastructure caused by Valdemar.

Valdemar was also not acting in a vacuum but as part of a series of increasingly dangerous chess moves in competition with the Hanse. My understanding is that the thought taking out Visby would knock them down more than just a peg, and intimidate them into giving him his way with the Sound dues etc., but he turned out to be wrong as we know.

G
Yea, this is something that's becoming very clear, and a recurring theme in Danish-Swedish-Blatic interactions. Controlling the trade routes and being able to tax them was among the main reasons Sweden went to war on the other side of the Baltic and was also one important leg for their "great power" status in the 1600s. The emerging Danish power naturally wanted to further strengthen it's dominance over the trade from it's natural strategic advantage.
As a note was checking wikipedia and the Öresund dues weren't introduced until 1429. That's around the same time when other economic factors are starting to kick in, eg the important herring moving more into the North Sea. That's getting into the stagnation and declining period of Hanse from what I can find. Before that it would have been control of the markets and right to tax traders at the same, especially the yearly? herring market I guess.

Vinyadan

2016-08-13, 03:34 AM

In general, you have 2 types of open manipulation by e.g. Facebook. Case 1 you can spot yourself: each time you can see the company directly and openly pushing for some innovation and trying to pass it for something it isn't (cool-necessary-innovative...). This is pretty much just good old publicity, just made on a very wide medium the company directly owns. I recently had similar feeling with a TV spot by Huawei, something about touch screen and feeling things, it made me feel like I was looking at an absurd Bosch painting for how removed from reality it was. E.g. https://humidfruit.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/bosch-temptations-of-saint-anthony-left-panel-18.jpg

Case 2 was the recent scandal regarding manipulation of trending news on facebook. Supposedly, some news are injected, some are ejected, and no news about facebook are to be found in a feed that should be based on sharing algorithms.

Concerning Americanization of news, you can see that when American internal affairs become the theme of worldwide publicity, like e.g. police shootings. It's not that those things aren't important, but we have our own shootings you hardly hear about, while being constantly hammered about what's happening in the remote USA.

No brains

2016-08-15, 06:05 PM

fusilier

2016-08-15, 08:36 PM

Beleriphon

2016-08-15, 09:59 PM

I realize that there is only the most tenuous connection between my question and the subject, but I feel like this is the best place I can ask this. What did people in history think of and call static electricity? I realize that a lot of modern materials have made shocks more common, but they must have happened in the past and I'm curious how they were perceived.

Depends. Once people had some idea about what was happening all kinds of dangerous experiments were performed with electricity. See the Flying Boy experiment for example.

Prior to scientists really getting a grasp on what static electricity, or even electrical currents in general were, its harder to say. More tha likely a touch of the gods, or attribution to other phenomena.

Vinyadan

2016-08-16, 01:58 AM

The word electricity comes from elektron, which is Greek for amber, because static electricity would often manifest itself on it by rubbing.

Martin Greywolf

2016-08-17, 04:24 AM

On the subject of peasant freedoms and the development of feudalism I was reading an old uni library book a friend bought cheaply, which made som interesting points vis a vis such developments, "Lineages of the Absolutists State". Now, it is written from a marxist perspective (so americans, fingers in ears right now), and suffers heavily from a "have hammer, all problems are nails" mentality. But not all of the things brought up were totally off the rocker. I may have to see what it had to say on these areas (it is very thorough).

Here's a curveball to invalidate a hefty portion of any conclusions in bokks of that kind - when Hungary was at its most de facto absolutist (first half of Arpad dynasty), the common people had the most freedom. We're talking about a king openly stating that he thought all people were created equal by God, and only then made unequal, and therefore everyone was guaranteed a right to move around the country freely, and that all nationalities were equal and necessary for a strong state to function. Common folks even had the right to hunt by default, with nobles only making localised bans on hunting specific game, and you had significant social mobility, with commoners, even jews, pagans and muslims getting into pretty high offices (that said, jews, muslims and pagans were banned from it over and over, which gives you an idea about how effective those bans were - and they were usually shoehorned in by bishops).

Most folks will usually equate serfs with feudalism (whatever their definition of it is) and monarchy, but as you can see, that was definitely not he case. You can amke a case for Hungary being the most prosperous when the people had most freedom, and you'd be right, though if that freedom was the reason of said prosperity is another thing entirely. That said, Hungary did fall apart exactly because freedoms and rights were taken from the people in them (Hungarization of non-Hungarian nations inside it) - it's pretty impressive that old Arpad king was able to foresee that almost a thousand years before it happened.

Honestly, I think that you can really only look at things like these on a kingdom-by-kingdom basis, since there are so many major differences between them.

Tobtor

2016-08-17, 05:21 AM

snowblizz

2016-08-17, 06:12 AM

Here's a curveball to invalidate a hefty portion of any conclusions in bokks of that kind - when Hungary was at its most de facto absolutist (first half of Arpad dynasty), the common people had the most freedom. We're talking about a king openly stating that he thought all people were created equal by God, and only then made unequal, and therefore everyone was guaranteed a right to move around the country freely, and that all nationalities were equal and necessary for a strong state to function. Common folks even had the right to hunt by default, with nobles only making localised bans on hunting specific game, and you had significant social mobility, with commoners, even jews, pagans and muslims getting into pretty high offices (that said, jews, muslims and pagans were banned from it over and over, which gives you an idea about how effective those bans were - and they were usually shoehorned in by bishops).

Most folks will usually equate serfs with feudalism (whatever their definition of it is) and monarchy, but as you can see, that was definitely not he case. You can amke a case for Hungary being the most prosperous when the people had most freedom, and you'd be right, though if that freedom was the reason of said prosperity is another thing entirely. That said, Hungary did fall apart exactly because freedoms and rights were taken from the people in them (Hungarization of non-Hungarian nations inside it) - it's pretty impressive that old Arpad king was able to foresee that almost a thousand years before it happened.

Honestly, I think that you can really only look at things like these on a kingdom-by-kingdom basis, since there are so many major differences between them.
Trust me, freedom has very little do with the line of thinking. What they are mainly focusing on is ownership of land and economic production resources. And land.

And it's very through, country for country, region by region.

I think Martin Greywolf is right in pointing out that powerful kings do not equate poor peasants.

Often you see example of the King having the role as protector of the peasants from the nobles (especially the higher up nobles). The reason is twofold: the king do not necessarily want a strong nobility, thus by allying himself with the peasants he can limit the nobles. Secondly the king is concerned with the general prosperity of the land (at least as far that increases his wealth/power), while the nobleman have a more limited interest in his own little domain.
Sure, never said anything else. I do believe I mentioned that very fact. Scandinavia was one place where there was a fairly close king-commoner bond e.g. Tudor era rulers e.g. would also appeal to the commoners.

Galloglaich

2016-08-17, 10:56 AM

I think Martin Greywolf is right in pointing out that powerful kings do not equate poor peasants.

Often you see example of the King having the role as protector of the peasants from the nobles (especially the higher up nobles). The reason is twofold: the king do not necessarily want a strong nobility, thus by allying himself with the peasants he can limit the nobles. Secondly the king is concerned with the general prosperity of the land (at least as far that increases his wealth/power), while the nobleman have a more limited interest in his own little domain.

A lot of times there is a pattern, once the original tribal society or more sophisticated autonomous self-rule is overturned, first it's the nobles, (or princes) who gain power over the commoners.

The would-be King, Emperor, dictator or whomever is trying to win the "Game of Thrones" is typically also struggling against the princes, and sides (for a while) with the common people for their support. As two fairly obvious examples, this was true of Julius Caesar (who was actually part of the Marian reform party initially) or Louis XIV. There will be a phase, call it the Caesar Augustus phase, in which a lot of useful reforms take place, but then it's followed by repression, and often collapse.

Republics can go through the same process, particularly ideological ones, can often be some of the most repressive governments. It's sort of the Athens vs. Sparta conflict, or Napoleon vs. the Kings of Europe. Athens, or the French revolutionary government, foments revolt and then takes it over. Sparta, or the ancient regime by contrast, proclaims "liberty" of the older more mixed form of government which often allow more freedom or at least regional diversity, but has all these little mini-dictatorships.

The thing is though, after the princes (or prelates, whatever regional powers are there) are eliminated, or forcibly invited to the world's longest and most vicious dinner party in Versailles in the case of Louis XIV, then the squeeze gets put down on the whole country, and the crackdown against the commoners begins. The absolutist regime is rarely a meritocracy, positions within the administration are achieved on the basis of loyalty primarily. That in turn leads to mass corruption, which leads to instability as it becomes impossible for people to survive, and then revolution and / or collapse.

As I said, Republics and revolutionary governments often go through the same process, sometimes much faster and more dysfunctional. Anabaptists at Munster, or the French Revolution.

What I was referring to upthread was a different kind of thing - local autonomy. Either partial or total. Seems to have a lot of benefits for the local folks.

G

Yora

2016-08-17, 11:04 AM

Does anyone know about the long distance travel speed of camels? Humans and horses are about the same at 5 kph on decent roads but do camels doing better or worse?

Galloglaich

2016-08-17, 11:59 AM

One of the most interesting points the great early 20th Century Belgian historian Henri Pirenne made in his histories of the Free cities of the Low Countries, is that the "intentional" or ideological republics often failed, sometimes spectacularly and quite rapidly, ala Munster. Whereas the 'accidental' republics, made rather grudgingly essentially as a truce between various entrenched entities (patrician families, guilds, religious orders etc.), sometimes lasted centuries and often thrived.

You can see this in microcosm in many of the free cities and also the peasant republics. Due to both internal and external pressures, almost every Free City in Central and Northern Europe, even the really stable ones, went through multiple revolutions and uprisings and power shuffles. There were both stable and unstable systems, but the ones designed according to some kind of plan or ideology seem to have often been unstable. The Swiss Confederation is probably the ultimate example of the former, a sort of grudging truce between various power-factions, urban / rural, Catholic / Protestant, French / German / Italian / Romansch speakers etc.. My Swiss friend says that is how Switzerland still is, a grudging and wary truce. Of course they were not perfect either and seem to have ultimately been dominated by a few of their more powerful cities. I think this can partly be attributed though to the (absolutist) situation in almost all the rest of Europe by the 17th Century.

What the "German*" polities seemed to be really good at, compared to the Italian city-states, which (with the exception of Venice) much more often tore each other apart., is that they could recognize when they were at a point where further conflict would just screw things up for everybody in the polity. Rather than pursue vendettas to the point of cutting off their nose to spite their face, they had this tradition they called Rezeß. It's hard to translate into English (and there is very little about it in English) but it means something like 'backing down'.

One good example is in Hamburg. In 1410 there was a sharp social conflict when a powerful Duke from the nearby rural area got heavy handed with an artisan over some kind of petty commercial dispute. The senat (city council) initially sided with the Duke, for pragmatic reasons, but this caused a crisis with the craft guilds who threatened revolt. There was a big crisis which looked like civil war would break out. But in the end they made a compromise, the Rezeß, which led to what some call their first constitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hamburg#First_constitution

Like many of the larger Free Cities, Hamburg weathered all kinds of storms (including the apocalyptic 30 Years War) and remained a republic until taken over by French revolutionary troops in 1806. Depending on how you measure it, they were autonomous for something like 500- 700 years. Which isn't bad for one little town.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Hamburg

This wiki says Hamburg was technically a republic until 1871

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Hamburg

Prior to 1871, Hamburg was a fully sovereign country, and its government a sovereign government. Upon joining the German Empire, the city-state retained partial sovereignty as a federal state. It was one of three republics within the German Empire until 1919, which meant that its First Mayor enjoyed the same rank in the Empire as the federal princes. Prior to the constitutional reforms in 1919, the hereditary grand burghers or Hanseaten, had a legally privileged position and were the only ones eligible for being elected to the senate.

G

* by which I mean cities under German town law and with German-speaking ruling class, found all over Europe north of the Alps and East of the Rhine, but which may not have actually had ethnic German populations. It seems to be a very tricky subject. Some clearly were German (or Saxon, Swabian, Rhennish whatever) others seem to be mostly of another ethnicity, others seem to have been very mixed.

Beleriphon

2016-08-17, 05:42 PM

Does anyone know about the long distance travel speed of camels? Humans and horses are about the same at 5 kph on decent roads but do camels doing better or worse?

In caravan with a good sized load camels are about the same, but the big difference is that they don't need roads to travel.

Brother Oni

2016-08-17, 06:12 PM

Does anyone know about the long distance travel speed of camels? Humans and horses are about the same at 5 kph on decent roads but do camels doing better or worse?

Trotting gait for a horse is about 8-12 mph, whereas the same gait for a camel is ~9-10 mph, so I would say a little slower.

They also have the same sort of endurance, with a pack camel getting about 25 miles a day, although the source doesn't state what sort of terrain. Horses can manage up to 50 miles a day on good roads, although 30 miles would be considered a decent day's travel.

If using them for pack animals though, their range is a lot less; camels carrying a 500-1000lbs (they weigh around 1,400lbs) typically manage a walking pace of 2-3 mph for several hours a day. There's more data on horses, where 20-25% of their body weight is considered a 'light load' in D&D terms, they get tetchy up to 25% and start suffering at 30%. Weight of a horse depends entirely on the breed, but the optimal load for a 1,200lb horse is 240lbs.

Note that load includes the saddle, tackle and other riding gear, not just the rider and their kit.

Kiero

2016-08-18, 02:49 AM

Brother Oni

2016-08-18, 06:15 AM

Horses can travel much further than 50 miles a day if you have remounts. Ie at least two (better four or more) horses per rider. That was the "secret" of the rapid overland movement of steppe peoples like the Skythians, Sauromatians, Mongols and others. In those cultures a warrior required at least four horses to be considered as such. More successful ones had ten, kings had herds of hundreds of horses.

There's numerous permutations of distance travelled depending on group size, number of mounts, discipline, terrain, baggage train, etc, but given the original question, I assumed a single rider with a single mount.

The fastest you could shift something in a day (ie 24 hours) is ~720 miles using a setup similar to the Pony Express with fresh riders and horses every 10 miles as that's the furthest a horse could gallop (~30mph) before it tired.
In a caravan or similar, while you could have fresh mounts to travel further in a day, I'm sure the time gain would be lost by the time taken to redistribute the loads or re-hook up fresh mounts to the wagons every change over.

Kiero

2016-08-18, 07:43 AM

There's numerous permutations of distance travelled depending on group size, number of mounts, discipline, terrain, baggage train, etc, but given the original question, I assumed a single rider with a single mount.

The fastest you could shift something in a day (ie 24 hours) is ~720 miles using a setup similar to the Pony Express with fresh riders and horses every 10 miles as that's the furthest a horse could gallop (~30mph) before it tired.
In a caravan or similar, while you could have fresh mounts to travel further in a day, I'm sure the time gain would be lost by the time taken to redistribute the loads or re-hook up fresh mounts to the wagons every change over.

Even in the medieval context, a single rider with single mount isn't a terribly sustainable setup - all it takes is one minor injury to a horse (that can happen very easily) and you have a bad infantryman. There it was assumed a knight would have a destrier and palfrey.

Note that remounts for steppe peoples isn't like the Pony Express or post/caravan situation. They don't have stations where they change over, they bring the string of ponies with them and change at rest intervals. An unladed horse can travel much further than one carrying a rider, and if you're changing every few hours none of them are ever particularly strained. All they had to do at changeover was switch mounts.

This isn't about travelling fast, but travelling far. How long you could ride in a day depended more in how hardy the riders were, sitting in the saddle for 12 hours is tiring work. Let's say they're averaging 15mph and with stoppages manage 10 hours of actual travel a day - that's 150 miles a day. Which could be sustained for weeks.

Carl

2016-08-18, 09:06 AM

Kiero

2016-08-18, 09:24 AM

Do note however camels can go much longer without water and AFAIK survive on poorer quality food, they still need enough of it, but they can handle lower quality stuff that horses can;t properly use. In effect camels are good when running routes where food and water for the animal will be less available as you don't need to carry so much actual feed and water with you provided your destination can supply that.

True, but it depends on your supply constraints. Europe is well-watered compared to the central Asian steppe, for example, so that's less of a concern.

If you have a string of ponies, that also means you have more capacity to carry forage.

Brother Oni

2016-08-18, 10:31 AM

This isn't about travelling fast, but travelling far. How long you could ride in a day depended more in how hardy the riders were, sitting in the saddle for 12 hours is tiring work. Let's say they're averaging 15mph and with stoppages manage 10 hours of actual travel a day - that's 150 miles a day. Which could be sustained for weeks.

I think it would depend on more how hardy the horses are, since if they go lame or become exhausted, you're walking.

I also think your average 15mph is very optimistic - typical relaxed horseback travel is about 1-2 hour's trotting, followed by an hour or two walking to rest the horse so an average of 6-8 mph is more realistic. If you wanted to ride at faster pace then it's no longer trotting and hence no longer relaxed travel, which is a different scenario.

I get the feeling that we're splitting hairs about slightly different situations - neither of us are really disagreeing with each other.

Tobtor

2016-08-18, 11:08 AM

Even in the medieval context, a single rider with single mount isn't a terribly sustainable setup - all it takes is one minor injury to a horse (that can happen very easily) and you have a bad infantryman. There it was assumed a knight would have a destrier and palfrey.

Expected in the late period yes. Most laws from the 9-13th century recognise knights with one horse. There are also multiple accounts of knights loosing the only horse they brought on a campaign etc. I agree it was general practise to bring two for a campaign, but perhaps the question isnt related to that, but for more common travels (in which most people brought just a riding horse).

Galloglaich

2016-08-18, 11:59 AM

Expected in the late period yes. Most laws from the 9-13th century recognise knights with one horse. There are also multiple accounts of knights loosing the only horse they brought on a campaign etc. I agree it was general practise to bring two for a campaign, but perhaps the question isnt related to that, but for more common travels (in which most people brought just a riding horse).

I would expect ambling gait would also play a role in how fare you could go in a day.

The string of six ponies per rider was possible on the steppe with arpan ponies that ate only grass and in an area where there is basically an endless sea of grass. It didn't work as well in Europe because of the problem of feeding hroses.

There is a book called Codex Cumanicus (in certain versions) or Pratica della mercaturra which has extremely detailed instructions for caravans going down the silk roads including travel times for both horses and camels

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratica_della_mercatura

You can find excerpts from this book (in different variations) online if you do a little digging. It's quite fascinating and gets down into very deep detail, including even riddles you might get asked on the road and details about fighting and bribing people and everything that might come up.

In a much earlier era, some info has come out about Otzi's clothing, I found it interesting. Seems like it was a quite complex and sophisticated world he lived in, never seen much if any genre fiction, games, movies etc. (except possibly quest for fire but that is a much earlier era) which gives some hint of a world like this. Seems like it would be fun for gaming and genre fiction if you could get your head around it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/08/18/what-was-otzi-the-iceman-wearing-when-he-died-pretty-much-an-entire-zoo/

Thought some folks here might find the article interesting. I wish I had time to make a codex game for this world.

G

cobaltstarfire

2016-08-18, 02:15 PM

The other thread about guns got me trying to learn about older guns and stuff, and I came across the Fire Lance, though there isn't very much to read on them.

What I could find about it was that it shoots fire for a short time, and can also be stuffed with stuff (rocks, broken pottery, poison darts!?) to shoot in a very very short range. And that they used bamboo at first, but started using metal later. They're described as good deterrents against people climbing walls, and as peasant weapons.

Could any fire lance shoot all these things at once just dependent on what you put in the tube, or did they usually only do fire+one other thing? What other sorts of uses were they put to other than scaring people off of walls?

Galloglaich

2016-08-18, 02:17 PM

Beleriphon

2016-08-18, 02:33 PM

Do note however camels can go much longer without water and AFAIK survive on poorer quality food, they still need enough of it, but they can handle lower quality stuff that horses can;t properly use. In effect camels are good when running routes where food and water for the animal will be less available as you don't need to carry so much actual feed and water with you provided your destination can supply that.

The big benefit of camels really is the fact they can subsist on dang near anything. Including gnawing on bones if need be.

Martin Greywolf

2016-08-19, 04:46 AM

On the subject of horses, I read a really extensive book that covered their use in medieval Hungary. So, let's dig in.

1) Horse types

Palfrey and destrier are the ones given most often, but this is medieval sources. The definitions are not clear, they mean something different depending on where they pop up, there are many more kinds of horses and we don't know what they mean as often as not etc. Add ot that unfortunate tendency of some medieval people to think that color of a horse affected his characteristics (that got at least one king straight up killed), and we have a mess.

The types given in the book are: ambulator, ynnochodchyk, armigerus, badavia, curriferus, dalm, dextrarius, gradarius, ginectus, leporarius, magnus, mercimonialis, palefridus, poroska, redarius, sellatus, subselliparus, trotator, velox, wenalis, wosznyk, zawodnik. Add to that that ambulator is sometimes synonymous with ynnochodchyk, but sometimes not, and many of these have further adjectives to them, usually magnus or parvus (good//big and small).

That's not even going into sources often mentioning some horse types by their origin, and sometimes mentioning origin of horses only as that. We do know that Transylvania had some really prized horses for long travel in hard terrain, for example.

2) Horse numbers

How many horses did a person have depended on one thing above all - how common (and therefore cheap) they were in a country. Hungary had unusually high number of them, most villages had two to four horses per household, only the poorest had none. In a situation like this, nobles, even poorer ones, always had several horses.

Next thing no one ever talks about is that horses go bad - they get injured, get old, get killed in battle or by illness, so replacing them is not an uncommon occurence. A knight is rarely going to purchase a horse he can't financially afford to replace. Sometimes they do get fancy ones, but if they die, oh well, it sucks but there are plenty of competent horses around. Also consider that buying a horse wasn't very hard, most cities haad at least some horse markets, and you could ofteng et one by paying a commoner, though this would get you a higher price. Also, nobles could just take horses from commoners, provided they were their commoners, but doing this too foten is a bad idea.

The result of this is that lonely rider with one horse wasn't uncommon, or even a too bad of an idea, but the horse was often not the same one. Also, this was only done in cases when the rider didn't want to carry a lot of stuff - he doesn't really need food, since he can just buy it - and that was not all that common, messengers (of not super rich people and organizations) and people visiting relatives were perhaps the most common.

3) Travel times

Hugely complex topic, and what is going to affect your travel time the most, especially in a caravan, are unforseeable circumstances. An animal gets ill, road gets blocked, sandstorm stops you etc etc. The fact that next city is a day's ride away will to you little good if there's currently a river flood between you and your destination.

The book I mentioned gives a table taken out of medieval documents that gives the optimistic estimates, so here goes (numbers are in kilometers per day, i.e. 12 hours, of travel):

horses pulling a wagon with load - 23 to 30
messenger without switching horses - 46 in winter, 53 in summer
special messenger, with elite horse - 56 to 60
kocs/carriage, making one stop to switch out its four horses - 100
messenger switching horses - 91 to 300 (heavily depends on how often he can switch them and length of journey)

This is, of course, only good for getting a basic idea, if we have a guy on single horse who has three day's journey in front of him, he can well go faster than 53 km per day because the horse will get rest shortly, someone travelling for a month will have to slow down.

4) Humans in saddle

Endurance of medieval riders was comparable to the very best riders we have now. Most of the people riding horses did so as part of the profession, and could spend several days in the saddle as a matter of course. Indeed, when someone couldn't ride on a horse during long travels, it was taken as a sign of old age or illness. For all but the tail end of middle ages, this holds true for both men and women, as the middle ages ended, stupid stuff was done with female riders, like peer-pressuring them into sidesaddle or carriage and so on and so forth.

cobaltstarfire

2016-08-19, 09:43 AM

They were apparently quite effective at killing people and starting fires (both useful in sieges).

Good video on them here. Gives you an idea what they were like in action. Actual firearms as we know them were directly developed from these.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMzZ3CPgMrg

G

Those guys are like this forum.

'Right in the heart, our half scale man is definitely dead!'

'I don't know it's not quite where the heart is'

'I'm not a doctor but that's close enough'

'Look cows!' (those cows were adorable, it was cool watching that one scratch its own back with its horns)

The first thing was a Gonne right? And the last thing was the fire lance...they seem really similar, though the fire lance was more ehh poofy. Not quite like I had imagined the way they were described made it sound like the flame would last longer.

Though these are apparently half scale replicas, would a to scale fire lance produce more fire for longer, or get a similarly startling POOF but not last for too long?

snowblizz

2016-08-19, 03:35 PM

The first thing was a Gonne right? And the last thing was the fire lance...they seem really similar, though the fire lance was more ehh poofy. Not quite like I had imagined the way they were described made it sound like the flame would last longer.

Though these are apparently half scale replicas, would a to scale fire lance produce more fire for longer, or get a similarly startling POOF but not last for too long?

Most of those would be sorta firelances. Though I've seen a variant more like a roman candle, the firework that is, if that's a thing anywhere else.
Which makes sense since that's more or less where gunpowder weapons came from. Those would be a step or two up the evolutionary ladder.

MrZJunior

2016-08-19, 05:10 PM

How come Quebec City kept it's walls while Montreal's were torn down?

Storm Bringer

2016-08-19, 05:51 PM

not sure, but my guess is because the locals were willing for pay for their upkeep, while Montreal's locals were not.

other significant factors include that Quebec, closer to the sea and easier to access by sea. might have kept it because it feared a attack by the French or other seabourne attackers, while Montreal was more worried about land invasions form the US, which could be fought out of the city. their were a series of forts to the south of Montreal between it and any attackers, while a fleet could pretty much sail straight up to Quebec, so it needed walls more.

or, it could be that the English government was willing to pay for the maintenance Quebec's walls but not Montreal's walls.

snowblizz

2016-08-19, 07:25 PM

Quebec was more important and more easily fortified and defended. It protects the entrance to the Saint Lawrence river. And the walls aren't "cramping it's style" same way they did for Montreal. By the time interest in defending Quebec was removed conservation efforts were active (late 1800s). Quebec benefited from the more active interest so had proper fortifications built too, which would be more work to remove when they became irrelevant.

By the time Montreal had anything to defend, the English held everything pretty solidly. Also apparently Montrealers weren't very keen wall-tax payers.

Geography also favours Quebec as a strong point. Montreal kept outgrowing it's defenses, rendering them pointless. But it also had a natural defense in a ridgeline, which incidentally becomes a lovely place to chuck cannon balls into the town unless you protect a much larger area from attack. Unsurprisingly Montreal was primarily protected by a large numebr of outlying forts and fortified positions.

Quebec was defending against outside invasion by a powerful foe, Britain (can sail heavy ships right to it, and it continued as the most important site under the British). Montreal was only defending against indigenous foes without heavy siege engines mostly (the British eventually brought 3 armies and heavy siege artillery to Montreal, but it's a much harder propostion than going to Quebec, so fighting would be decided further off).

Just recently happened to read an Osprey book about the French fortifications of the principal places.

Maquise

2016-08-21, 12:46 PM

Not exactly a question, but a video I found and thought I should share. Very informative, and of interest to some people here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MryWk52Qcg8

PersonMan

2016-08-22, 09:26 AM

Max_Killjoy

2016-08-22, 09:56 AM

PersonMan

2016-08-22, 10:08 AM

First, your defenses have to be hidden and/or mobile. Any static and visible defense is an easy target.

So if you're going for a symbolic / propaganda-focused setup, you'd want a flashy, visible section that is abandoned when the time comes to actually defend the city?

Vinyadan

2016-08-22, 10:23 AM

That's a very good question, mainly because I can't think of a huge city being taken after the fall of Saigon (there were the later American wars, but the difference in capability was such, that they cannot be seen as "normality"). But even in Saigon , the fall of the city was mainly an effect of the failure of external military operations.

I know that cities (or what's left of them) are being fortified by civilians in conditions of forced labour near Donetsk and Lugansk, but it is very hard to understand what exactly is being built, and following which criterion. The best examples right now would probably be the cities fortified by ISIS (Mosul, Tikrit). However, even in this case, they were fortified against a certain kind of ground offence, and do not have anything special against air forces.

You might look into how Moscow is defended. It probably was the closest reality to what you are describing during the Cold War.

Tiktakkat

2016-08-22, 10:33 AM

Question: In a modern-day or slightly-futuristic setting, assuming one wanted to make a large city (Paris, in this case) a center of military power and exceptionally difficult to take in the event of an attack, what sort of things would be done? Would it mostly be infrastructure in order to keep a large number of troops/air power nearby constantly, or are there large-scale defenses one could build to make attacking it a nightmare?

I have a few ideas - mental images, mostly - of things like hardened missile, anti-air, artillery positions and such. Would those make sense, or would it be too difficult to make them "properly" fortified to be worth it? If one's looking to have both functionality and high visibility in one's defenses, what steps could be taken?

First - food.
Lots and lots of food.
Both stockpiles and the ability to produce it somehow.
A large enough city is going to starve to death in short order without a source of food. Unless you expect to be able to evacuate the city before it is assaulted, or you don't care about losing 2-12 million people (city proper-metropolitan area), you are going to need to do something to feed those people.

Second - a back door.
The easiest way to survive a siege is to be able to reach the defenders.
Air supply will generally not work; you are going to need an overland - or underland - route. Across water is somewhat workable, but will increase casualties significantly.

Third - not much.
Cities absolutely SUCK as a place to fight. The average city is a deathtrap for invading forces. Villages and towns - annoying but doable. A full city though? Way too many people, way too many alleys, way too many doorways, way too many opportunities for physical and personnel traps.
If you cannot get the people to surrender, fighting in a city is a great way to destroy your army. You are better off blowing it up, deporting the survivors, and looting the rubble.
Maybe, if you get really lucky, you can blitz the defenders before they know what is going on, but that requires a sizable amount of strategic and tactical luck. Which would mean the third thing you need is the best early warning system you can manage, but that is mostly for cities within 2-3 days of the border. Anything a week or more back should be able to mobilize in more than enough time to make an enemy regret assaulting rather than besieging and negotiating a surrender.

Fourth - will.
Particularly related to the first point, you must have the will to see your city destroyed, not to mention all the people who will be killed in the fighting.
Many cities have declared themselves open cities rather than accept combat damage. Cities that have fought have been 50-95% rebuilt.

Storm_Of_Snow

2016-08-22, 11:02 AM

You could also throw in local militias/forces like National Guard or Territorial Army, plus government trained guerrilla fighters causing problems in invader-controlled areas (like the Auxiliary Units of WW2 were designed to do).

Blackhawk748

2016-08-22, 06:28 PM

Can someone tell me what the Roman ranks are an equivalent too? Wikipedia has only been marginally helpful.

From lowest to highest

Legionnaire (Private)
Decanus (Sergeant or Corporal)
Tesserarius (First Sergeant or Staff Sergeant)
Optio (Lieutenant)
10th-1st File and 6th-1st century Centurion
Centurion of the First File
Narrow Band Tribune
Camp Prefect
Broad Band Tribune
Legion Legate (Brigadier General?)
Imperial Legate (4 Star General)
The Caesar (5 Star general)

Yes i added the last one, so how far off am I?

Gnoman

2016-08-22, 07:21 PM

There's no way to map them directly, because the Roman army was organized differently from any modern military unit. The correlation between a legionare and a private works, as does that between a decanus and a PFC or corporal, but above that the connection becomes much more tenuous. In terms of the number of men commanded a Optio is close to a lieutenant, with the Centurion being a a Century is roughly equivalent to a modern company, which is commanded by a Captain. There were only two organizational steps above a Century (the Cohort consisiting of six centuries, and the Legion consisting of ten cohorts), while in modern parlance there are more. The next step above a Company, (equivalent to a cohort) is a battalion commanded by a Lieutenant Colonel, followed by a brigade (equivalent to a Legion) commanded by a Brigadier General (the ranks of Major (above captain) and Colonel (above Lt. Colonely) are often executive positions in the next formation up). Here the Roman system ends - while a Senator or Legate might have multiple legions under his command, he would have simply given commands to the Legate in charge of each legion rather than routing it through an organizational chain of command, as no such organization existed past this level. By contrast, in a modern army two brigades make up a division (commanded by a Major General), multiple Divisions make up a Corps (commanded by a Lieutenant General), multiple Corps make up an Army (commanded by a senior Lietenant General), multiple Armies make up a Group (commanded by a full General or Field Marshall) and multiple Groups make up the complete land branch of that nation's armed forces, subordinate to the civilian Secretary in charge and ultimately to the Head of State.

Mr Beer

2016-08-22, 09:13 PM

RazorChain

2016-08-22, 10:08 PM

Mr Beer

2016-08-22, 10:41 PM

Interesting thing is that it's very difficult to stop an attacker smashing the city. You can't hide several square miles of civilian architecture, you can't stop incoming weapons over that kind of area and you can't harden the buildings against modern weapons. So the place is going to get levelled and it's going to be a living hell for the civilians that survive the carnage.

Conversely, it then becomes very difficult for the attacker to actually seize the place. Breaking things is easy, taking things requires infantry to go in there and seize the ground. Armour can't move around as easily and can be attacked at close range, nullifying a lot of its advantages. There are a million hiding places, ideal for ambushing foes. Presumably the defenders know the city better than the attackers, making life harder again.

The tech advantage of the attackers is somewhat nullified. Poorly trained but rabid locals made life a nightmare for modern troops in Mogadishu, refer to Black Hawk Down for details. They had RPGs and rifles, that's all.

That said, modern equipment like night vision and drones would be extremely useful for both sides. Modern artillery would use GPS or laser guided delivery systems to pin-point drop small HE warheads on target buildings immediately prior to assault.

I read a couple of books by US servicemen who were involved in urban combat during GWII and while it's horribly stressful and dangerous for the personnel involved, modern US forces can seize and clear cities against hostiles. However, they have numerous advantages, including training, discipline, troop quality, especially marksmanship where rifles become a more important killing weapon, technology and equipment. Without those advantages, you'd need overwhelming superiority of numbers to take the target city.

Gideon Falcon

2016-08-23, 12:12 AM

So, I've been working on a story that includes as one of the characters a benevolent necromancer, of the 'Endless Hordes of Undead' persuasion. Specifically, j want to portray him as a tactical mastermind, ahead of his time in many ways. I've looked a bit into Roman and Byzantine army formations as references already, which is the first major step if the setting ends up being closer to classic Iron-Age combat, like the Celts and other nations the Romans usually curbstomped, but I'm also wondering what other mass-combat tactics might be usable over, say, more medieval-style enemies. I can already imagine liberal use of kamakazi/guerrilla warfare, as the undead can easily do some sabotage, as well as use of burrowing undead to set up impromptu ambushes, but I'm trying to think of more mid-battle stuff.
Does anybody have good recommendations?

Mr Beer

2016-08-23, 12:32 AM

IMO, the advantages of generic fantasy undead in a real war would be largely related to logistics:

- Do not get disease
- Do not get cold
- Do not need food and water
- Do not need rest
- Do not need shelter

Add these up and you have an army that takes zero casualties to the major killers of every war up to WWI i.e. disease, famine and weather and is way more manoeuvrable than other infantry, because they can march 24/7 and don't have to carry supplies. Interestingly, the fact they don't need to ravage the surrounding countryside feeds well into the 'benevolent necromancer' thing, since generally armies ate the countryside bare.

Kiero

2016-08-23, 02:45 AM

One other thing: doesn't have a psychological state to be managed by the general. They don't get disheartened, don't disobey orders, don't grumble or take impetuous actions. They do as they are told without hesitation.

Of course they don't take the initiative or come up with novel ideas (unless you have intelligent undead), but they don't behave like living troops and require management.

Martin Greywolf

2016-08-23, 02:45 AM

Necromancer tactics really depend on the undead he has at his disposal. Do they have night vision? How intelligent and independent are they? Do they need any kind of upkeep? Hell, even fast vs slow zombies will change how you use them quite a bit.

Logistical side of things aside, undead usually have perfect discipline - that is, if they are given an order, they will carry it out. You can use this to pull off stuff that would be borderline impossible to do. Take pike walls for example - a pike becomes useless if someone impales himself on it to weight it down. No living human (well, almost no one) would do that as plan A, but with undead, you don't have that kind of problem.

Another application of this is something that did happen, but was pretty hard to do: standing fast while under fire without breaking formation. Battles of Dorylaeum and Lechfeld are examples when this was very effective. It mostly wasn't done because, well, it's pretty psychologically taxing, and undead don't mind that.

Brother Oni

2016-08-23, 03:07 AM

Since undead in D&D also have darkvision as standard, night operations would also be a huge advantage - imagine being forced into a major battle at night where you can't see anything, but every enemy can.

People who live in modern towns and cities forget how dark it actually gets at night, outside of blackouts.

The main logistical advantages mentioned above would make siege warfare heavily advantaged towards the undead - you can't starve them out or hope disease thins their numbers, thus taking their defensive position will always require a costly assault.
On the defending side, non-stop sapping operations will significantly reduce the time it takes them to breach your walls plus one of the standard defences (water filled moat or building below the water table) won't work since the undead don't need to breathe and will still work steadily in pitch black water logged tunnels.
Psychological intimidation would also be in the favour of the undead - imagine the entire army constantly circling around the castle just out of bowshot making noise nonstop (banging weapons on shields for example) 24 hours a day.
Punctuate that with the occasional raid with scaling ladders while not letting up on the noise and most organic defenders would be a nervous wrecks after the first week.

Thiel

2016-08-24, 03:07 AM

Heck you could go all out WWZ and use the army itself as an assault ramp.

MrZJunior

2016-08-24, 02:47 PM

Spamotron

2016-08-24, 06:20 PM

I'm trying to work out unit sizes for a fictional military. 21st century tech level. The fictional culture considers the number 5 and multiples of 5 lucky.

5 Men make a squad. 5 squads make a platoon. 5 Platoons make a company. Those are all combat troops. I figure at the company level there's a 40% combat to 60% support ratio. So company has a paper strength of 125 combat personnel and 175 support personnel for a total of 300 personnel.

I understand that a lot of modern militates have abandoned the battalion and brigade as units of organization.

So 5 companies make a regiment and 5 regiments make a division. I know that as the unit size goes up the ratio of support personnel to combat goes up as well so a regiment would actually have more than the 1500 men that make up the individual companies. But how much more is reasonable?

Kiero

2016-08-25, 04:53 PM

I figure at the company level there's a 40% combat to 60% support ratio. So company has a paper strength of 125 combat personnel and 175 support personnel for a total of 300 personnel.

That sounds way off for a modern military, if they like 5s surely 20% combat to 80% support would be a better tooth to tail ratio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tooth-to-tail_ratio)?

1:5 is still double the proportion of combat effectives of the US military right now.

Storm Bringer

2016-08-26, 01:13 AM

That sounds way off for a modern military, if they like 5s surely 20% combat to 80% support would be a better tooth to tail ratio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tooth-to-tail_ratio)?

1:5 is still double the proportion of combat effectives of the US military right now.

that's at the level of the whole army, not at the infantry company level, where tooth to tail ratio is about 100 tooth arm to maybe 5-10 tail (2 or 3 company clerks, maybe e cook or two, or a vehicle mechanic, ect). most of the "tail" is in specialised units, like the medical battalions, or the signal battalions, the Motor pool, etc. its in the supply chain, and includes soldiers who might be in another country altogether (the forklift truck driver at a army stores warehouse in the US, for example).

Raunchel

2016-08-26, 09:31 AM

Storm Bringer

2016-08-26, 11:40 AM

This might be a silly question, but I wanted to ask anyways. On many miniatures and other art from the late middle ages and early Renaissance it strikes me that men-at-arms didn't carry shields anymore, and often also had their armour bare. So, I wonder, how did people know which side a particular fully armoured person was on? Or did they still wear distinguishing marks of some kind?

Kind of.

it was a perennial problem In the period that troops in battle gear all looked pretty much alike. Certain lords and such might equip own troops with a uniform of some sort, but until the widespread introduction of uniforms in the late 17th century, most of the time they relied either on battle cries ("....and upon this charge cry 'God for harry, for England and Saint George'"), or some improvised distinguishing mark (such as "A black cloth around the right arm....no, Jim, your right arm").

it's worth pointing out that in a formation, you can be generally certain that the men to your left and right were friendly, so it was often a case of "stab at the guys facing you".

snowblizz

2016-08-26, 01:25 PM

Kind of.

it was a perennial problem In the period that troops in battle gear all looked pretty much alike. Certain lords and such might equip own troops with a uniform of some sort, but until the widespread introduction of uniforms in the late 17th century, most of the time they relied either on battle cries ("....and upon this charge cry 'God for harry, for England and Saint George'"), or some improvised distinguishing mark (such as "A black cloth around the right arm....no, Jim, your right arm").

it's worth pointing out that in a formation, you can be generally certain that the men to your left and right were friendly, so it was often a case of "stab at the guys facing you".

The English took to wearing a red cross in their expeditions to France, ofc a lot easier on those not in full plate to accomodate.

"Field signs" were indeed common, especially in the 1600s where you'd have a feather or sprig in your hat e.g. and putting a green wreath around your helmet was easily done. But as Storm Bringer said, usually it wasn't harder than "those other guys over there are the bad guys". Since you are fighting in formations it's not that chaotic really, you have some idea who you're fighting. By the time your formation is so scattered it's hard to tell the guys you are supposed to be with from anyone else, it's time to save your own donkey anyway, and bug out.:smalltongue:

Vinyadan

2016-08-26, 05:18 PM

The one example I can think of is Jan Sobyeski who had his men wearing something like a hay belt over their equipment before they fought the Turks, because, otherwise, they would not have been recognizable to each other.

Gnoman

2016-08-27, 01:32 AM

It is a problem that's still around, even. Not so much with organized state militaries anymore, but there's accounts of skirmishes between irregular forces being punctuated by outbreaks of fighting when battle cries or comments revealed to a guerilla that the guy taking cover next to him is fighting for the other side.

Coidzor

2016-08-29, 06:17 PM

What would happen if a group using tower shields locked shields and advanced on either pikemen or an actual phalanx?

Max_Killjoy

2016-08-29, 10:00 PM

warty goblin

2016-08-29, 10:52 PM

Any thoughts on armor like this, if it would ever have been used, even plausibly?

If so, when? Where?

(I realize he's wearing it over modern clothes, not really germane to the question, I think.)

http://img14.deviantart.net/ad81/i/2014/320/5/c/leather_armour_v2_by_armourdillo-d86mb3y.jpg

It seems like an awful lot of bother per scale, and if you have access to enough metal to pull that off, you can just go ahead and make purely metallic scales in the first place. And it's got lots of lacing on the face side, which suggests that either the maker didn't know how to do scale right, or there's something going on there I don't understand. Because it's perfectly possible to make scale where all the fastenings are on the inside, and I can't think of a way that putting fastenings on the outside - where they can get cut - would make the armor any stronger. I recall reading some tests of recreation bronze age scale armor, which proved quite effective against period weapons, but tended to shed scales and come apart after a solid hit. Maybe the external laces help prevent that somehow?

Martin Greywolf

2016-08-30, 02:45 AM

What would happen if a group using tower shields locked shields and advanced on either pikemen or an actual phalanx?

Depends on the morale and training, but my money would usually be on the people with actual weapons.

First off, it's really hard to make people advance against a bristling wall of spears without flinching or slowing down, while maintaining a formation. It gets even harder once the spearmen start pushing back, and small gaps will begin to appear. Spears will sometimes get through those gaps and wound or kill someone, and it takes a lot of discipline to keep going in that situation.

Also consider that there is no such thing as "locking" shields, it's just a phrase that means they are held close together, with edges touching or slightly overlapping - you can still turn, push and manipulate them. I once managed to use my warhammer to hook enemy shields and hold them down for spearmen in our back row - needless to say, the guy I did it to wasn't very happy with me. Point is, there will still be gaps in such a wall, whether from above or below, unless you make the shields impractically large - even Roman shields left heads and feet somewhat exposed.

Also, once the shields do actually get to the spearmen (and at least some of them will), it's not yet game over. Spearmen had secondary weapons for just this situation, and in some cases also had shields, so you end up in equal fight, but with one side having taken casualties already.

Then there's very likely possibility that your tower shield guys aren't determined enough to try and push through spears and will just try to pin them there - all well and good, but they will be taking casualties while being unable to retaliate. If you have some flanking action going on, this may work, if not, well...

Situation changes a lot once you start to consider armor, though. If your spearmen are armored and tower shileders aren't, then tower shields are pretty screwed - even if they get up close, they'll be ad a disadvantage. If the shielders are armored though, they'll be able to shrug off much of the damage spears would do to them on approach, and will have a huge advantage up close.

If this is the case, though, why use tower shield? You have armor, so you can use either a smaller shield, or no shield at all. This brings us to Spanish Rotelleros (https://67.media.tumblr.com/7d22f5d0bedb2ff7f3f2c6d88760f7e6/tumblr_n6iit2aPuC1qcxemno1_1280.jpg)and german Doppelsoldners (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/2d/fb/57/2dfb579dcf3908e5970746032b04fea8.jpg), who used just this tactic against pike formations. Even then, they were somewhat rare, and what was used against a block of pike most of the time was another block of pike.

One thing you can look at to get an idea of how a conflict like this may play out is the Pyrrhic War, with Roman vs Greek action, but even there, Romans didn't use just a tower shield and a gladius, they had javelins and a significant number of elite spear and shield soldiers. Also, Romans mostly lost on the field (while inflicting significant casualties thanks to their superior morale, but still lost), but won the larger strategic campaign.

Martin Greywolf

2016-08-30, 02:58 AM

Any thoughts on armor like this, if it would ever have been used, even plausibly?

If so, when? Where?

(I realize he's wearing it over modern clothes, not really germane to the question, I think.)

http://img14.deviantart.net/ad81/i/2014/320/5/c/leather_armour_v2_by_armourdillo-d86mb3y.jpg

Firstly, you could have given us a link to the original - I found out it was meant for Dwarf LARP anyways :smallcool:

Armor like this wasn't usually made, since it is not very protective. There are some examples of what I would call "in a pinch" armor that does use a method like this one, but those are all examples of people using materials and tools they had on hand right then to make armor. Once you have specialized armor workshops, you see stuff like lamellar or chain mail (or, much later, plate) pretty exclusively.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-23VkKFOLqNM/U8MC-oYLVmI/AAAAAAAAA04/cdysXgmmDOA/s1600/stone-22-ring-scale.jpg

As you can see, they were mostly used by nomadic societies, and only thing they could protect you well from were slashes and cuts. A thrust would get through these without any problems, arrows probably wouldn't even notice it. Also, re-lacing it after every fight would be a pain in the ass, and if history teaches us anything, it's that soldiers are fundamentally lazy creatures.

Brother Oni

2016-08-30, 03:01 AM

What would happen if a group using tower shields locked shields and advanced on either pikemen or an actual phalanx?

Need a bit more info:

What other equipment are the tower shield men equipped with? Weapons, other armour? How many men in the formation? I assume you mean a D&D tower shield which is closer to a non-wheeled mantlet or oversized pavise than the Greek rectangular 'tower shield' as described by Homer?

http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/images/iliadshield07.jpg

Pikemen - what era? This would determine the length of their pikes and their other equipment.

As for a phalanx, Greek or Macedonian? While both were also equipped with shields, the Macedonians had much longer sarissas (but smaller shields) and assuming that these out-ranged the tower shield formation's weapons, the tower shields would get pushed back from the massed spear points.

A Greek hoplite typically carried a spear of about 7-9 ft long and from experience with a kite shield, while it's possible to push back a spear with a shield, you're opening yourself up to get stabbed in the face or upper shoulders from a spear you didn't see, either from the second rank of spears or from the opposing spearman 2 places over to your left or right.

Vinyadan

2016-08-30, 04:15 AM

About Romans and Greeks: the battle of Pidna was a catastrophic battle for the Macedons, who lost 20.000 men in a few hours. It pretty much was phalanx vs manipular legions. It was 168 BC, and the legions retained part of their old phalanx system with the triarii in the back holding long spears; however, the two front lines, which were those that actually did the fighting in this case, had javelins and swords (and large shields). According to accounts, the first part of the battle saw the Romans incapable of making a dent in the phalanx and retreating over rougher terrain, where gaps formed into the phalanx, at which point the legionnaires could just get into the gaps and crush the formation.

So I guess an answer to "would the spearmen win?" is "yes, if...": polearms can do a lot, but may turn out to be insufficient if the terrain or the formation do not allow for flexibility or a plan B.

Now, one could even say that the Romans won this one because they didn't have tower shields, just large shields. Tower shields might have made it impossible to get in there that fast. It all depends on what tower shield means: if you mean Ajax's shield, then I think that there is a reason if that particular model disappeared (too large, too heavy, too hard to mass produce, possibly too perforable); if you mean the shield with which Ajax is portrayed, http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Exekias_Suicide_d_Ajax_01.jpg&imgrefurl=https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exekias&h=1780&w=2228&tbnid=Up6pJTPCehCzaM:&tbnh=97&tbnw=122&docid=0jKFt9JVbq7qfM&client=firefox-b&usg=__eqEocZMW_3vWVelZeTUlqCQ7rDg=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjkwJ_A4ejOAhWDWBQKHSlCAWkQ9QEIMDAD that's a hoplon, which was normally used with a pike; if you mean the shield carried by Ajax in some pottery, looking like a double crescent, it's actually Achilles' shield (possibly a dipylon?), which was also used with a spear. Then there is the pavese, which was 10 kg and wasn't supposed to be used that way. The Egyptians should have had something similar, but I don't have images or data.
Anyway, I see that Wikipedia redirects tower shield to the Roman scutum, so I guess that there are instances of scutum users winning against phalanges. I wonder how it went with the East Romans.

Kiero

2016-08-30, 06:14 AM

Also consider that there is no such thing as "locking" shields, it's just a phrase that means they are held close together, with edges touching or slightly overlapping - you can still turn, push and manipulate them. I once managed to use my warhammer to hook enemy shields and hold them down for spearmen in our back row - needless to say, the guy I did it to wasn't very happy with me. Point is, there will still be gaps in such a wall, whether from above or below, unless you make the shields impractically large - even Roman shields left heads and feet somewhat exposed.

In the Greek phalanx, they lapped shields, which was possible when about a third of the surface projected out to the left to cover the next man anyway. Roman shields weren't very wide, so couldn't be lapped in the same way, each was designed protect only the man holding it. However, while the Roman shield protected virtually the whole man, vertically, the aspis only covers part of the body (cheek to knee or thereabouts), relying on helmet and greaves to cover the exposed parts.

What I'm saying is shape matters too, there's a difference between what you can do with a circular or rectangular/oval shield.

One thing you can look at to get an idea of how a conflict like this may play out is the Pyrrhic War, with Roman vs Greek action, but even there, Romans didn't use just a tower shield and a gladius, they had javelins and a significant number of elite spear and shield soldiers. Also, Romans mostly lost on the field (while inflicting significant casualties thanks to their superior morale, but still lost), but won the larger strategic campaign.

The Romans "won" strategically because they had effectively unlimited manpower, compared to Pyrrhos. He had the mercenaries and levies he'd brought with him to Italy, and that was it. The Romans had hundreds of thousands of replacements for any losses they suffered. They could lose and replace entire armies without dipping all that deeply into their reserves of men, and their notions of statecraft asserted that they wouldn't stop fighting while they still had men.

PersonMan

2016-08-30, 06:23 AM

Question: How much faster than a normal person would someone have to be to easily defeat most / all opponents in hand-to-hand combat? How much faster would they need to be to face and defeat multiple opponents simultaneously?

Additionally, regarding the classical 'trained vs experienced' sort of matchup, what advantages and disadvantages would someone whose martial training boils down to 'learning by doing' have against someone formally trained? Assuming the former has much more practical experience and potentially more total experience.

Max_Killjoy

2016-08-30, 06:34 AM

Firstly, you could have given us a link to the original - I found out it was meant for Dwarf LARP anyways :smallcool:

Armor like this wasn't usually made, since it is not very protective. There are some examples of what I would call "in a pinch" armor that does use a method like this one, but those are all examples of people using materials and tools they had on hand right then to make armor. Once you have specialized armor workshops, you see stuff like lamellar or chain mail (or, much later, plate) pretty exclusively.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-23VkKFOLqNM/U8MC-oYLVmI/AAAAAAAAA04/cdysXgmmDOA/s1600/stone-22-ring-scale.jpg

As you can see, they were mostly used by nomadic societies, and only thing they could protect you well from were slashes and cuts. A thrust would get through these without any problems, arrows probably wouldn't even notice it. Also, re-lacing it after every fight would be a pain in the ass, and if history teaches us anything, it's that soldiers are fundamentally lazy creatures.

I had no idea where it came from, someone posted the image elsewhere as lifted from another source and so on -- I had to do a reverse image search to find the link I used.

warty goblin

2016-08-30, 08:40 AM

Need a bit more info:

What other equipment are the tower shield men equipped with? Weapons, other armour? How many men in the formation? I assume you mean a D&D tower shield which is closer to a non-wheeled mantlet or oversized pavise than the Greek rectangular 'tower shield' as described by Homer?

http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/images/iliadshield07.jpg

Evidence strongly suggests that Homer was not talking about the rectangular shields popular earlier in Mycenaean Greece. Ajax is described as bearing his shield before him, and the adjective used could mean 'wall' or 'tower.' Homer also tends to give very detailed descriptions of things that would, to his audience, be exceptionally old - see the lengthy passage on Odysseus' boar tusk helmet for instance. The only thing unusual that Homer mentions about Ajax's shield is its being large enough to protect Ajax and Teucer at once, and being unusually thick; but there's nothing said to indicate it's shaped differently than all the other shields, which are described as circular. Since there's no evidence that anybody in Mycenaean Greece ever used 'like a wall' or 'like a tower' to particularly denote a shield as being rectangular, it seems to me that the most sensible interpretation is that Homer was describing a big guy using a big circular shield to protect nearby fighters.

Brother Oni

2016-08-30, 09:52 AM

What I'm saying is shape matters too, there's a difference between what you can do with a circular or rectangular/oval shield.

In my experience, it's primarily whether it's a flat or curved shield. Kite and round shields can be lapped fairly effectively as they're flat and wide enough to have overlap, but since the scutum is curved, it's impossible to lap them; butting them together is the best you can do.

Question: How much faster than a normal person would someone have to be to easily defeat most / all opponents in hand-to-hand combat? How much faster would they need to be to face and defeat multiple opponents simultaneously?

This is a very tricky question to answer as 'faster' incorporates reaction time (which is made of many elements including detection of sensory stimulus, brain processing time and nerve induction speed) and movement time (how long it takes for your muscles to complete the calculated response).

Some of the reaction time can be reduced and eliminated by constant drilling, converting a complex set of conscious actions into an immediate nearly unconscious one using the reflex arc - for example, the 'tap, rack, bang' stoppage drill can be done in fractions of a second. The issue with reflex actions is that they can be initiated without thinking and can be the completely wrong action to take (the TRB drill can be potentially lethal if you have a squib load or other barrel obstruction).

Assuming that your super fast human always takes the right response, in unarmed combat at punching range, it's very difficult for the average untrained person to respond (react and move) effectively to any punch faster than ~300-600 ms to complete, so that would be your upper ballpark range for the entire biomechanics of taking a voluntary action (observe the situation, register it, process it, devise a response, fire off the response to your muscles, muscles to start moving and complete the response).

I can think of a number of things to reduce reaction and movement times (eg nerve induction times can be reduced by physiological tricks like nerve myelination) but a numerical 'X times faster' is stumping me.

Additionally, regarding the classical 'trained vs experienced' sort of matchup, what advantages and disadvantages would someone whose martial training boils down to 'learning by doing' have against someone formally trained? Assuming the former has much more practical experience and potentially more total experience.

Depends on the ruleset of the fight. On the street, the former would have the advantage as anything goes to get your opponent down, including improvised weapons and sucker punching them. This would be exacerbated as you've stated the street fighter has more practical experience.

In a formal duel or fight with limitations (eg no ambushing from before the bell is rung, technique limitations like no biting, head butting, etc), the advantage would be with the latter, assuming that they've trained sufficiently to be competent at sparring and there's a referee or similar to impose penalties on infractions. This is also assuming that the street fighter has limited experience in fighting formally (you've stated that they have more total experience, so may not be disadvantaged by the rules).

PersonMan

2016-08-30, 02:01 PM

This is a very tricky question to answer as 'faster' incorporates reaction time (which is made of many elements including detection of sensory stimulus, brain processing time and nerve induction speed) and movement time (how long it takes for your muscles to complete the calculated response).

Some of the reaction time can be reduced and eliminated by constant drilling, converting a complex set of conscious actions into an immediate nearly unconscious one using the reflex arc - for example, the 'tap, rack, bang' stoppage drill can be done in fractions of a second. The issue with reflex actions is that they can be initiated without thinking and can be the completely wrong action to take (the TRB drill can be potentially lethal if you have a squib load or other barrel obstruction).

I was thinking of adding a note - that it meant a combination of mental and physical speed, so effectively every thought, motion, reflex, etc. happens X times faster for them than anyone else; so if they're twice as fast they need .5 seconds where someone else needs a full second, whether it's analyze someone's movements or spot an attack then dodge or similar.

Assuming that your super fast human always takes the right response, in unarmed combat at punching range, it's very difficult for the average untrained person to respond (react and move) effectively to any punch faster than ~300-600 ms to complete, so that would be your upper ballpark range for the entire biomechanics of taking a voluntary action (observe the situation, register it, process it, devise a response, fire off the response to your muscles, muscles to start moving and complete the response).

I can think of a number of things to reduce reaction and movement times (eg nerve induction times can be reduced by physiological tricks like nerve myelination) but a numerical 'X times faster' is stumping me.

Gotcha.

Depends on the ruleset of the fight. On the street, the former would have the advantage as anything goes to get your opponent down, including improvised weapons and sucker punching them. This would be exacerbated as you've stated the street fighter has more practical experience.

In a formal duel or fight with limitations (eg no ambushing from before the bell is rung, technique limitations like no biting, head butting, etc), the advantage would be with the latter, assuming that they've trained sufficiently to be competent at sparring and there's a referee or similar to impose penalties on infractions. This is also assuming that the street fighter has limited experience in fighting formally (you've stated that they have more total experience, so may not be disadvantaged by the rules).

It'd be the a more street fight-esque situation, but with a few limits (it's sort of like a backyard brawling ring, so nothing too damaging is allowed).

Sounds good.

Thanks for the answer, it's making the details of this character / situation much easier to sort out! :smallsmile:

spineyrequiem

2016-08-30, 04:34 PM

What would happen if a group using tower shields locked shields and advanced on either pikemen or an actual phalanx?

I've done it, with kite shields and eight-ish foot two-handed spears. So long as the shieldmen advance quickly enough (and together) and can lock down the spears properly they usually win with minimal casualties. Generally speaking, they'll try to get the spears down below their shields (and to the side of their legs) and step forward quick enough that they're past the comfortable range for stabbing, forcing the spearmen to either telescope (and lose their range advantage) or back off (and few people can move backwards faster than someone else can move forwards). I should note that my society's rules forbid stabbing in the face and frown upon stabbing in the feet ('cause it looks rubbish and really, really hurts) so it's easier than it should be for the shieldmen, and our lack of numbers mean we can't represent more than a rank or two of spearmen. It's still much easier to try and get a flank though.

Brother Oni

2016-08-30, 07:07 PM

Evidence strongly suggests that Homer was not talking about the rectangular shields popular earlier in Mycenaean Greece. Ajax is described as bearing his shield before him, and the adjective used could mean 'wall' or 'tower.' Homer also tends to give very detailed descriptions of things that would, to his audience, be exceptionally old - see the lengthy passage on Odysseus' boar tusk helmet for instance. The only thing unusual that Homer mentions about Ajax's shield is its being large enough to protect Ajax and Teucer at once, and being unusually thick; but there's nothing said to indicate it's shaped differently than all the other shields, which are described as circular. Since there's no evidence that anybody in Mycenaean Greece ever used 'like a wall' or 'like a tower' to particularly denote a shield as being rectangular, it seems to me that the most sensible interpretation is that Homer was describing a big guy using a big circular shield to protect nearby fighters.

The analysis I read agrees with you on pretty much everything, from the description of Ajax being a wall/tower during combat, acting as a bulwark of his army's battle lines, to the shield being a big arse hefty thing that only a large heroic individual like Ajax or Achilles could wield (and even then it was sometimes too heavy for them). The only thing it disagrees with you is that the shield was somehow distinctive from all the others and that Ajax could be clearly seen on the battlefield because of his shield. This would imply that it wasn't like the other standard round shields of the time - even Achilles' shield was special but not as noteworthy as Ajax's.

In the end, this isn't my period of expertise - if you think it's just an especially thick and wide round shield (as you've said, Homer doesn't give an actual description of the shield beyond it being noteworthy), then I defer to you.

I was thinking of adding a note - that it meant a combination of mental and physical speed, so effectively every thought, motion, reflex, etc. happens X times faster for them than anyone else; so if they're twice as fast they need .5 seconds where someone else needs a full second, whether it's analyze someone's movements or spot an attack then dodge or similar.

Pretty much all the literature I've looked at during my searches measure reaction time only and don't include movement time, so giving your super fast human the same response (reaction+movement) time as just the reaction component of a voluntary action, would pretty much make them unbeatable in my opinion. Their main issue would be with trained fighters having reflex actions, where they 'instinctively' evade/block and/or counter attack without any real conscious thought, so their reaction time is minimised. This include pre-trained 'combinations' or patterns of attacks, so while they'd still have an advantage, it's lessened.

As a side note, your human would be incredibly well toned and/or muscled as achieving that sort of limb acceleration would require significant amounts of fast twitch muscle. This would also increase the power of their attacks (the same mass is being moved around faster) and make them very durable or have some sort of regenerative ability (all that stress on the muscles, bones, tendons and other body tissues is very damaging). Since they think faster as well, they're liable to have personality traits associated with ADHD, since to them, everybody is moving at half (or slower) speed.
I remember a comic book where a speedster character (I think Quicksilver from X-men) described his daily life as being stuck behind a slow old person while driving or at the self service checkout, except that everybody around him was slow.

It'd be the a more street fight-esque situation, but with a few limits (it's sort of like a backyard brawling ring, so nothing too damaging is allowed).

If it's unarmed combat, gloves are a surprisingly advantage towards the formal fighter. This is especially if they're larger ones like boxing gloves as they prohibit a large number of grappling techniques common to street fights, but permit harder blows to the head as the fist is more protected - bare knuckle fighters tend not to punch the head as it's a really good way of breaking a bone in your fist.

Carl

2016-08-30, 10:26 PM

As a side note, your human would be incredibly well toned and/or muscled as achieving that sort of limb acceleration would require significant amounts of fast twitch muscle. This would also increase the power of their attacks (the same mass is being moved around faster) and make them very durable or have some sort of regenerative ability (all that stress on the muscles, bones, tendons and other body tissues is very damaging). Since they think faster as well, they're liable to have personality traits associated with ADHD, since to them, everybody is moving at half (or slower) speed.
I remember a comic book where a speedster character (I think Quicksilver from X-men) described his daily life as being stuck behind a slow old person while driving or at the self service checkout, except that everybody around him was slow.

Actually i'd disagree with this, sorta. From a pure physics PoV your quite quickly going to reach the point where adding X% more muscle mass added nearly as much mass, and thus inertia to the system as it adds pulling force. You'd almost need some kind of advanced muscle, (or a vastly lighter skeleton, though that too has limits or both), thats capable of more force per weight at a high peak movement speed. You basically need muscle that can apply the force of slow muscle, but has the peak movement rate and reactions times of fast muscle. You'd also need to supply enough blood and oxygen to run those muscles which means much more capable lungs, blood with a higher red cell count, (or equivalent that is more capable overall), and probably a better system of fast release energy storage to provide sufficiently concentrated energy form to supply all that will be needed.

When writing out my own semi-detailed star trek vulcan biology i included somthing like that latter a big part of their biology that because it's tied to certain strong emotions over prolonged periods, (basically their fight or flight reaction). Which is why old school vulcan murderous rages tended to be so spirally in nature. Unless the stimuli for the fight or flight response went away allowing the normal mental safeguards to kick in they'd be rampaging around in a severely distressed emotional state which is being feeback fed by their hormones which are themselves allowing the to sustain feats of speed and strength normally only possibble for a few seconds at a time. The downside is the stuff whilst a great temporary oxygen and sugar replacement/booster, (amongst other things), produces a lot of toxic byproducts when used that the vulcan liver isn't great at processing, (and it sucks compared to a human one at storing stuff it can't process quickly). Half an hour could induce fatal poisoning, and 45 minutes or so would incapacitate someone. but for 45 minutes they'd b a raging berserker that could take on multiple people and win. Modern Vulcans have few issues because they're emotional control techniques result in atrophy beyond the equivalent of the early teen years, whilst Romulans come from the stock genetically that had the most to lose in the old days, (the lords and ladies of old school vulcan basically), who by the nature of their positions and the requirements of keeping them tended to give an advantage to those that had a genetic bias towards smaller elements of the hormonal system, or other factors that made murderous rages less frequent and/or severe.

Anyway thats enough babbling from me for one day.

Coidzor

2016-08-30, 10:50 PM

Need a bit more info:

What other equipment are the tower shield men equipped with? Weapons, other armour? How many men in the formation? I assume you mean a D&D tower shield which is closer to a non-wheeled mantlet or oversized pavise than the Greek rectangular 'tower shield' as described by Homer?

http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/images/iliadshield07.jpg

Pikemen - what era? This would determine the length of their pikes and their other equipment.

Let's just say that their armor is a mirror match of the same armor the sarissa or pike wielders are wearing, the shield-users possess whatever weapons would be usable and would be appropriate to either the Mediterranean Iron Age or mid-1500s Europe. Equal numbers of men in each formation or twice as many on Team Tower Shield as on Team Reach.

The tower shields are the closest you can get to forming a full barricade between the men using the tower shields given the technological basis of either Alexander's Macedon or the Late Roman Republic or 1550s Europe. Whatever those might be.

Or, if you'd rather, what are the chances of a wooden barricade being purpose-built to be mostly impervious to either Greek or Macedonian hoplites or mid-1500s era Swiss Pikemen while being capable of being moved to push them to force them to retreat or be boxed in inside multiple such barricades. Also, assuming that a few random weapons did pierce the barricade, how liable would they be to get stuck and allow the people on the other side to either cut the ends off of them, steal them from their wielder, or get them stuck to the point their wielder was no longer able to wield to move them from the other side of the barricade?

Tobtor

2016-08-31, 01:59 AM

It'd be the a more street fight-esque situation, but with a few limits (it's sort of like a backyard brawling ring, so nothing too damaging is allowed).

Regarding experienced against formally trained: I would tend to favour the formally trained fighter in any form of "duel", but it very much depends on how they each had trained and their overall shape etc. Being trained in something makes you understand stuff that is learned through generations of experience.

However to my experience most "trained" stuff is directed at 'duels'-sort of situation, so when dealing with a mass brawls/fights some of the things they have leaned are less valuable, and they tend to either focus on one opponent or move in away that put them in dangerous situation, here a person expirenced in brawls have an advantage, as he is trained in watching a fight.

Martin Greywolf

2016-08-31, 02:47 AM

Galloglaich

2016-08-31, 09:16 AM

Looks like some real Conan s**t went down in Northern Germany about 3000 years ago.

What makes it interesting is that

1) There isn't apparently much direct evidence of large scale battles in the Bronze Age, anywhere, even Mesopotamia or Egypt - leading some historians to come to the ridiculous conclusion that the Bronze Age was peaceful, since some seem to like to make a fetish of dismissing literary sources.

2) Based on what they have excavated so far, these bodies have a lot more high quality (i.e. well made and fairly uniform bronze) kit than had been expected in that part of the world at that time. There is (in my opinion) kind of a bias against Europeans that they were all primitive savages back then, which is of course also ridiculous.

3) Participants seem to have come from all over Europe, some maybe as far away as Italy. Either that or they have estimated the diet in Northern Europe incorrectly.

This implies a much higher degree of social organization North of the Alps than we (Academia) had previously believed. And speaking of academia, I don't agree with many of the conclusions drawn in this article but it is a good introduction to the find. The wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tollense) is useful too as a shorter summary, and will probably get more information added to it over time.

If anyone from Denmark or linked to the academic community knows more about this, like has links to images of more of the artifacts or any forensic analysis of the bodies (like, how tall are they, how were their teeth, how many women, and so on) please post here.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/slaughter-bridge-uncovering-colossal-bronze-age-battle

About 3200 years ago, two armies clashed at a river crossing near the Baltic Sea. The confrontation can’t be found in any history books—the written word didn’t become common in these parts for another 2000 years—but this was no skirmish between local clans. Thousands of warriors came together in a brutal struggle, perhaps fought on a single day, using weapons crafted from wood, flint, and bronze, a metal that was then the height of military technology.

Struggling to find solid footing on the banks of the Tollense River, a narrow ribbon of water that flows through the marshes of northern Germany toward the Baltic Sea, the armies fought hand-to-hand, maiming and killing with war clubs, spears, swords, and knives. Bronze- and flint-tipped arrows were loosed at close range, piercing skulls and lodging deep into the bones of young men. Horses belonging to high-ranking warriors crumpled into the muck, fatally speared. Not everyone stood their ground in the melee: Some warriors broke and ran, and were struck down from behind.

Author Andrew Curry discusses his story on a major Bronze Age battle on this podcast interview

When the fighting was through, hundreds lay dead, littering the swampy valley. Some bodies were stripped of their valuables and left bobbing in shallow ponds; others sank to the bottom, protected from plundering by a meter or two of water. Peat slowly settled over the bones. Within centuries, the entire battle was forgotten.

http://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/styles/article_main_large/public/warriors_03.png?itok=QXbzKPUA

In 1996, an amateur archaeologist found a single upper arm bone sticking out of the steep riverbank—the first clue that the Tollense Valley, about 120 kilometers north of Berlin, concealed a gruesome secret. A flint arrowhead was firmly embedded in one end of the bone, prompting archaeologists to dig a small test excavation that yielded more bones, a bashed-in skull, and a 73-centimeter club resembling a baseball bat. The artifacts all were radiocarbon-dated to about 1250 B.C.E., suggesting they stemmed from a single episode during Europe’s Bronze Age.

Now, after a series of excavations between 2009 and 2015, researchers have begun to understand the battle and its startling implications for Bronze Age society. Along a 3-kilometer stretch of the Tollense River, archaeologists from the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Department of Historic Preservation (MVDHP) and the University of Greifswald (UG) have unearthed wooden clubs, bronze spearheads, and flint and bronze arrowheads. They have also found bones in extraordinary numbers: the remains of at least five horses and more than 100 men. Bones from hundreds more may remain unexcavated, and thousands of others may have fought but survived.

“If our hypothesis is correct that all of the finds belong to the same event, we’re dealing with a conflict of a scale hitherto completely unknown north of the Alps,” says dig co-director Thomas Terberger, an archaeologist at the Lower Saxony State Service for Cultural Heritage in Hannover. “There’s nothing to compare it to.” It may even be the earliest direct evidence—with weapons and warriors together—of a battle this size anywhere in the ancient world.

Northern Europe in the Bronze Age was long dismissed as a backwater, overshadowed by more sophisticated civilizations in the Near East and Greece. Bronze itself, created in the Near East around 3200 B.C.E., took 1000 years to arrive here. But Tollense’s scale suggests more organization—and more violence—than once thought. “We had considered scenarios of raids, with small groups of young men killing and stealing food, but to imagine such a big battle with thousands of people is very surprising,” says Svend Hansen, head of the German Archaeological Institute’s (DAI’s) Eurasia Department in Berlin. The well-preserved bones and artifacts add detail to this picture of Bronze Age sophistication, pointing to the existence of a trained warrior class and suggesting that people from across Europe joined the bloody fray.

There’s little disagreement now that Tollense is something special. “When it comes to the Bronze Age, we’ve been missing a smoking gun, where we have a battlefield and dead people and weapons all together,” says University College Dublin (UCD) archaeologist Barry Molloy. “This is that smoking gun.”

http://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/styles/inline_colwidth__4_3/public/images/Abb.%2002.jpg?itok=AmNnab69&timestamp=1458673112

The lakeside hunting lodge called Schloss Wiligrad was built at the turn of the 19th century, deep in a forest 14 kilometers north of Schwerin, the capital of the northern German state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Today, the drafty pile is home to both the state’s department of historic preservation and a small local art museum.

In a high-ceilinged chamber on the castle’s second floor, tall windows look out on a fog-shrouded lake. Inside, pale winter light illuminates dozens of skulls arranged on shelves and tables. In the center of the room, long leg bones and short ribs lie in serried ranks on tables; more remains are stored in cardboard boxes stacked on metal shelves reaching almost to the ceiling. The bones take up so much space there’s barely room to walk.

When the first of these finds was excavated in 1996, it wasn’t even clear that Tollense was a battlefield. Some archaeologists suggested the skeletons might be from a flooded cemetery, or that they had accumulated over centuries.

There was reason for skepticism. Before Tollense, direct evidence of large-scale violence in the Bronze Age was scanty, especially in this region. Historical accounts from the Near East and Greece described epic battles, but few artifacts remained to corroborate these boastful accounts. “Even in Egypt, despite hearing many tales of war, we never find such substantial archaeological evidence of its participants and victims,” UCD’s Molloy says.

In Bronze Age Europe, even the historical accounts of war were lacking, and all investigators had to go on were weapons in ceremonial burials and a handful of mass graves with unmistakable evidence of violence, such as decapitated bodies or arrowheads embedded in bones. Before the 1990s, “for a long time we didn’t really believe in war in prehistory,” DAI’s Hansen says. The grave goods were explained as prestige objects or symbols of power rather than actual weapons. “Most people thought ancient society was peaceful, and that Bronze Age males were concerned with trading and so on,” says Helle Vandkilde, an archaeologist at Aarhus University in Denmark. “Very few talked about warfare.”

http://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/styles/inline_colwidth__16_9/public/ThingsTheyCarried.jpg?itok=-cJxZsG0&timestamp=1458684086

The 10,000 bones in this room—what’s left of Tollense’s losers—changed all that. They were found in dense caches: In one spot, 1478 bones, among them 20 skulls, were packed into an area of just 12 square meters. Archaeologists think the bodies landed or were dumped in shallow ponds, where the motion of the water mixed up bones from different individuals. By counting specific, singular bones—skulls and femurs, for example—UG forensic anthropologists Ute Brinker and Annemarie Schramm identified a minimum of 130 individuals, almost all of them men, most between the ages of 20 and 30.

The number suggests the scale of the battle. “We have 130 people, minimum, and five horses. And we’ve only opened 450 square meters. That’s 10% of the find layer, at most, maybe just 3% or 4%,” says Detlef Jantzen, chief archaeologist at MVDHP. “If we excavated the whole area, we might have 750 people. That’s incredible for the Bronze Age.” In what they admit are back-of-the-envelope estimates, he and Terberger argue that if one in five of the battle’s participants was killed and left on the battlefield, that could mean almost 4000 warriors took part in the fighting.

Brinker, the forensic anthropologist in charge of analyzing the remains, says the wetness and chemical composition of the Tollense Valley’s soil preserved the bones almost perfectly. “We can reconstruct exactly what happened,” she says, picking up a rib with two tiny, V-shaped cuts on one edge. “These cut marks on the rib show he was stabbed twice in the same place. We have a lot of them, often multiple marks on the same rib.”

Scanning the bones using microscopic computer tomography at a materials science institute in Berlin and the University of Rostock has yielded detailed, 3D images of these injuries. Now, archaeologists are identifying the weapons responsible by matching the images to scans of weapons found at Tollense or in contemporary graves elsewhere in Europe. Diamond-shaped holes in bones, for example, match the distinctive shape of bronze arrowheads found on the battlefield. (Bronze artifacts are found more often than flint at Tollense, perhaps because metal detectors were used to comb spoil piles for artifacts.)

The bone scans have also sharpened the picture of how the battle unfolded, Terberger says. In x-rays, the upper arm bone with an embedded arrowhead—the one that triggered the discovery of the battlefield—seemed to show signs of healing. In a 2011 paper in Antiquity, the team suggested that the man sustained a wound early in the battle but was able to fight on for days or weeks before dying, which could mean that the conflict wasn’t a single clash but a series of skirmishes that dragged out for several weeks.

Microscopic inspection of that wound told a different story: What initially looked like healing—an opaque lining around the arrowhead on an x-ray—was, in fact, a layer of shattered bone, compressed by a single impact that was probably fatal. “That let us revise the idea that this took place over weeks,” Terberger says. So far no bodies show healed wounds, making it likely the battle happened in just a day, or a few at most. “If we are dealing with a single event rather than skirmishes over several weeks, it has a great impact on our interpretation of the scale of the conflict.”

In the last year, a team of engineers in Hamburg has used techniques developed to model stresses on aircraft parts to understand the kinds of blows the soldiers suffered. For example, archaeologists at first thought that a fighter whose femur had snapped close to the hip joint must have fallen from a horse. The injury resembled those that result today from a motorcycle crash or equestrian accident.

But the modeling told a different story. Melanie Schwinning and Hella Harten-Buga, University of Hamburg archaeologists and engineers, took into account the physical properties of bone and Bronze Age weapons, along with examples of injuries from horse falls. An experimental archaeologist also plunged recreated flint and bronze points into dead pigs and recorded the damage.

Schwinning and Harten-Buga say a bronze spearhead hitting the bone at a sharp downward angle would have been able to wedge the femur apart, cracking it in half like a log. “When we modeled it, it looks a lot more like a handheld weapon than a horse fall,” Schwinning says. “We could even recreate the force it would have taken—it’s not actually that much.” They estimate that an average-sized man driving the spear with his body weight would have been enough.

Why the men gathered in this spot to fight and die is another mystery that archaeological evidence is helping unravel. The Tollense Valley here is narrow, just 50 meters wide in some spots. Parts are swampy, whereas others offer firm ground and solid footing. The spot may have been a sort of choke point for travelers journeying across the northern European plain.

In 2013, geomagnetic surveys revealed evidence of a 120-meter-long bridge or causeway stretching across the valley. Excavated over two dig seasons, the submerged structure turned out to be made of wooden posts and stone. Radiocarbon dating showed that although much of the structure predated the battle by more than 500 years, parts of it may have been built or restored around the time of the battle, suggesting the causeway might have been in continuous use for centuries—a well-known landmark.

“The crossing played an important role in the conflict. Maybe one group tried to cross and the other pushed them back,” Terberger says. “The conflict started there and turned into fighting along the river.”

In the aftermath, the victors may have stripped valuables from the bodies they could reach, then tossed the corpses into shallow water, which protected them from carnivores and birds. The bones lack the gnawing and dragging marks typically left by such scavengers.

Elsewhere, the team found human and horse remains buried a meter or two lower, about where the Bronze Age riverbed might have been. Mixed with these remains were gold rings likely worn on the hair, spiral rings of tin perhaps worn on the fingers, and tiny bronze spirals likely used as decorations. These dead must have fallen or been dumped into the deeper parts of the river, sinking quickly to the bottom, where their valuables were out of the grasp of looters.

At the time of the battle, northern Europe seems to have been devoid of towns or even small villages. As far as archaeologists can tell, people here were loosely connected culturally to Scandinavia and lived with their extended families on individual farmsteads, with a population density of fewer than five people per square kilometer. The closest known large settlement around this time is more than 350 kilometers to the southeast, in Watenstedt. It was a landscape not unlike agrarian parts of Europe today, except without roads, telephones, or radio.

And yet chemical tracers in the remains suggest that most of the Tollense warriors came from hundreds of kilometers away. The isotopes in your teeth reflect those in the food and water you ingest during childhood, which in turn mirror the surrounding geology—a marker of where you grew up. Retired University of Wisconsin, Madison, archaeologist Doug Price analyzed strontium, oxygen, and carbon isotopes in 20 teeth from Tollense. Just a few showed values typical of the northern European plain, which sprawls from Holland to Poland. The other teeth came from farther afield, although Price can’t yet pin down exactly where. “The range of isotope values is really large,” he says. “We can make a good argument that the dead came from a lot of different places.”

Further clues come from isotopes of another element, nitrogen, which reflect diet. Nitrogen isotopes in teeth from some of the men suggest they ate a diet heavy in millet, a crop more common at the time in southern than northern Europe.

Ancient DNA could potentially reveal much more: When compared to other Bronze Age samples from around Europe at this time, it could point to the homelands of the warriors as well as such traits as eye and hair color. Genetic analysis is just beginning, but so far it supports the notion of far-flung origins. DNA from teeth suggests some warriors are related to modern southern Europeans and others to people living in modern-day Poland and Scandinavia. “This is not a bunch of local idiots,” says University of Mainz geneticist Joachim Burger. “It’s a highly diverse population.”

As University of Aarhus’s Vandkilde puts it: “It’s an army like the one described in Homeric epics, made up of smaller war bands that gathered to sack Troy”—an event thought to have happened fewer than 100 years later, in 1184 B.C.E. That suggests an unexpectedly widespread social organization, Jantzen says. “To organize a battle like this over tremendous distances and gather all these people in one place was a tremendous accomplishment,” he says.

So far the team has published only a handful of peer-reviewed papers. With excavations stopped, pending more funding, they’re writing up publications now. But archaeologists familiar with the project say the implications are dramatic. Tollense could force a re-evaluation of the whole period in the area from the Baltic to the Mediterranean, says archaeologist Kristian Kristiansen of the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. “It opens the door to a lot of new evidence for the way Bronze Age societies were organized,” he says.

For example, strong evidence suggests this wasn’t the first battle for these men. Twenty-seven percent of the skeletons show signs of healed traumas from earlier fights, including three skulls with healed fractures. “It’s hard to tell the reason for the injuries, but these don’t look like your typical young farmers,” Jantzen says.

http://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/styles/inline_colwidth__4_3/public/images/Tollensetal%20Impressionsfraktur.jpg?itok=mb1iXUfe&timestamp=1458824452

Standardized metal weaponry and the remains of the horses, which were found intermingled with the human bones at one spot, suggest that at least some of the combatants were well-equipped and well-trained. “They weren’t farmer-soldiers who went out every few years to brawl,” Terberger says. “These are professional fighters.”

Body armor and shields emerged in northern Europe in the centuries just before the Tollense conflict and may have necessitated a warrior class. “If you fight with body armor and helmet and corselet, you need daily training or you can’t move,” Hansen says. That’s why, for example, the biblical David—a shepherd—refused to don a suit of armor and bronze helmet before fighting Goliath. “This kind of training is the beginning of a specialized group of warriors,” Hansen says. At Tollense, these bronze-wielding, mounted warriors might have been a sort of officer class, presiding over grunts bearing simpler weapons.

But why did so much military force converge on a narrow river valley in northern Germany? Kristiansen says this period seems to have been an era of significant upheaval from the Mediterranean to the Baltic. In Greece, the sophisticated Mycenaean civilization collapsed around the time of the Tollense battle; in Egypt, pharaohs boasted of besting the “Sea People,” marauders from far-off lands who toppled the neighboring Hittites. And not long after Tollense, the scattered farmsteads of northern Europe gave way to concentrated, heavily fortified settlements, once seen only to the south. “Around 1200 B.C.E. there’s a radical change in the direction societies and cultures are heading,” Vandkilde says. “Tollense fits into a period when we have increased warfare everywhere.”

Tollense looks like a first step toward a way of life that is with us still. From the scale and brutality of the battle to the presence of a warrior class wielding sophisticated weapons, the events of that long-ago day are linked to more familiar and recent conflicts. “It could be the first evidence of a turning point in social organization and warfare in Europe,” Vandkilde says.

PersonMan

2016-08-31, 09:20 AM

Galloglaich

2016-08-31, 09:27 AM

1) Reaction speed

Okay, you got this one completely wrong. A longsword cut with a single step takes about 300 ms to do when done by competent user, punches by trained boxers are even faster, some as fast as 150 ms. Human reaction time is somewhere around 200-300 ms, roughly speaking, and yes, that does mean that if you are in punching/striking range and you left yourself open to a direct strike from the position they're in, you're gonna get hit.

Solving this problem is what differentiates styles of MAs the most.

Lichtenauer tradition solves it by closing the line with a strike and not worrying about other openings because your opponent is too busy dealing with your strike.

Italian rapier solves this by constraining the blade of your enemy before you lunge.

I.33 solves it by going into a counter position for the opponent's position that gives you maximum coverage and advantage in binds resulting from this position.

Fiore solves it by staying out of measure when trying to bind your opponent and then constraining the opponent's weapon, and often doesn't need to solve it, thanks to how Italian judicial combat looked.

2) Training vs experience

This one is impossible to answer. Someone trained in McDojo where he was told he's learning ultimate killing moves will be walked over by street thug 11 times out of 10, someone training in most karate clubs will be at a significant disadvantage, someone training in traditional karate that didn't get sportified will break a guy in half without much problem.

Then there are circumstances - no amount of training will help you if you aren't aware of your surroundings and get a knife in your back. These days, a lot of HEMA guys are excellent fencers, but get taken apart in group combat by a bunch of LARPers who know how to keep their eyes on the entire battlefield and work together.

And lastly, there's a big difference between fighting you see in duels, skirmishes and melees and fighting a soldier would use in a formation.

For the thug side, it really depends on the thug - is he dumb muscle, or does he think about what he's doing? If it's the latter, he's practically making his own formal style as he goes, since MA styles are basically just a systematic collection of things that work once you start to do violence unto each other.

Great post, I just want to say I agree with all of this.

Sometimes I think even good training can get in the way of other training. I used to do sort of SCA style fighting in groups. After doing HEMA for 10 years, almost exclusively one on one, I tired a couple of group fights with some SCA types, all of whom I could (and did) easily take apart in one on one combat, and I got slaughtered! I think the HEMA one on one training kind of messed up my group fighting instincts, I had too much to think about. The converse is also true probably. This may be why we don't have that much evidence of HEMA type training among military people, it seems to have been more popular with burghers, who would need it for informal duels and brawls.

I remember earlier in another similar discussion of training vs. innate skill, and I was kind of bragging that it took X amount of months of training before a new person could beat me, but we have a kid now who has only been training two months and I have to get into 'tournament' mindset to stay a step ahead of him, which I can barely do. There was a guy like that who came out of the Houston club a few years ago who went on to do real well in the Swedish tournament, I think one of three yanks to do so on Longsword. Some people are just gifted.

G

Max_Killjoy

2016-08-31, 11:28 AM

Galloglaich (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?47487-Galloglaich) - thanks for posting the article about the bronze age battle.

I guess I'd never heard this concept that the bronze age was peaceful, and I think I would have been highly skeptical of it if I had.

Tobtor

2016-08-31, 12:20 PM

I have never thought of the Bronze Age as peaceful, but it is true that some have argued so. generally though it have been accepted that there is an increased amount of "violence" (wars feuds etc) during the Bronze age. We see a lot of proper weapon graves (swords, axes etc). Some have argued they were 'just for prestige', but weapon only becomes prestigious if they are occasionally needed.... Also use-wear analysis show signs of them being used against metal in a manner agreeing with them as used for combat.

However I cannot really give additional information about the Tollense find, as very little have come out yet (and that article give a good overview of what have come out).

It would be great if more detailed publications on the find-circumstances where to come out, so we can get a better picture of what happened at the site, during and after the battle.

If I where to note something is the resemblance with the Iron age sized finds, when society was equally scattered across northern Europe. The size of the armies fit well (their estimate for 4.000 soldiers is that 1 in 5 died, based on the 5-10% excavated with 130 dead sodiers). Similar estimates for Illerup from the 200AD event is 4-5.000 sets of weapons (based on 900-1.000 sets of weapons from 40% excavated).

I have always wondered why southern Europeans equals large settlements with the ability to raise large armies. We have very few Viking towns, and those that exist are really small, but still armies in the thousands pillaged Europe.

Also their estimated population density is very low, it might be true for some regions, but not others. Looking at something like Bronze age Thy in Denmark (today a very remote little peninsular) there is literally thousands of burial mounds and even though the settlements are 2 houses large (almost always a large and a small house, with hearths and stable in the large, and also living rooms in the small), there are many of them /they can be very close to eachother).

The problem is that the Germans haven't found the houses yet, and keep looking for large scale "towns" rather than densely built farmland. At least I find it strange that the settlement pattern should reflect modern borders when non of the other parts of the society seem to do so (material culture, grave traditions etc).

But Tollense certainly push back a lot of 'military' organisation.

Vinyadan

2016-08-31, 01:05 PM

There are some things that come to mind to me.

Thing number one is the existence of an extremely widespread xenìa-like system, a net of allied families from the richer echelons of society, that expanded gradually, ensuring safety until a massive call to arms against maybe a comparable network was enacted, resulting into this battle: a huge call in for a number of massed favours.

Thing number two are nomads. Southern Europe isn't that far away (1000 km? 1500?), you can get there in three months, top. Nomadism usually requires animals. Such a large movement would be exceptional, but far from impossible. While getting there from Italy would be made difficult by mountains, I don't think there are large elevations between southern Ukraine or France and Berlin (the Ardennes aren't that bad).

Thing number three are mercenaries attracted by money and equipment of some exceptionally wealthy groups living in this area.

About Tobtor's point of city vs big armies: I believe what causes this are different factors, but a city requires a certain organization and centralizes commerce and production in ways that are impossible for the populated country; more importantly, a city ensures the government by a single entity that probably can raise soldiers. All large battles I can think of during the Ancient World were made possible by powerful authorities residing in a city, be it a Pharaoh, a Hittite King, Troy, Agamemnon, Athens, Sparta, Rome, Sardis, one of the four capitals of Media... The Vikings were effective raiders and occasionally scored conquests, but they never had large numbers compared to other kingdoms (Stamford Bridge: 9.000 men; Maldon: 2.000-4.000 men), in spite of improvements in animal husbandry, technology and agriculture which must have happened in the meantime and would have increased the available food, as well as have made travel easier and the people generally richer (better armed and better capable to leave home for a while).
This doesn't mean that I think that you need large cities for large armies, but I expect a country centred around a large city to pull out a lot more men than an equally populated countryside, at least because the city is populated by people who do not produce food.

Galloglaich

2016-08-31, 01:28 PM

Max_Killjoy

2016-08-31, 02:14 PM

Galloglaich

2016-08-31, 02:41 PM

What are your thoughts on the existence of a small core "military elite", either as a small standing military / guard, or as part of the "job" of the ruling elite?

There does always seem to be some kind of version of that, including in the relatively free Northern tribal societies. See Druzhina, Huskarl etc. etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druzhina

But they tend to be quite small in those example, as in dozens or maybe hundreds of people vs. thousands or tens of thousands, and aren't necessarily more effective than some of the part timers either. Even those guys have a day job, which might be just drinking with their pal the prince, or it might be administrative, acting as a courtier, diplomat, spy, manager etc. etc.

There seems to be some kind of sweet spot for military training / military specialization but I don't think that sweet spot goes all the way to full time soldier. I know it's kind of a meme, it's how we think of the Spartans and Samurai and various other archetypes that we find so appealing, but even those dudes really were not truly full time soldiers. I think there is a point where you need to do other things in life.

Now having said all that, the thing is we don't really know what kind of society they had in 1000 BC. In recorded historical periods sometimes professional personal princely entourage could be huge. The French Gendarmerie or the Persian "Immortals" (who we only know from Greek sources) or the Streltzi, of Ivan the Terrible or the Ottoman Jannissaries.

We have some hints that societies may have gone through periods of relatively authoritarian hierarchical social organization and looser, more clan-oriented periods and back again. For example in Scandinavia (at the risk of tripping over some of my Norse friends here in this thread again) we have the Vendel period prior to the Vikings, which looks like a time of strong kings and so on, then the Viking period which seems to have a fairly loose and open social organization, followed by conversion to Christianity and a gradual return to a more hierarchical system with Feudalism.

It's hard to say what was going on in 1000 BC north of the Alps as sadly we don't really have much literature to give us any ideas. more archeology is needed.

http://www.wintercampers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Otzi1.jpg

I very seriously doubt though that they were wearing the kind of loose fitting "Quest for Fire" caveman outfits depicted in the sketch they showed in the article. I would guess something a little more neatly put together more like what Otzi the Iceman had, plus probably some early proper textiles too, I think they go back that far. In my opinion and experience, Europeans always cared about fashion, just like most other people around the world.

Maybe Tobtor and Snowblizz etc. can chime in.

G

Galloglaich

2016-08-31, 02:45 PM

Even that picture loks a little ridiculous to me - but Otzi is from a much earlier period. Colored plaid style textiles were around by the time of this battle

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwi2h4H7tOzOAhVG2R4KHWwZB5IQFggeMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ai-journal.com%2Farticles%2F10.5334%2Fai.1206%2Fgalle y%2F6%2Fdownload%2F&usg=AFQjCNE4CKMTdASqFRYkcHIBfJRc3MRKVg

Vinyadan

2016-08-31, 02:56 PM

What is the jewel? It reminds me of a magatama, although it's slightly different and the rope passes through a different point.

Carl

2016-08-31, 03:19 PM

So if I sum it up as 'they're super-fast and as a result their body is pretty great at everything', would that describe it well? It certainly sounds that way - stronger cardiovascular system, stronger lungs, special super-efficient muscles...

Yes and no, all that if it's only better fast muscle will make them much faster generally and the better lungs and cardio will give them much better stamina, but they wouldn't necessarily be able to lift or carry more maximum. I.e. they could outrun olympic sprinters, but not out perform a worlds strongest man contestant in his various tasks, the reverse can also be true, but you can just use stupidly huge amounts of normal slow muscle for that if you've got a strong enough skeleton and ligaments to handle it, (40K Space Marines as actually described biologically are this). Equally whilst it's not a hard rule, generally the rule of thumb with life as we know it is that the higher the heartbeat, (the only real way to push the cardiovascular system that far ahead), the shorter the life-expectancy. You can see somthing similar with a lot of athletes. Great physical health in their prime, but more prone to issues later.

darkdragoon

2016-08-31, 05:19 PM

Question: How much faster than a normal person would someone have to be to easily defeat most / all opponents in hand-to-hand combat? How much faster would they need to be to face and defeat multiple opponents simultaneously?

Additionally, regarding the classical 'trained vs experienced' sort of matchup, what advantages and disadvantages would someone whose martial training boils down to 'learning by doing' have against someone formally trained? Assuming the former has much more practical experience and potentially more total experience.

Perception and reaction time are going to be much more useful than raw speed. There's a concept called "parrying yourself" where just trying to be faster means you run right into the defense. Which is even worse if run into their counter.

The main problem of "do it yourself" is that there isn't much feedback, and you may waste time and/or get injured trying to replicate things that can be done in a more controlled environment.

Similarly when it comes to the art (and more realistically that particular gym or dojo) is what they emphasize.

Kiero

2016-08-31, 05:40 PM

I also disagree with their suggestion that well equipped, 'professional' soldier = full time military caste-member as opposed to part time farmer (or craftsman or rancher or fisherman or merchant). Vikings were mostly part time soldiers, as were most of the men who made up armies in the medieval era, mercenaries, militia or vassals, almost all of them had another day job.

Greek Hoplites were part time farmers, as were the early / original Roman Legionnaires.

If anything I would say Pre-industrial Europe is characterized by quite effective soldiers who were really only soldiers part of the time, and did a lot of other things as well.

G

Greek hoplites weren't really part-time farmers; rather they were affluent enough that they weren't personally required to provide the bulk of the labour on their farms, thus had the leisure time to train and congregate with their peers, and march off to war in the summer. Along with having the spare capital to afford a panoply.

There were plenty of professionals in the late Classical/early Hellenistic era, and not just mercenaries (who in this period often didn't have another job, there was more than enough demand for full-time mercs). Professional oarsmen, for example, only needed to find something else to do in winter when most fleets were beached. Philip of Macedon mobilised his tribal levies into a professional, full-time force and many of his original men who survived to old age were still active soldiers in their eighties and nineties.

It's a pretty significant difference with the medieval era, largely of scale. States were bigger and richer, the forces they deployed were larger. Population was probably higher too. All that leads to greater division and specialisation of labour than was possible in the medieval era.

spineyrequiem

2016-08-31, 06:42 PM

Does anyone know anything about the design of 12th Century Middle Eastern scale armour? I'm on the verge of making some and want it to look right. In particular, I'm wondering whether it should be fastened at the back, the side or be made in one piece and go over the head, and how the shoulders were designed.

Brother Oni

2016-08-31, 07:04 PM

Actually i'd disagree with this, sorta. From a pure physics PoV your quite quickly going to reach the point where adding X% more muscle mass added nearly as much mass, and thus inertia to the system as it adds pulling force. You'd almost need some kind of advanced muscle, (or a vastly lighter skeleton, though that too has limits or both), thats capable of more force per weight at a high peak movement speed. You basically need muscle that can apply the force of slow muscle, but has the peak movement rate and reactions times of fast muscle. You'd also need to supply enough blood and oxygen to run those muscles which means much more capable lungs, blood with a higher red cell count, (or equivalent that is more capable overall), and probably a better system of fast release energy storage to provide sufficiently concentrated energy form to supply all that will be needed.

While I would agree the optimum solution is a super muscle with the 'strength of slow twitch, triggering speed of fast twitch', I was originally thinking along the lines of otherwise standard human physiology, just beefed up enough to withstand the stresses involved. I also think that you're over-estimating the threshold where additional muscle mass exceeds the additional force it generates. Quick fighters tend towards the thin and lean build - they're certainly not un-athletic or bulky power lifter (I probably could have worded the 'toned and muscled' part better).

Depending on what endurance you wanted to give this individual would also affect the cardiovascular efficiency requirement - olympic sprinters are almost purely anaerobic during their event as there's simply not enough time for the oxygen to be delivered to the muscle and they have no trouble sustaining the effort for around 10-13 seconds, which is more than enough time at top performance to defeat an opponent during melee combat. Local muscles stores of phosphocreatine and glucose will last more than long enough to support short bursts of activity - additional endurance would required the better heart and higher oxygen capacity blood as you've mentioned.

1) Reaction speed

Okay, you got this one completely wrong. A longsword cut with a single step takes about 300 ms to do when done by competent user, punches by trained boxers are even faster, some as fast as 150 ms. Human reaction time is somewhere around 200-300 ms, roughly speaking, and yes, that does mean that if you are in punching/striking range and you left yourself open to a direct strike from the position they're in, you're gonna get hit.

As far as I can tell, the term 'reaction time' in common usage actually refers to the the technical term 'response time' in all the literature I've read, where the response time is the sum of the reaction time (all the internal processing) and movement time (moving for the action).

This means a 200-300ms reaction time, plus 150-300ms movement time gives a total response time of 350-600ms, yes? This is for a trained fighter to register the sensory stimulus, process it, devise a response and actually perform the attack? Not enough reaction time and too quick a movement time gives rise to the situation that darkdragoon mentioned of running into the defence or counter, while the opposite, a very fast reaction time and too slow a movement time, gives rise to the situation where you can see the punch coming, you just can't move fast enough to do anything about it.
It gets trickier as depending on the sensory stimulus, reaction times vary - olympic sprinters can start moving to the sound of the starting pistol as quickly as 85-100ms (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02640410600718004) (average is about 150-200ms (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22739331)); in comparison, a simple button press to a visual stimulus can be even faster while a go/no go response to the same is generally slower.

This is why I deliberately didn't quantify the movement time earlier as in my opinion, its very situational. Thank you for the information on the various martial arts though - western fencing is a bit of a hole in my knowledge. :smallbiggrin:

Equally whilst it's not a hard rule, generally the rule of thumb with life as we know it is that the higher the heartbeat, (the only real way to push the cardiovascular system that far ahead), the shorter the life-expectancy. You can see somthing similar with a lot of athletes. Great physical health in their prime, but more prone to issues later.

I believe you're referring to the heartbeat hypothesis; it's actually part of the 'Rate of living' theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate-of-living_theory) where a lower basal metabolism indicates an organism has a longer life expectancy (athletes tend to have very low resting heart rates, which puts a hole in the ~10,000 heart beats limit). The main reason why elite athletes have issues later on in life is that they over-stress their bodies as they need the highest performance possible - someone who just exercises to keep fit will both stay healthier and not suffer problems in later life (assuming no unusual wear and tear).

That said, someone who's regularly getting into serious street level fist fights generally won't have that long a life expectancy, either from death or permanent injury.

Kiero

2016-09-01, 02:33 AM

I believe you're referring to the heartbeat hypothesis; it's actually part of the 'Rate of living' theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate-of-living_theory) where a lower basal metabolism indicates an organism has a longer life expectancy (athletes tend to have very low resting heart rates, which puts a hole in the ~10,000 heart beats limit). The main reason why elite athletes have issues later on in life is that they over-stress their bodies as they need the highest performance possible - someone who just exercises to keep fit will both stay healthier and not suffer problems in later life (assuming no unusual wear and tear).

Not to mention all the dodgy stuff they take (ie anything not banned, and anything banned they can get away with) to get those extra edges on performance, which probably aren't good for you in the long term. Many also don't manage their taper-down after their careers finish properly, either.

Tobtor

2016-09-01, 02:41 AM

Maybe Tobtor and Snowblizz etc. can chime in.

Yes of course, bronze age clothing is a subject that we actually now quite a bit about.... Mainly from the period 1700-1300 or so (thus slightly before Tollense), due to the oak coffin graves, where textiles is amazingly well preserved (and bog iron shell is created around the coffin in the barrow). This means it is a period were we know more about the clothing than we do about clothing in the viking age (or even the early medieval).

The most famous is the egtved girl, a young women (16-19 old or so):
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZTiQFGBiyZY/VYPS9DS_RvI/AAAAAAAAjHo/bwg2c0zlUoA/s1600/Egtved%2BGirl%2B1.jpg

This is a young womens outfit, and seems quite 'modern' see also this (https://www.google.dk/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Fd9%2Fc4%2F15%2Fd9c4150f8a8 96fc9778fbb8476e9a005.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fragnhi ld0959%2Fegtved-girl%2F&docid=W92_Ztw8Mg8LiM&tbnid=WufI5wNRNY2l3M%3A&w=736&h=605&client=firefox-b&bih=920&biw=1920&ved=0ahUKEwiRl4mp0e3OAhULkSwKHcewCvAQMwgnKAYwBg&iact=mrc&uact=8) interpretation.

It is made of various kinds of wool, and while buried in Southern Denmark, she might originate from the souther Germany, where parts of her clothing is also made (out of different qualities of fine wool).

We also have the Borum Eshøj find, where a more decently clothed older women and older man, as well as a young man is preserved. Here is a link (http://en.natmus.dk/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistoric-period-until-1050-ad/the-bronze-age/the-family-from-borum-eshoej/the-young-man-from-borum-eshoej/) to the national museum of Denmark about them.

All clothing is made of good quality wool, and while they today seem brown, there is evidence of colouring in some of them at least (remember these are 3.000 year old...).

So no, not "cavemen" by any standard.

EIDT: Short note, see the complex hairdo on the Skrydstrup women: http://en.natmus.dk/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistoric-period-until-1050-ad/the-bronze-age/men-and-woman-in-the-bronze-age/the-woman-from-skrydstrup/. You can also find more pictures on the national museums homepage, search for Trindhøj and Muldbjerg. The originals can be seen in the national museum i copenhagen, except Borum Eshøj which is presently at Moesgaard Museum in Aarhus (together with the Illerup find).

Tobtor

2016-09-01, 02:48 AM

I agree whole heartily with G about part time warriors and some peoples notion on elites.

It is interesting that especially Kristian Kristiansen (one of the people commenting in the article linked by G) is so consistent about the concept of a warrior elite. From Thy in Denmark it is clear that almost almost every barrow contained a sword, and the barrows are so many and so close lying that it must represent a single farmstead (or rather one double house, there might be a servant family as well (or thralls as at least one Danish researcher suggest)).

It is true that not every grave from the Viking Age is a weapon grave, but we must remember that both in the Viking Age even small scale chieftains would particitpate in some agricultural activities, such as sowing the plants and butchering the animals, tending the horses etc (there might also be some of the more unpleasant one left for servants such as removing manure from the stables).

Tobtor

2016-09-01, 03:43 AM

About Tobtor's point of city vs big armies: I believe what causes this are different factors, but a city requires a certain organization and centralizes commerce and production in ways that are impossible for the populated country; more importantly, a city ensures the government by a single entity that probably can raise soldiers. All large battles I can think of during the Ancient World were made possible by powerful authorities residing in a city, be it a Pharaoh, a Hittite King, Troy, Agamemnon, Athens, Sparta, Rome, Sardis, one of the four capitals of Media... The Vikings were effective raiders and occasionally scored conquests, but they never had large numbers compared to other kingdoms (Stamford Bridge: 9.000 men; Maldon: 2.000-4.000 men), in spite of improvements in animal husbandry, technology and agriculture which must have happened in the meantime and would have increased the available food, as well as have made travel easier and the people generally richer (better armed and better capable to leave home for a while).
This doesn't mean that I think that you need large cities for large armies, but I expect a country centred around a large city to pull out a lot more men than an equally populated countryside, at least because the city is populated by people who do not produce food.

Yes, but the Viking armies at Stanford Bridge and Maldon was just as big as their opponents armies, even though they had much larger cities.

But that is not the biggest Viking armies. The second siege of Paris (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Paris_(885%E2%80%9386)) was quite large, and while the historical accounts of 30-40.000 is likely a overestimation, the most conservative estimation is still 300 ships, so at least around 10-15.000. Paris at this time had maybe 20-30.000 inhabitants, with the largest Scandinavian towns of Birka and Ribe might have had 500-1.000 at this point (and there are really only a few towns in the 9th century, more develops in the late 10th). So how come the population rich Frankia, with (comparatively, I know Paris is smaller than lets say Rome at its height) large towns and a much higher population couldn't field enough troops? If they achieved the same population to soldier ratio as the Vikings they should have had 10 times as many soldiers.

The Vikings managed to keep Paris under siege while other parts of the army went about in France as they pleased, and the combined Frankish army couldn't do anything other than to allow them to plunder as they wished, and pay them for leaving.

This was not the only Scandinavian army at this time, and other towns and areas where sacked at the same time, so its not like that emptied Scandinavia of 'soldiers' in any way.

Also Cnut the greats invasion of England had maybe 10.000 men.

Which, true enough, is nothing compared to the combined legions of Rome, the Persian armies etc. However, it is considerable forces compared to population (what was the population of the Roman empire, compared to that of Denmark in the 10th/11th century when Sweyn and Cnut invaded England?). But I would venture that a rural area can actually field more soldiers pr. inhabitant exactly because they don't NEED to feed the town as well.

Well maybe the armies of the earlier period with less developed farmlands was smaller, but hay then there is the Varus battle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest) where three roman legions where destroyed, and while it was partly due to an ambush, it must have taken a considerable force to defeat them. Estimates range from 12.000-30.000 according to Wikipedia. So why is it historians still consider it difficult/impossible for non-town states to field soldiers in any quantity?

And then there are of course cases like the mass migration of tribes attacking Rome, such as the Cimbrians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimbrian_War). And while I am not nationalistic enough to claim that they actually all came from Jutland, it is one of many examples where the southern European armies are greatly challenged by rural populations, even if these had very few towns (or even no towns). Themedetereanean world with all its large cities, were constantly challenged by the much smaller (population wise) area to the north.Such as the Marcomannic wars where we again see Roman armies counting around 20.000 being defeated in battlle, how is that possible if the small tribal areas couldn't gather large forces? While I might accept that they where decent warriors, I doubt they where supersoldiers where each man could kill 10 Romans in battle (though that would be cool).

A problem is of course we don't know the exact numbers of armies in the north, as we dont have tallies, numbers ledgers etc, but only Roman/Greek sources, which tend to exaggerate the enemy number (such as the reported 'Goth' army in the hundreds of thousands (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths#Second_invasion)). But no matter how large or small the armies where they managed to do stuff liek sailing around in huge fleets sacking evrything on their path:

In the meantime, the second and larger sea-borne invasion had started. An enormous coalition consisting of Goths (Greuthungi and Thervingi), Gepids and Bastarnae, led again by the Heruli, assembled at the mouth of river Tyras (Dniester). The Augustan History and Zosimus claim a total number of 2,000–6,000 ships and 325,000 men. This is probably a gross exaggeration but remains indicative of the scale of the invasion. After failing to storm some towns on the coasts of the western Black Sea and the Danube (Constanţa, Marcianopolis), they attacked Byzantium and Uskudar. Part of their fleet was wrecked, either because of the Gothic inexperience in sailing through the violent currents of the Propontis or because it was defeated by the Roman navy.

Then they entered the Aegean Sea and a detachment ravaged the Aegean islands as far as Crete, Rhodes and Cyprus. The fleet probably also sacked Troy and Ephesus, destroying the Temple of Artemis, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. While their main force had constructed siege works and was close to taking the cities of Thessalonica and Cassandreia, it retreated to the Balkan interior at the news that the emperor was advancing. On their way, they plundered Dojran and Pelagonia.

Learning of the approach of Claudius, the Goths first attempted to directly invade Italy. They were engaged at the Battle of Naissus near Naissus by a Roman army led by Claudius advancing from the north. The battle most likely took place in 269, and was fiercely contested. Large numbers on both sides were killed but, at the critical point, the Romans tricked the Goths into an ambush by pretended flight. Around 50,000 Goths were allegedly killed or taken captive and their base at Thessalonika destroyed.

It seems that Aurelian, who was in charge of all Roman cavalry during Claudius' reign, led the decisive attack in the battle. Some survivors were resettled within the empire, while others were incorporated into the Roman army. The battle ensured the survival of the Roman Empire for another two centuries. In 270, after the death of Claudius, Goths under the leadership of Cannabaudes again launched an invasion on the Roman Empire, but were defeated by Aurelian, who however surrendered Dacia beyond the Danube.

So while you might describe that as "the exception", these exception seem to have happened quite frequently. The ones above is just a few examples.

Galloglaich

2016-09-01, 09:55 AM

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Oswolt_Krel_by_Albrecht_D%C3%BCrer.jpg/1024px-Oswolt_Krel_by_Albrecht_D%C3%BCrer.jpg

this guy was Oswolt Krel, a merchant in the “Grand Ravensburg Brotherhood” (Die grosse Ravensburger Gesellschaft) who traded all over Europe in the 15th Century. Merchants at this time would personally travel with trading convoys and caravans, and routinely had to fight robber knights, bandits, mongol raiders and even wild animals that threatened them on the road. His family crest included two versions of the “Wildman”, I think this is because one of their trade routes went through an area supposedly infested by the Wildman. Aka bigfoot.

The excellent painting is by Albrecht Durer, 1499.

Bigfoot (or the Wildman or Woodwose as they called him then) was a very popular artistic subject in the middle ages.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/The_Fight_in_the_Forest_(Hans_Burgkmair_d._%C3%84. ).jpg

Here he is fighting a knight in a painting by Hans Burgkmair

and again, not sure who the artist is on tihs one

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/72/d2/b7/72d2b7a8cfe1f4e03e337e698fba704a.jpg

He was pretty much bigfoot except he was depicted as using weapons (typically a primitive wooden club), and sometimes shields

http://vile-views.com/uploads/3/4/4/6/34461903/8624040_orig.jpg

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/hb/hb_53.20.2_av1.jpg

http://www.symbol-and-aesthetics.org/uploads/3/8/7/8/38782449/9938039_orig.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Ruebezahl1561.jpg

The picture is a hidden 'easter egg' on this 16th Century map of Silesia (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Helwig.png). You can see the image in the upper right corner about an inch below where it says Bohemia. You can also find the towns 'Monsterburg' and 'Frankenstein' on the map, they are actual towns in Silesia (though they have different names today).

This guy Krakonos is a specific local variation of the Wildman, called Krakonos by the Czechs, and Rubezahl by the Germans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%BCbezahl). But the miners in the mountains where he lives, named after him (the Giant mountains (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krkono%C5%A1e)) say it's better to call him "Herr Johann" (Mr. John). They still leave little presents for him to this day, out of superstition. There are at least two secret groves to him.

That mountain range was uninhabited until the 14th Century when new chemistry (alchemy) techniques made mining much more lucrative (because it became possible to get silver and copper out of ore instead of just pure veins). Early prospectors and explorers of the range had all kinds of stories about Krakonos.

An 18th Century German poet described Krakonos this way:

"...Rübezahl, you should know, has the nature of a powerful genius: capricious, impetuous, peculiar, rascally, crude, immodest, haughty, vain, fickle, today your warmest friend, tomorrow alien and cold; ...roguish and respectable, stubborn and flexible..."

Galloglaich

2016-09-01, 10:29 AM

Greek hoplites weren't really part-time farmers; rather they were affluent enough that they weren't personally required to provide the bulk of the labour on their farms, thus had the leisure time to train and congregate with their peers, and march off to war in the summer. Along with having the spare capital to afford a panoply.

Are you certain of that? Are you speaking of a specific city-state or of all city-states and territories from the entire Greek mainland, Anatolia, Islands, Black Sea enclaves, Sicily etc. etc., from the time of Mycenae through the time of Alexander?

I think the problem that a lot of popular histories have, particularly Anglo-American histories, is that they tend to continue to make the old Victorian era assumption that "leisure time" is kind of an all or nothing matter. In Victorian London (at least, to the minds of the elite) either you were either a man of leisure or you were one of the filthy anonymous throng begging and robbing in the streets. You spent your time eating tea and crumpets and strolling through perfectly manicured gardens, or you toiled your short life away in a coal mine in Wales. But historically this was rarely the case in Europe in pre-industrial times. There were certainly exceptions of course, and there were societies which were sufficiently large, wealthy and hierarchical that you had a fairly large genuine leisure class.

But I don't think that a typical hoplite from a typical Greek city-state was the equivalent of a Roman Senator or a 17th Century French Duke. As Tobtor noted, they probably weren't spending a lot of time shoveling manure in the animal stalls, but I doubt they spent their entire life alternating between elegant symposiums over wine and olives, with practicing gymnastics and spear drills on the side either. Viking farmers had servants, sharecroppers and slaves too, but they still clearly had to work. I don't know if you have read the primary sources like Herodotus or Thucydides or Xenophon etc., but in their words a typical hoplite sounds pretty much like the typical gentry or yeoman farmers of the medieval era. I.e. someone with a good amount of leisure time but not a man of leisure so to speak.

I'm not an expert on the Classical period but I can tell you without a doubt that in the High and Late medieval period a wide cross-section of society who worked for a living also had more than enough leisure time to know how to fight quite well. We know this from the records of attendance at martial events like tournaments, shooting contests, fencing contests, and various other martial sports, as well as their participation in the militia. I believe it was pretty similar in Greece actually with the various martial sports like grappling and pankration and various gymnastic events like the Olympics. It wasn't all men being carried around on litters going to those things or competing in them.

There were plenty of professionals in the late Classical/early Hellenistic era, and not just mercenaries (who in this period often didn't have another job, there was more than enough demand for full-time mercs). Professional oarsmen, for example, only needed to find something else to do in winter when most fleets were beached. Philip of Macedon mobilised his tribal levies into a professional, full-time force and many of his original men who survived to old age were still active soldiers in their eighties and nineties.

Philip of Macdeon, and Alexander after him, certainly did have a fairly large body of household soldiers who were professionals or semi-professionals, but I don't think those made up the bulk of the army. Probably the most important part of the cavalry. But that wasn't the typical Greek city state or hoplites, I'm not sure if their pikemen were even considered hoplites any more at that point.

It's a pretty significant difference with the medieval era, largely of scale. States were bigger and richer, the forces they deployed were larger. Population was probably higher too. All that leads to greater division and specialisation of labour than was possible in the medieval era.

http://www.susps.org/images/worldpopgr.gif

I agree that in many cases it seems like Classical battles often seem to have larger numbers of fighters, and without a doubt the Roman Empire could field armies much larger than that of most medieval Kingdoms or other polities. But are you sure the pre-Hellenistic Greek States were bigger and richer? Do you really think that Golden Age Athens compared to the wealth of say, 15th Century Genoa, Florence or Venice? Venice had a fleet of 3,000 ships at that time, and a shipyard which could build a ship per day. According to Herodotus et al, Athens and their friends had a little less than 400 ships at the Battle of Salamis.

The medieval period was pretty broken up in terms of power centers, but so was pre-Hellenistic Greece. Athens and Sparta, and later Thebes and some others, did become quite large States, but even some of the smaller ones in medieval period probably wielded much more power in terms of wealth, material possessions, engineering capabilities and deadliness of their armies. Small European armies faced of Ottoman forces of 100,000 + men on more than one occasion, as one example.

G

Vinyadan

2016-09-01, 11:51 AM

You can actually get to know how rich a hoplite was in Athens. In Athens, to serve as a hoplite you needed to be able to produce the equivalent of 200 medimnoi (about 20.000 liters) of dry or wet goods; this was supposed to be enough to allow you to buy the panoply. If you were richer (300 medimnoi) you were admitted to serve as horseman. If you were even richer (500 medimnoi) you were eligible for the top positions in the city government and I think you also had to pay for a trireme and were one of the contributors for the theatre festivals. The lowest class had no land or got less than 200 medimnoi and could only serve as rowers, which made them decisive in later times, when Athens became a naval power. All of these classes influenced the type of political and juridical service you were admitted to administer in Athens.

In the old Roman constitution, a heavy foot soldier (which was pretty much a hoplite) needed at least 100.000 asses; between 100.000 and 75.000 you were asked to buy yourself a panoply without torso and a smaller shield; between 75.000 and 50.000 you were requested to buy yourself just the smaller shield (all classes had to buy their own weapons: spear and sword).

I am pretty sure hoplites had to work, although I currently can't think of Greek cases from non fictional accounts. Roman legionnaires famously were requested to work fields where they were stationed. But you have to think that Greece was poor, that there wasn't that much land or that many slaves, and that people in the Hellenistic and Roman era occasionally marvelled at how little houses these great people had (=how poor they were compared to later times). Sure, some had a lot money (especially colonies like Sibari), but, in general, they suffered a lot when compared to neighbouring lands that had gold, vast arable lands, great forests to build ships, large horse herds... Eschilus noticed that this made Greece hard to conquer, because the land starved great armies.

You also had professional soldiers, although they were an exception, or they don't get named often. There is the strange case of Sparta and there is the case of the Athenian Xenophon, who joined a band of 10.000 Greek mercenaries and fought for a Persian would be usurper. However, in Xenophon's case, it's worth noticing that this happened during the time after the Peloponnesiac War, when the pro-spartan government of Athens had been taken out and many were afraid of political repercussions if they didn't get away fast enough. There also were the Mamertini, which were used by the Greek Siracusan Agathokles and were the casus belli for the first Punic war.

Concerning money and division, keep in mind that Italian cities were using a capitalist economy when AFAIK almost no one in Europe was (maybe some German cities?). According to Herwig Wolfram, the Medici bank alone was actually in the conditions to buy England. There also was a 2000 years jump between these realities. Anyway, the Italian cities were the exception there. http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2 Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F4%2F44%2FMaddison_G DP_per_capita_1500-1950.svg%2F320px-Maddison_GDP_per_capita_1500-1950.svg.png&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F Great_Divergence&h=200&w=320&tbnid=TQ5D3kITC2JGoM%3A&docid=O-Br-H1EW5l3xM&ei=a1bIV93CIYb6UJiKk8AD&tbm=isch&client=firefox-b&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=1023&page=1&start=40&ndsp=50&ved=0ahUKEwidpKrFyu7OAhUGPRQKHRjFBDgQMwiLASgzMDM&safe=off&bih=971&biw=1920

Galloglaich

2016-09-01, 12:00 PM

You can actually get to know how rich a hoplite was in Athens. In Athens, to serve as a hoplite you needed to be able to produce the equivalent of 200 medimnoi (about 20.000 liters) of dry or wet goods; this was supposed to be enough to allow you to buy the panoply. If you were richer (300 medimnoi) you were admitted to serve as horseman. If you were even richer (500 medimnoi) you were eligible for the top positions in the city government and I think you also had to pay for a trireme and were one of the contributors for the theatre festivals. The lowest class had no land or got less than 200 medimnoi and could only serve as rowers, which made them decisive in later times, when Athens became a naval power. All of these classes influenced the type of political and juridical service you were admitted to administer in Athens.

In the old Roman constitution, a heavy foot soldier (which was pretty much a hoplite) needed at least 100.000 asses; between 100.000 and 75.000 you were asked to buy yourself a panoply without torso and a smaller shield; between 75.000 and 50.000 you were requested to buy yourself just the smaller shield (all classes had to buy their own weapons: spear and sword).

I am pretty sure hoplites had to work, although I currently can't think of Greek cases from non fictional accounts. Roman legionnaires famously were requested to work fields where they were stationed. But you have to think that Greece was poor, that there wasn't that much land or that many slaves, and that people in the Hellenistic and Roman era occasionally marvelled at how little houses these great people had (=how poor they were compared to later times). Sure, some had a lot money (especially colonies like Sibari), but, in general, they suffered a lot when compared to neighbouring lands that had gold, vast arable lands, great forests to build ships, large horse herds... Eschilus noticed that this made Greece hard to conquer, because the land starved great armies.

This is basically my point - they were yeoman farmers.

You also had professional soldiers, although they were an exception, or they don't get named often. There is the strange case of Sparta and there is the case of the Athenian Xenophon, who joined a band of 10.000 Greek mercenaries and fought for a Persian would be usurper. However, in Xenophon's case, it's worth noticing that this happened during the time after the Peloponnesiac War, when the pro-spartan government of Athens had been taken out and many were afraid of political repercussions if they didn't get away fast enough. There also were the Mamertini, which were used by the Greek Siracusan Agathokles and were the casus belli for the first Punic war.

Yes I've read Xenophon

Concerning money and division, keep in mind that Italian cities were using a capitalist economy when AFAIK almost no one in Europe was (maybe some German cities?). According to Herwig Wolfram, the Medici bank alone was actually in the conditions to buy England. There also was a 2000 years jump between these realities. Anyway, the Italian cities were the exception there. http://images.google.de/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2 Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F4%2F44%2FMaddison_G DP_per_capita_1500-1950.svg%2F320px-Maddison_GDP_per_capita_1500-1950.svg.png&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F Great_Divergence&h=200&w=320&tbnid=TQ5D3kITC2JGoM%3A&docid=O-Br-H1EW5l3xM&ei=a1bIV93CIYb6UJiKk8AD&tbm=isch&client=firefox-b&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=1023&page=1&start=40&ndsp=50&ved=0ahUKEwidpKrFyu7OAhUGPRQKHRjFBDgQMwiLASgzMDM&safe=off&bih=971&biw=1920

They actually weren't an exception at all. For example there were two families in Augsburg alone who were rich enough in the late 15th Century to buy the entire Medici house several times over.

In addition to several very wealthy Central European (German and Slavic) cities (Augsburg, Nuremberg, Ulm, Prague, Breslau, Strasbourg, Cologne etc.) you also had the 50 or so major towns of the Hanseatic League (Danzig, Lubeck, Hamburg etc.), plus all the towns in Flanders like Bruges, Ghent, Antwerp etc., plus large Catalan (Barcelona) and Illyrian / Croatian towns (Ragusa) and so on, all of whom had sophisticated commercial practices and the ability to raise formidable armies. There were also large trading companies (like the grosse Ravensburger Gesellschaft which I just mentioned in an unrelated post) and town leagues of smaller cities which flexed considerable commercial muscle, and entities like the Teutonc Knights and the Knights Hospitaler who also had their own banks.

The Italians had a head-start on most of the rest of Europe when it came to banking type practices but that alone didn't make the difference, by any stretch, and they certainly were not unique.

G

Roxxy

2016-09-01, 05:51 PM

Could you guys help me design a suit of armor? Armor technology level is about 1600-1650, but mass production is a possibility (magitech). The troops expected to wear this suit of armor are relatively specialized and not numerous, so the government can afford to issue expensive armor if necessary. The troops wearing it are monster hunters, and primarily expect to fight beasts and magic. Bites and maulings are an ever present threat, lot of monster fangs and claws are sharp and dense as a good steel sword. Breath attacks such as fire are also a very common threat, as are things like swarm attacks and poison. They need to, at times, fight things like undead that want to grab and bite, or things that want to pounce and pin their quarry. A trooper needs to be able to wear the armor for extended periods of time while tracking monsters through rough terrain and expecting possible ambush at any time. They don't typically fight human enemies at all, and usually fight on foot in groups of four to six. Extreme temperatures are common. Bullets, crossbow bolts, warhammers, halberds, and such are not common threats, but spears and clubs are. What might these troops want to wear into combat? Do they want shields?

Vitruviansquid

2016-09-01, 06:02 PM

The problem with carrying a sizable shield is that you can't have a big two-handed weapon, which might seem necessary for reach and stopping power against a particularly large or quick monster.

The problem of having to travel a long time could be solved by having these elite soldiers get something like a squire to help them haul their gear around. These squires could also carry around a lot of alternate gear that the actual fighters switch out depending on opponent.

In any case, I think a fairly believable solution would be to have different suits of armor to be handled by a squire. One suit has strong armor at vital points and not much else - a helmet, cuirass, gauntlets and optional greaves. Soldiers would wear this when tracking monsters through difficult terrain. They would try very hard not to get hit in the first place, but anything like a spike or bite would hopefully only injure, not kill.

A second suit would be fully enclosed as possible with insulating materials. This is used against monsters with things like a fire breath. It is also to be used after a monster's lair was identified because it would likely be cumbersome to wear through hard terrain.

fusilier

2016-09-01, 10:08 PM

Well maybe the armies of the earlier period with less developed farmlands was smaller, but hay then there is the Varus battle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest) where three roman legions where destroyed, and while it was partly due to an ambush, it must have taken a considerable force to defeat them. Estimates range from 12.000-30.000 according to Wikipedia. So why is it historians still consider it difficult/impossible for non-town states to field soldiers in any quantity?

Is creating a large army the same as sustaining a large army? The Germans may have had 30.000 soldiers to fight the Romans at the battle of Teutoburg Forest -- but they didn't field a 30.000 man army in, say, Persia. Even seasonal farming can lead to times where the population doesn't have much to do for *part* of the year, but not the whole year round. I've heard of soldiers as late as WW2 being demobilized in the Fall to help with the harvest.

On the other hand, if they can effectively forage (or capture supplies), then logistics might be different. What about the early Mongol invasions? Although wouldn't that be predicated on *someone* having stocks/supplies available for the invaders to obtain?

Martin Greywolf

2016-09-02, 02:18 AM

Could you guys help me design a suit of armor?

Well, for armor, a normal suit of full plate will probably be the best you can do. The worst problem is that you need to make it fit to the individual to make it work properly, if that's not an option, first thing to go will be leg protection, since that one has to be fitted really closely.

For helmets, a good visor is a must if they are to spend a lot of time in armor - breathing through tiny holes while marching is not something I'd describe as "fun".

For weapons, dagger is a must, then a sidearm of their choice (sabre, sword, katzbalger,...). For their main weapon, probably pollaxe, with hammer-axe-spike configuration. Since they're hunters and therefore mostly on the offensive, specialized equipment for various critters is also possible - pikes with corssguard against undead, for example, or beidehanders against giant spiders (because **** spiders).

Shields are not a good idea at this tech level, there isn't much a shield will do that your armor can't, and it's generally more useful to have a two handed weapon. And when you're up against a big monster, static blocks are even worse idea, and shield gives it a nice lever to use against your arm.

On Army Sizes

Keep in mind that just because a kingdom has 100 000 troops doesn't necessarily mean they can deploy all of them in one place. Medieval France is actually a good example, since it had army of roughly 150 000 - 200 000 men circa 1300, but was still only able to deploy armies of about 30 000. You see this 30k number repeated across Europe, suggesting that it was the upper limit of what you could do logistically.

The problem of supplying them with food aside, concentrating that many men also brings a host of other problems - for starters, you now have 30k people who need to go to take a dump once a day - that's a lot of literal **** to deal with, and you need to keep it away from your water sources and your soldiers to avoid diseases.

Even Romans who had arguably the best logistics before early modern era could only concentrate more than three legions in one place for a short time, and remember, one legion is roughly 5 000 soldiers.

From the data I've seen, a medieval kingdom will be able to support about 10k - 15k soldiers per every million of population it has, with 30k being the limit on how many it can deploy in one place. For the record, largest army ever assembled in medieval Europe had maybe 70k soldiers, and it didn't belong to Europeans - it was Subutai's invasion, and even then, it depends on how you count them, since it split into two hosts (northern went into Poland, southern to Hungary) shortly after being assembled, with the bigger Hungarian host having some 40k.

Tobtor

2016-09-02, 03:39 AM

Is creating a large army the same as sustaining a large army? The Germans may have had 30.000 soldiers to fight the Romans at the battle of Teutoburg Forest -- but they didn't field a 30.000 man army in, say, Persia. Even seasonal farming can lead to times where the population doesn't have much to do for *part* of the year, but not the whole year round. I've heard of soldiers as late as WW2 being demobilized in the Fall to help with the harvest.

On the other hand, if they can effectively forage (or capture supplies), then logistics might be different. What about the early Mongol invasions? Although wouldn't that be predicated on *someone* having stocks/supplies available for the invaders to obtain?

True they didn't have a standing army (at least not in peace-time). And Persia is a bit far from Northern Germany. However, both Celts of the 4th century BC (sacking Etruskan cities, besieging Rome etc, long campaigns in Greece etc), Cimbrians and Teutons (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Cimbrians_and_Teutons_invasions.svg), the Goths, and Viking did have very long campaign lasting multiple years (the large siege of Paris in 885-886 lasted almost a year thus not a seasonal raid, and the smaller one in 945 was part of a campaign lasting multiple years).

I think most ancient armies relied to some degree on the ability to get local supplies (at least water). Even the Romans did so for extended campaigns. This was often looted, but the Cimbrians also seemed to have had peace and traded with local tribes along their way, also sometimes camp would be made and small scale hunting, fishing and even agriculture would also supplement the armies supplies. Vikings could of course leave part of their army and bring more supplies by ship (looted or traded elsewhere).

The Germanic and Celtic societies normally did have a surplus (or potential surplus) of agricultural products, and thus 'free time' to share around. In Viking age for example it was part of your upbringing to train with weapons and 'travel abroad' to secure reputation and wealth. It seem as if chieftains bought their sons a share of ships, poorer men got a 'seat' (a position to help sail/row the ship) and some trade goods, and Jarls and Kings son one or several ships. This was thus common practise to stay out for at least 3-4 years either trading or joining a raiding party. If we say you could expect to live 30 years after your 15th year (average lifespan of 45 for people reaching adulthood), that means 10% of your adult life. MAybe thralls didnt participate, but everyone else would be expected to, if we say thralls made up less than 20% of the population around 8% of the adult male population would be under arms at any point (you also brought weapons on trade-missions). More could be called in if needed of course, and some we stay 'vikings' their entire life, while the majority would spend the earned wealth on settling but be ready to bear arms if needed.

From the sagas it seem Icelandic farms seem to be able to run almost without the men for at least a year or two, with the women doing the day-to-day work (periodic work such as repair and building new structures can easily wait some years), so in principle you could muster very large part of the population.

Carl

2016-09-02, 06:31 AM

@Roxxy: there are two big issues i see in that list, well 3 but i'll come back to the 3rd in a moment as it's the easiest to solve.

Swarm attacks have a huge issue, whilst you can deal with breathing through gauze like coverings at or around the mouth or where air comes in, and in any gaps in the armour. Sight becomes a huge issue, armour thats going to stop a big nasty tooth or claw is going to require fairly restricted vision apertures, but doing so is going to make putting gauze over them for swarm attacks unworkable from a vision PoV, it's like trying to combine a beekeepers suit with good armour, you've got contradictory requirements. And thats if it's somthing without good claws, teeth, mandibles, whatever, in which case gauze isn't going to cut it, potentially some kind of armoured glass visor with the glass mounted in felt for shatter resistance might work, but again poor visibility through the glass, and that doesn't help for breathing.

Breath attacks are even worse as whilst gauze like substances might reduce inflow of gas, they won't stop it, and things like fire can potentially remove the oxygen from the air inside the suit even if they can't get inside. There's simply no way to do more than mitigate the effect with breath attacks without a hermetically sealed suit and a filtration system or external oxygen supply, which is beyond technological means of the era you specify.

The bigger issue is the whole thing with spear clubs, claw's, e.t.c. being from monsters is that if they're noticeably bigger and/or stronger enemies those weapons will be much more massive, or the claws will have noticeably more mass behind them, or even bite strengths will be really high. All of these are likely to render even the best full plate ever made of very little use because at low velocities mass really is king in force application. Now if you start bringing in magical materials like adamantite or mithril you've got a chance, but eventually if somthing big enough is swinging at you simple physics will cause the "cold-warrior-problem" the terms my own and references Stargate-SG1. They had a technological enemy which had armour that was damm near invulnerable to pretty much anything you threw at them, but whilst it only really came up the one time, hit them with enough kinetic energy and it didn't matter because the force of the impact would cause shock-g loads severe enough to kill them. Weather even really large beasties can get that fast a movement is debatable, but they can probably get fast enough to knock people unconscious in their armour, even if they can't crush/cut the armour itself.

@Oni: i'll get back to yuo at some point ;).

Kiero

2016-09-02, 06:52 AM

Are you certain of that? Are you speaking of a specific city-state or of all city-states and territories from the entire Greek mainland, Anatolia, Islands, Black Sea enclaves, Sicily etc. etc., from the time of Mycenae through the time of Alexander?

I think the problem that a lot of popular histories have, particularly Anglo-American histories, is that they tend to continue to make the old Victorian era assumption that "leisure time" is kind of an all or nothing matter. In Victorian London (at least, to the minds of the elite) either you were either a man of leisure or you were one of the filthy anonymous throng begging and robbing in the streets. You spent your time eating tea and crumpets and strolling through perfectly manicured gardens, or you toiled your short life away in a coal mine in Wales. But historically this was rarely the case in Europe in pre-industrial times. There were certainly exceptions of course, and there were societies which were sufficiently large, wealthy and hierarchical that you had a fairly large genuine leisure class.

But I don't think that a typical hoplite from a typical Greek city-state was the equivalent of a Roman Senator or a 17th Century French Duke. As Tobtor noted, they probably weren't spending a lot of time shoveling manure in the animal stalls, but I doubt they spent their entire life alternating between elegant symposiums over wine and olives, with practicing gymnastics and spear drills on the side either. Viking farmers had servants, sharecroppers and slaves too, but they still clearly had to work. I don't know if you have read the primary sources like Herodotus or Thucydides or Xenophon etc., but in their words a typical hoplite sounds pretty much like the typical gentry or yeoman farmers of the medieval era. I.e. someone with a good amount of leisure time but not a man of leisure so to speak.

I'm not an expert on the Classical period but I can tell you without a doubt that in the High and Late medieval period a wide cross-section of society who worked for a living also had more than enough leisure time to know how to fight quite well. We know this from the records of attendance at martial events like tournaments, shooting contests, fencing contests, and various other martial sports, as well as their participation in the militia. I believe it was pretty similar in Greece actually with the various martial sports like grappling and pankration and various gymnastic events like the Olympics. It wasn't all men being carried around on litters going to those things or competing in them.

I'm generalising, but hoplites didn't stop being deployed with Alexander (even if he rarely used them for anything more than garrison troops); they were featured on battlefields for over 1000 years from the Classical era right into the Roman era before they finally disappeared. So talking about them solely as though they were a phenomenon of the Classical era doesn't make a lot of sense. Nor does talking just about the city-states of Hellas proper. Particularly when the western Anatolian coast was very much a part of the same Greek core as old Greece and the Aegean.

When I said leisure, I wasn't suggesting they had nothing but free time, rather they weren't engaged on their farms from dawn til dusk, and could be away from them to conduct business in town, without having a meaningful impact on the running of them, where they could train. That doesn't make you a part-time farmer, it makes you a manager of a farm. Point being their personal labour contribution is less important than the direction they provide, since they have other hands to do the grunt-work. I'm not sure where you got the idea I was suggesting they were living the languid existence of a Roman senatorial or the like.

Philip of Macdeon, and Alexander after him, certainly did have a fairly large body of household soldiers who were professionals or semi-professionals, but I don't think those made up the bulk of the army. Probably the most important part of the cavalry. But that wasn't the typical Greek city state or hoplites, I'm not sure if their pikemen were even considered hoplites any more at that point.

In neither instance (oarsmen, phalangites) was I referring to Greek city-states, again I'm not looking at the Classical era, but Hellenistic for the most part.

Pikemen weren't hoplites, either by definition of their panoply or the social class they came from. That wasn't my point here. The men originally levied by Philip and used by Alexander and his successors were tribesmen of Makedonia, whether lowland farmboys and cattle-herders, or highland mountain men and raiders. I'm not talking about his household soldiers either, but the regular pikemen, who were from a lower social class than hoplites, and were the bulk of the army's heavy infantry.

They're not the Agema or Hetairoi, but when you serve all year round, for years on end, you are no longer a tribal levy or citizen militia, you're effectively professionals. Indeed, not having to send his men home in the autumn to gather the harvest, was one of the advantages Philip enjoyed over his Greek enemies in the Sacred Wars.

http://www.susps.org/images/worldpopgr.gif

I agree that in many cases it seems like Classical battles often seem to have larger numbers of fighters, and without a doubt the Roman Empire could field armies much larger than that of most medieval Kingdoms or other polities. But are you sure the pre-Hellenistic Greek States were bigger and richer? Do you really think that Golden Age Athens compared to the wealth of say, 15th Century Genoa, Florence or Venice? Venice had a fleet of 3,000 ships at that time, and a shipyard which could build a ship per day. According to Herodotus et al, Athens and their friends had a little less than 400 ships at the Battle of Salamis.

The medieval period was pretty broken up in terms of power centers, but so was pre-Hellenistic Greece. Athens and Sparta, and later Thebes and some others, did become quite large States, but even some of the smaller ones in medieval period probably wielded much more power in terms of wealth, material possessions, engineering capabilities and deadliness of their armies. Small European armies faced of Ottoman forces of 100,000 + men on more than one occasion, as one example.

G

I'm not talking about the pre-Hellenistic Greek states, I'm talking primarily about the Didadochi here. The Seleukids and Ptolemaioi were vastly richer than the majority of medieval states, and had a lot more manpower to draw upon as well. Even if the Ptolemaioi had to rely heavily on hiring the bulk of their armies (something enabled by being the richest state there was at the time), rather than drawing them from settlers (and satrapal levies) like the Seleukids.

The Republican Romans could put huge armies into the field with ease, their standard army size was 25,000 and there were always at least 50,000 in Italy ready to be deployed where needed. They didn't represent more than a tithe of the available manpower either; they could lose an army like that and replace it within a season, due to the large number of trained and equipped men in reserve.

The Hellenistic powers didn't have anything like that sort of reserve to draw upon, but their royal armies were routinely in the 50,000+ range. Battles involving less than 20,000 on each side were small for the era, but would have been pretty large for much of the medieval era. They weren't broken up, but heavily centralised.

Even Romans who had arguably the best logistics before early modern era could only concentrate more than three legions in one place for a short time, and remember, one legion is roughly 5 000 soldiers.

Eh? What are you talking about? The standard size of a Republican consular army, which was given to both the year's consuls and the previous year's proconsuls in their respective provinces, was two legions and two alae of socii - totalling around 20,000 men. There were at least four of these active at any time, usually more. A praetorian force, of which there might be any number depending on the threats, was half that size. I have no idea where you've conjured the "only three legions in one place" notion, because it doesn't reflect anything I've ever read about the Republican or early Principate legions.

The Romans reckoned an army of 25,000 men to be the ideal, one that was both effective against most of what could be thrown at it, but could also be supported in the field indefinitely. It was with armies this size that the likes of Lucullus defeated huge eastern armies when campaigning abroad. Their population was huge (several million in Italy alone, and the proportion of it that could be mustered under arms was proportionately large as well) and they demonstrated repeatedly that they could not only deploy, but replace entire armies. The Second Punic War in particular is ample demonstration of just how deep the Roman reserves were; they lost over 100,000 men just between Lake Trasimene, Trebia and Cannae, for example, yet were still able to muster yet more tens of thousands of fully-equipped men to take the field against Hannibal.

Similarly, Hellenistic-era powers could easily muster 25,000 men and royal armies usually numbered in the 50,000 to 75,000 range when they concentrated all their forces together for one decisive battle.

Blackhawk748

2016-09-02, 09:52 AM

So got a question here. How would you fight with this weapon?

http://i605.photobucket.com/albums/tt138/geminiconcepts/ShowdowGuard%20Pike/ShadowGuard.jpg

For the curious its called a Lightsaber Pike, but it seems to have more in common with a Naginata than a Pike. My best guess would be to just treat the thing like a Naginata and fight accordingly, but im curious if anyone has any other ideas.

Martin Greywolf

2016-09-02, 09:58 AM

Eh? What are you talking about? The standard size of a Republican consular army, which was given to both the year's consuls and the previous year's proconsuls in their respective provinces, was two legions and two alae of socii - totalling around 20,000 men. There were at least four of these active at any time, usually more. A praetorian force, of which there might be any number depending on the threats, was half that size. I have no idea where you've conjured the "only three legions in one place" notion, because it doesn't reflect anything I've ever read about the Republican or early Principate legions.

The Romans reckoned an army of 25,000 men to be the ideal, one that was both effective against most of what could be thrown at it, but could also be supported in the field indefinitely. It was with armies this size that the likes of Lucullus defeated huge eastern armies when campaigning abroad. Their population was huge (several million in Italy alone, and the proportion of it that could be mustered under arms was proportionately large as well) and they demonstrated repeatedly that they could not only deploy, but replace entire armies. The Second Punic War in particular is ample demonstration of just how deep the Roman reserves were; they lost over 100,000 men just between Lake Trasimene, Trebia and Cannae, for example, yet were still able to muster yet more tens of thousands of fully-equipped men to take the field against Hannibal.

Similarly, Hellenistic-era powers could easily muster 25,000 men and royal armies usually numbered in the 50,000 to 75,000 range when they concentrated all their forces together for one decisive battle.

Yeah, 20k for a province sounds about right. How big is a province, again? Point being, when a consul has an army of 20k soldiers in his province, he doesn't have them in one place.

Even campaign armies (said 25k) aren't usually in one place, great example can be found, among other places, in the First Crusade, where you had what were essentially 5 independent armies that only converged when besieging a major city.

Royal armies concentrating 70k soldiers on one battlefield - well, i want to see sources for that. If we go only by what is said in the chronicles, then every army is pretty much ten times its real size. Unless that 70k comes from archaeological evidence or various expense accounts (and even those are usually a little suspect, with people in charge adding soldiers to embezzle a dollar or two).

Finally, just because an army should have 25k men doesn't mean that is its real size. For example, the Subutai invasion I mentioned saw, IIRC, seven tumens as a part of Hungarian host, which should be 70k men. Modern estimates derived from a number of places place its size at 40k.

Oh and by the by, Wikipedia tends to list all of the estimates, including the wildly overblown ones, and gives little information about where they come from (for example, Subutai's tumen multiplication). Problem is, one needs to be pretty well-versed in the particular battle to even notice that...

Max_Killjoy

2016-09-02, 10:01 AM

As a point of reference... Gaugamela was reportedly 50,000 on the Macedonia side against anywhere from 55,000 to 100,000 on the Persian side (leaving out ancient figures of up to a million on the Persian side).

Decent estimates for Cannae, filtering out the exaggerations, would be roughly 50000 in Hannibal's forces vs 75000 Romans.

Does this seem completely off?

Frozen_Feet

2016-09-02, 10:32 AM

Question: How much faster than a normal person would someone have to be to easily defeat most / all opponents in hand-to-hand combat? How much faster would they need to be to face and defeat multiple opponents simultaneously?

To paraphrase a principle of fencing: any action taking one unit of time can be countered by action taking half that time.

So one-on-one, being twice as fast should be enough.

Against multiple opponents, it gets tricky. On open ground, even the best unarmed combatant is hard-pressed to fight against more than three people. This number can be upped significantly by wielding a weapon - I've heard one person keeping six at bay with a sword, and one person keeping a dozen swordsmen at bay with a staff.

So I'd say, if you're twice as fast as the fastest opponent, that's how many you can take. Past that, you better run or you risk being dogpiled.

If you want an estimate for how fast you'd need to be in order to fight arbirtary number of humans in unarmes combat: it is pretty rare to find any human with response time of less than 100 ms. If you can observe, orient, decide and act in 100 ms against an opponent who is 2 meters away, you will be near-impossible to surround and take out. This means you need ability to accelerate to 22 m/s or higher from a standing position.

Additionally, regarding the classical 'trained vs experienced' sort of matchup, what advantages and disadvantages would someone whose martial training boils down to 'learning by doing' have against someone formally trained? Assuming the former has much more practical experience and potentially more total experience.
I have an issue of Fighter sport referencing a study on this. They did a statistical analysis on self-defense situations where the defendant was a martial artist, versus situations where the defendant was a contact sports player (f.ex. ice hockey, american football etc.).

They found out that the first time a martial artist ended up in a brawl, they won 33% time, where as the contact sports player won 66% of the time. This suggest being bigger, stronger & faster and used to hard contact is more immediately useful than martial arts.

However, they also looked at cases where the same person ended up in a brawl for the second time. The second time around, the martial artist's win rate jumped to 80%, while the contact sports player stayed around 66%. In successive conflicts, the martial artist kept getting better, the contact sports player stayed the same. This suggests that the martial artist learn more from the experience than a contact sports player.

So it's a question of what these people have trained in and how much. I will note that pretty much all traditional formal martial arts aimed to arm you for a real fight, just like modern military and law-enforcement arts do, and for many of the same reasons. You may look at formal sports fencing or karate and conclude they're about scoring points, but formal traditional fencing or karate or whatever was about killing people before they killes you. This may seem pedantic in the modern world where sports and fitness applications are more common, but it means a world for premodern settings where the traditional forms are likely all that's around.

The point is: past some level of training, it's safe to expect a student of formalized martial art has trained for, and been in, a real fight. They have been "learning by doing" just as well.

If you match a big, strong guy who's been in a few brawls against a fresh martial artist who's not been in a brawl, the former probably wins. If you match a big, strong guy who's been in a few brawls against a martial artists who's been in a few brawls, it's probably even. If you match a big, strong guy who's been in a lot of brawls against a martial artist who's been in a lot of brawls, the latter probably has the edge, because they made this stuff into their field of study.

The point of formalized anything is to store and codify information, and because of this an advanced student of the art benefits from a lot of knowledge that you'd have to be a genius to figure out on your own. Being part of a tradition also typically means you have more people of your own skill level or above to fight against. If you just beat up people on the streets, it's a crapshoot of who you're going against, and you might just end up bullying weaker people without learning anything about it.

Galloglaich

2016-09-02, 10:35 AM

I'm generalising, but hoplites didn't stop being deployed with Alexander (even if he rarely used them for anything more than garrison troops); they were featured on battlefields for over 1000 years from the Classical era right into the Roman era before they finally disappeared. So talking about them solely as though they were a phenomenon of the Classical era doesn't make a lot of sense.

I already made this point and I did stipulate Anatolia, Black Sea, Magna Graecia in Italy etc. and talking about the precise level of wealth of "a Hoplite" across that entire time period in the entire Greek diaspora doesn't make much sense either. Obviously it varied over time and from place to place. Quite different social organization in the various city-states, trading colonies, tyrannies, in Anatolia, Italy, Black Sea area, southern France etc. etc.

Lets try to remember: The original debate here was about the article on the Bronze Age battle and whether well kitted out soldiers meant full time soldiers necessarily. I pointed out that Hoplites, among many other famous troop types over the centuries which I mentioned briefly, weren't really professionals, since they... or many of them, were basically farmers, country gentry, yeomen.

My point being that you really did not, historically, need to be a full time professional soldier or warrior in the literal sense of the word to be a good or effective or well kitted-out soldier or warrior. Some of the best and most effective historically were small time.

There were definitely eras which did have significant sized professional armies - such as the Roman Empire, and the Hellenistic period, especially during it's peak in the reigns of Alexander and Philip, was one of those. As were the Ottomans and many Kingdoms in the 16th and 17th Century and so on. As I already stipulated.

When I said leisure, I wasn't suggesting they had nothing but free time, . That doesn't make you a part-time farmer, it makes you a manager of a farm. Point being their personal labour contribution is less important than the direction they provide, since they have other hands to do the grunt-work. I'm not sure where you got the idea I was suggesting they were living the languid existence of a Roman senatorial or the like.

My point was that there is a wide range of social and economic status between somebody who toils in a farm from dawn to dusk vs. a Roman senator. And I think Hoplites, a lot of the time (across that 1000 years you mentioned or say, the 300 years when they were actually militarily significant) were really closer to the middle than the high end of that range. It's a fairly consistent range. I don't think they were just managers who had tons of leisure time so that they were the equivalent to professional soldiers, which I think is a Victorian trope as I also previously mentioned.

In neither instance (oarsmen, phalangites) was I referring to Greek city-states, again I'm not looking at the Classical era, but Hellenistic for the most part.

I'm not talking about the pre-Hellenistic Greek states, I'm talking primarily about the Didadochi here.

If you are talking about Hellenistic / Alexander the Great era, you really aren't talking about Hoplites. Clearly you know a lot about that era and I'm glad to read anything you want to write about it because I'm certain I'll learn from it, but we are talking past each other in this discussion since this was already stipulated.

The Seleukids and Ptolemaioi were vastly richer than the majority of medieval states, and had a lot more manpower to draw upon as well. Even if the Ptolemaioi had to rely heavily on hiring the bulk of their armies (something enabled by being the richest state there was at the time), rather than drawing them from settlers (and satrapal levies) like the Seleukids.

The Republican Romans could put huge armies into the field with ease, their standard army size was 25,000 and there were always at least 50,000 in Italy ready to be deployed where needed. They didn't represent more than a tithe of the available manpower either; they could lose an army like that and replace it within a season, due to the large number of trained and equipped men in reserve.

The Hellenistic powers didn't have anything like that sort of reserve to draw upon, but their royal armies were routinely in the 50,000+ range. Battles involving less than 20,000 on each side were small for the era, but would have been pretty large for much of the medieval era. They weren't broken up, but heavily centralized.

Similarly, Hellenistic-era powers could easily muster 25,000 men and royal armies usually numbered in the 50,000 to 75,000 range when they concentrated all their forces together for one decisive battle.

Actually, the numbers being thrown around here are a bit absurd. We really only have literary sources for numbers on medieval or Classical armies, and they are to this day hotly debated in Academia, but based on those numbers, while it's true that a lot of medieval battles had very small armies, a lot of them had armies at least that big. The Ottomans routinely invaded Europe with 100,000+ soldiers. They had 200,000 at the second siege of Rhodes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Rhodes_(1522)). The Hungarian Black Army fairly routinely faced them with 30,000+ men, in some battles 50 - 60,000 or more. For example at the Siege of Belgrade in 1456 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Belgrade_(1456)). Major battles involving European armies also routinely numbered around 20,000 - 30,000 or more - Battle of Grunwald for example, had around 30,000 on each side (depending on what source you believe) or many battles in the Hussite Wars did as well.

One thing I've always been confused about, which I was trying to imply with that chart, is why do we assume so many more men available in ancient / Classical times when the population was actually higher later on?

G

Galloglaich

2016-09-02, 10:40 AM

speaking of large scale battles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kulikovo

Kiero

2016-09-02, 10:57 AM

Yeah, 20k for a province sounds about right. How big is a province, again? Point being, when a consul has an army of 20k soldiers in his province, he doesn't have them in one place.

Even campaign armies (said 25k) aren't usually in one place, great example can be found, among other places, in the First Crusade, where you had what were essentially 5 independent armies that only converged when besieging a major city.

Royal armies concentrating 70k soldiers on one battlefield - well, i want to see sources for that. If we go only by what is said in the chronicles, then every army is pretty much ten times its real size. Unless that 70k comes from archaeological evidence or various expense accounts (and even those are usually a little suspect, with people in charge adding soldiers to embezzle a dollar or two).

Finally, just because an army should have 25k men doesn't mean that is its real size. For example, the Subutai invasion I mentioned saw, IIRC, seven tumens as a part of Hungarian host, which should be 70k men. Modern estimates derived from a number of places place its size at 40k.

Oh and by the by, Wikipedia tends to list all of the estimates, including the wildly overblown ones, and gives little information about where they come from (for example, Subutai's tumen multiplication). Problem is, one needs to be pretty well-versed in the particular battle to even notice that...

There were two consuls in Italy all the time, each with a consular army to draw upon. Each legion or ala was 5,000 effectives, and a consular army was two of each. That's 40,000 men in Italy alone. The number of provinces expanded over time - the size of a province is irrelevant, it was an administrative unit and the soldiers weren't recruited there anyway (not until much later, and even then from colonies, not directly from the local population). Every proconsular province had 20,000 men to draw upon for defense of the province. Every praetorian one 10,000 men. They were most certainly all in one place at a time, when there was a threat, because Roman governors were pretty active in both stamping out revolt, and also trying to enhance their own names and reputations, and enrich themselves by defeating local opposition.

If we take just after the Third Punic War, for example, when Carthage was destroyed, there were six provinces. Sicily was one province; Corsica and Sardinia another (though I don't remember whether that was consular or praetorian); Nearer Spain; Further Spain; Macedonia (mainland Greece) and the newly-conquered Africa province. That's around 150,000 men required to garrison them. Only a stupid governor would allow their actual strength to fall to as little as a tenth of the administrative size, and they'd be hauled up in front of the courts in Rome at the end of their term, if that weakness hadn't cost them their lives from a revolt. They were kept pretty busy; even in places that didn't have a hostile "native" presence like Sicily, they still had to deal with issues like escaped slaves (two Servile Wars were fought in Sicily, and were deemed significant enough to record). But as I said, those men didn't come from their provinces, they came from Italy's vast pool of manpower.

The Romans certainly liked to exaggerate the size of their opponents, because it made Roman victory seem even more impressive and pre-destined, but why would they over-estimate the size of their own armies? Especially when there were plenty of contemporary commentators who could have disputed those figures. If anything, there was a tendency to under-estimate their own forces (often by completely ignoring allied troops). That gives us issues with the numbers at the battle of Philippi, for example, where chroniclers may have only bothered to tell us how many Romans were on each side (and at that around 100,000 on each side), ignoring that there may have been an equal number of allies as well.

As to why we could believe these? Two reason. Firstly, the population of Italy was huge, in the several millions at the time, so it isn't like they couldn't put that many able-bodied adult males bewteen 16 and 60 (the ages at which they were expected to be available to serve the legions) in harness. Secondly, the Roman republic was rich, so much so that the state was able to take on the arming and equipping of it's soldiers in the latter years (though that was also linked to a long-term decline in their original recruiting sources).

Let's take a Romans on Diadochi battle, Magnesia. Ancient (biased towards the Romans, no doubt) sources say the Romans had 30,000 and the Seleukids 70,000. Makes the Romans look even more impressive in victory, right? But they probably ignored the Roman allies in the count, and may have exaggerated the overall size of the Seleukids, which is why modern estimates tend to say they were about equal with 50,000 each. I don't see anyone seriously asserting in reality there were only a few thousand on each side. Because like the Romans, the Seleukids were also rich with large sources of manpower - most of the territory from Syria to Afghanistan - drawing not just on native levies for cavalry and light troops, but also settler colonies of Greeks/Makedonians for heavy infantry and select cavalry. The Roman consul Scipio probably had a regular consular army at his disposal - 20-25,000 men. Eumenes no doubt brought a royal army of a similar size. It doesn't stretch belief that Antiochos could equal both armies with what he had available to him.

As for evidence, you've fallen into the classic trap of assuming because we don't have surviving evidence at the level of detail you want, we're just going to make numbers up instead. How is that a better approach?

Kiero

2016-09-02, 11:55 AM

I already made this point and I did stipulate Anatolia, Black Sea, Magna Graecia in Italy etc. and talking about the precise level of wealth of "a Hoplite" across that entire time period in the entire Greek diaspora doesn't make much sense either. Obviously it varied over time and from place to place. Quite different social organization in the various city-states, trading colonies, tyrannies, in Anatolia, Italy, Black Sea area, southern France etc. etc.

Lets try to remember: The original debate here was about the article on the Bronze Age battle and whether well kitted out soldiers meant full time soldiers necessarily. I pointed out that Hoplites, among many other famous troop types over the centuries which I mentioned briefly, weren't really professionals, since they... or many of them, were basically farmers, country gentry, yeomen.

My point being that you really did not, historically, need to be a full time professional soldier or warrior in the literal sense of the word to be a good or effective or well kitted-out soldier or warrior. Some of the best and most effective historically were small time.

There were definitely eras which did have significant sized professional armies - such as the Roman Empire, and the Hellenistic period, especially during it's peak in the reigns of Alexander and Philip, was one of those. As were the Ottomans and many Kingdoms in the 16th and 17th Century and so on. As I already stipulated.

Apologies, you're right, I've drifted way off the original point of a Bronze Age battle.

I agree, hoplites weren't professionals, they were indeed a citizen militia, not men dedicated to being soldiers. Nor did they need to be, given the customary way battles in Greece happened in the summer, between sowing and harvesting. Individually, they were probably better fighters than the average Pellan farmboy pressed into service by Philip and taught how to march and hold his place in the phalanx. Mercs of that period weren't necessarily better fighters either, for all that they were professionals; being "professional" might only mean knowing how to switch sides at the right point in a losing battle and get the best terms.

Being permanently mobilised may also be counter to having a full panoply; if you have to live and march in your gear for years on end, you'll take steps to lighten your load and remove anything that isn't vital. If you shield already provides you with most of your protect in battle, why lug a heavy bronze cuirass around, for example? One of those things professionals seem to rapidly acquire is what gear is necessary, and how to minimise it.

My point was that there is a wide range of social and economic status between somebody who toils in a farm from dawn to dusk vs. a Roman senator. And I think Hoplites, a lot of the time (across that 1000 years you mentioned or say, the 300 years when they were actually militarily significant) were really closer to the middle than the high end of that range. It's a fairly consistent range. I don't think they were just managers who had tons of leisure time so that they were the equivalent to professional soldiers, which I think is a Victorian trope as I also previously mentioned.

Agreed, though beyond mainland Greece, chances of a man of the hoplite class being at the higher end of that range was greater. Greece was pretty poor, almost everywhere else they settled colonies were richer. Even just across the Aegean to Anatolia was more affluent, leading to insults about how "soft" the eastern Greeks were. Not everyone is going to fight as a cavalryman just because they qualify.

If you are talking about Hellenistic / Alexander the Great era, you really aren't talking about Hoplites. Clearly you know a lot about that era and I'm glad to read anything you want to write about it because I'm certain I'll learn from it, but we are talking past each other in this discussion since this was already stipulated.

Yep, we've moved well beyond the Bronze Age and hoplites by the time we're talking about the Hellenistic era. Though there were certainly still lots of hoplites around, cultural practises centuries in the making don't just vanish because a different system defeats it. Indeed, even in Greece there wasn't widespread adoption of the pike after Alexander, and it wasn't a simple profession from hoplite to phalangite, individual states went back and forth as they succeeded or failed with one type or another.

A good source on the economics, infrastructure and mindset of rulers in the Hellenistic Age is Peter Green's big fat tome The Hellenistic Age. While he touches on the military, he goes into a lot more detail on other topics like mathematics, art, language, administration and so on.

Actually, the numbers being thrown around here are a bit absurd. We really only have literary sources for numbers on medieval or Classical armies, and they are to this day hotly debated in Academia, but based on those numbers, while it's true that a lot of medieval battles had very small armies, a lot of them had armies at least that big. The Ottomans routinely invaded Europe with 100,000+ soldiers. They had 200,000 at the second siege of Rhodes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Rhodes_(1522)). The Hungarian Black Army fairly routinely faced them with 30,000+ men, in some battles 50 - 60,000 or more. For example at the Siege of Belgrade in 1456 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Belgrade_(1456)). Major battles involving European armies also routinely numbered around 20,000 - 30,000 or more - Battle of Grunwald for example, had around 30,000 on each side (depending on what source you believe) or many battles in the Hussite Wars did as well.

One thing I've always been confused about, which I was trying to imply with that chart, is why do we assume so many more men available in ancient / Classical times when the population was actually higher later on?

G

Firstly, the mention of the Ottomans is vaguely analogous of the Seleukids, since they occupied much of the same territory (who themselves took over the bulk of the Achaemenid Persian empire). So being able to raise huge clouds of satrapal cavalry and light infantry isn't hard to believe. As above, both sides in the battle of Magnesia having 50,000 men doesn't seem absurd to me.

Secondly, I'm not so sure the population was lower. The Hellenistic period is characterised by a small number of central authorities covering large areas; not just the eventual Romans, but Successor numerous states carving out chunks of the former Persian empire, itself a vast central authority. Even if ancient rulers didn't understand economics (trade was beneath their dignity), there are economies of scale and multiplier effects of gathering people and resources centrally. I think the critical thing is that these big central authorities didn't just appear out of nowhere, nor did the Hellenistic powers even make them - all they did was find ways to co-opt the system the Persians had already spent centuries building. You don't build a vast, polyglot empire and keep it together for centuries without getting good at administering it. Much of the "wealth" of the Seleukids and others was achieved simply by appropriating Persian treasuries.

The collapse of central authorities leads to declines in population. Not just rapid ones through famine or migration, but slower ones caused by people having less children (or practising more infanticide). Any of the numbers we have on historical populations are only at best projections, and given how fragmentary things get the further back you get, I'm dubious of representing it as a gradual increase across the Iron Age. As mentioned in another thread, there were quite a few mega-cities in antiquity (not necessarily all at the same time) with more than 200,000 people in them, and that's just around the Mediterranean. China and India had their fair share of similarly large settlements too.

Of course we're not helped by certain sources being incomplete (eg Polybius post 216BC), or being dubious (eg Livy).

Galloglaich

2016-09-02, 12:53 PM

Great post. Only have a couple of minor disagreements.

Secondly, I'm not so sure the population was lower. The Hellenistic period is characterised by a small number of central authorities covering large areas; not just the eventual Romans, but Successor numerous states carving out chunks of the former Persian empire, itself a vast central authority.

Well, that's an interesting theory, but it does seem likely that the population very generally went up and up over time, and there were simply fewer people in the world, in Europe, in the Middle East etc. at that time, though there were seemingly many collapses as well the black death, Justinian's plague, Athenian plague, various other events ... I seem to remember an incident where (probably due to a volcano or asteroid or something) the sun never came out for two years during the late Roman Empire. So I'm sure it did go up and down. I'm just a little dubious that it was actually higher in the Iron Age than the medieval.

Even if ancient rulers didn't understand economics (trade was beneath their dignity), there are economies of scale and multiplier effects of gathering people and resources centrally. I think the critical thing is that these big central authorities didn't just appear out of nowhere, nor did the Hellenistic powers even make them - all they did was find ways to co-opt the system the Persians had already spent centuries building. You don't build a vast, polyglot empire and keep it together for centuries without getting good at administering it. Much of the "wealth" of the Seleukids and others was achieved simply by appropriating Persian treasuries.

I agree with all that...

The collapse of central authorities leads to declines in population.

But not this part, the medieval period is full of contrary examples. It can work that way, interregnums were often very bloody, the decline of Rome seems to have led to at least a temporary population decline across Europe. But there are many cases of the opposite. Northern Italy after the eviction of Imperial authority in the 12th Century is probably the best and most obvious case I can think of, but a lot of the history of the Holy Roman Empire is also like that too (notwithtanding a couple of bloody interregnums there as well), and many other regional examples all around Europe. A lot of times when the central authority was either defeated or severely weakened that's when the locals started to really thrive. The Renaissance essentially took place in places which we would today call 'failed states'.

Of course we're not helped by certain sources being incomplete (eg Polybius post 216BC), or being dubious (eg Livy).

I personally think Polybius is a bit dubious as well.

G

Kiero

2016-09-02, 01:54 PM

Great post. Only have a couple of minor disagreements.

Well, that's an interesting theory, but it does seem likely that the population very generally went up and up over time, and there were simply fewer people in the world, in Europe, in the Middle East etc. at that time, though there were seemingly many collapses as well the black death, Justinian's plague, Athenian plague, various other events ... I seem to remember an incident where (probably due to a volcano or asteroid or something) the sun never came out for two years during the late Roman Empire. So I'm sure it did go up and down. I'm just a little dubious that it was actually higher in the Iron Age than the medieval.

I think it's too easy (and simplistic) to assume anything is a broadly simple progression in the same direction. Our data is fragmentary, and there are other events at work besides, which impact how much population can be viable at any point in time. A quick bit of digging turned up the Roman warm period (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period) covering the middle Hellenistic/early Roman era, which made the Mediterranean able to support a lot more food than during cold periods. Interestingly, your cold spot at in the late Roman Empire sounds similar to the one that happened after the Napoleonic Wars, 1816 and 1817 had cool summers due to a lengthy eruption of Krakatoa.

If much of that period was notably warmer than what came before and after (and there was another warm period in Europe 900-1100AD or so), then there would have been a notable spike in population.

I agree with all that...

But not this part, the medieval period is full of contrary examples. It can work that way, interregnums were often very bloody, the decline of Rome seems to have led to at least a temporary population decline across Europe. But there are many cases of the opposite. Northern Italy after the eviction of Imperial authority in the 12th Century is probably the best and most obvious case I can think of, but a lot of the history of the Holy Roman Empire is also like that too (notwithtanding a couple of bloody interregnums there as well), and many other regional examples all around Europe. A lot of times when the central authority was either defeated or severely weakened that's when the locals started to really thrive. The Renaissance essentially took place in places which we would today call 'failed states'.

I guess; it depends just how important the central authority is to the basic functioning of things (and how much the core is draining the periphery). It doesn't look like the collapse of the Persian empire had a great effect, for example, but mostly because the conquerors were happy to just co-opt what was already there. For the person at the bottom of society, they merely replaced one foreign ruler with a different set of foreign rulers.

I personally think Polybius is a bit dubious as well.

G

Fair enough.

Vinyadan

2016-09-02, 02:13 PM

I'm just a little dubious that it was actually higher in the Iron Age than the medieval.

I guess it depends on what you call medieval and what you call iron age. Middle Ages post barbarian invasions and plague = 1/2 population of what was available before these happenings during the iron age. Illness, contraction of economy, big regions thriving on specialized cultures unable to feed their now isolated populations, seas and rivers become unsafe, the invaders grab what they can...

[quote]But not this part, the medieval period is full of contrary examples. It can work that way, interregnums were often very bloody, the decline of Rome seems to have led to at least a temporary population decline across Europe. But there are many cases of the opposite. Northern Italy after the eviction of Imperial authority in the 12th Century is probably the best and most obvious case I can think of, but a lot of the history of the Holy Roman Empire is also like that too (notwithtanding a couple of bloody interregnums there as well), and many other regional examples all around Europe. A lot of times when the central authority was either defeated or severely weakened that's when the locals started to really thrive. The Renaissance essentially took place in places which we would today call 'failed states'.
There is a large difference between an interdependent empire breaking down because of invasion or civil war with the consequent build up of a new system which needs a fully different economy and an already economically autonomous area gaining independence on its own (the communes).
Could you explain this failed states thing in relation to the Renaissance?

Galloglaich

2016-09-02, 02:30 PM

I guess it depends on what you call medieval and what you call iron age. Middle Ages post barbarian invasions and plague = 1/2 population of what was available before these happenings during the iron age. Illness, contraction of economy, big regions thriving on specialized cultures unable to feed their now isolated populations, seas and rivers become unsafe, the invaders grab what they can...

There is a large difference between an interdependent empire breaking down because of invasion or civil war with the consequent build up of a new system which needs a fully different economy and an already economically autonomous area gaining independence on its own (the communes).
Could you explain this failed states thing in relation to the Renaissance?

quite simply I mean that this is where the Renaissance comes from

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Mitteleuropa_zur_Zeit_der_Staufer.svg/590px-Mitteleuropa_zur_Zeit_der_Staufer.svg.png

an extremely fragmented polity, if you look at it as a whole or even as regional zones. Northern Italy, Flanders, Rhineland, southern Germany etc. - these areas were what I would call 'failed states' , and yet they were thriving. There are two different kinds I guess.

I agree with you and with Kiero though that it very much depends on what kind of social organization is beneath the ostensible State.

The question of what was the size of the population in say, 1,500 BC vs 500 BC vs 500 AD vs 1500 AD, is an interesting one. I know there was quite a big dip after the Black Death. But it didn't last that long, I think the population was back up after about a 100 years.

I agree it's theoretically possible there were more people in the world in the time of Alexander or Julius Caesar than the time of Machiavelli or Durer, but I'm dubious because we obviously lack evidence. Not ruling it out though, I do think more of history goes in kind of odd ups and downs, spirals and loops than in direct progressions.

G

Tobtor

2016-09-02, 03:16 PM

When I said leisure, I wasn't suggesting they had nothing but free time, rather they weren't engaged on their farms from dawn til dusk, and could be away from them to conduct business in town, without having a meaningful impact on the running of them, where they could train.

To be fair: nearly no farmer in northern Europe worked from dawn to dusk...

Farming routines have plenty of natural lulls etc. A good example is again Viking age Iceland: the farmers could take time out to visit neighbours and stay there for weeks feasting, board games and sports are were common (one ball game might be like irish hurling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurling)), evenings could be spend telling sagas (a tradition not stopping before the invention of the radio by the way), people went to thingvellir for weeks for the assembly (which included sporting events), bathing in hot springs were common, a large farm without a hot spring would have built a bathing house, training in swimming, archery and other weapon proficiency was common and so on. I am not saying that it in any way can be measured to let say greek games or theatres or the large cities etc, just that the idea of working from dawn to dusk was something practised anywere (without slavery and/or the hardest serfdom) was something "normal" people did anywhere is wrong.

And Iceland is the poor part of the Viking world....

Skeletal remains of Viking Age people (or Iron Age or Bronze Age) suggest just as high a living standard in the north as in the south.

That said; I agree some of the 'ancient' world powers like Persia, Greek and Rome gathered really a lot of soldiers, and built amazing buildings etc. And I agree some of the armies are very large and that they could field many troops in one spot. However I must also agree with Martin Greywolf that I find it hard to believe that for instance a Roman legion was always at full power (or even normally at full power). This is something rarely achieved in more modern militaries (see from the 17th-20th century). I think they were good if they managed 80-90% of the 'suggested' number of men (which would still make two or three legions plus support troops a vast army).

I also agree with Martin that the historical accounts is a dangerous tool for estimating army sizes (though the one available). It is the same sources that have 300.000 Goths travelling around in 6.000 ships, loosing 50.000men in a single event, and who afterwards still poses a threat, and other such stuff.

But it doesn't really matter for my overall point: no matter exactly how large the armies were (20.000 on both sides or 200.000 on both sides), the Celtic and Germanic armies kept being a threat to to southern much more populated areas. Thus we must assume they had at least nearly as large armies, and the sources tells us that they caused trouble for many years at a time (so not just seasonal raiding), and the Romans felt the need to position 13 (?) legions along the northern border on a semi permanent basis.

I originally contested this sentence from Venyadan

All large battles I can think of during the Ancient World were made possible by powerful authorities residing in a city, be it a Pharaoh, a Hittite King, Troy, Agamemnon, Athens, Sparta, Rome, Sardis, one of the four capitals of Media...

Well all the large battles you can think of must be all the ones those power wrote about.... (and we are ignoring the ones with germanic, celtic, and other barbarian people). However, there could indeed be other large scale battles we never hear about. The Tollensee seem one of these, they estimate 4-5.000 men, but that base don that 20% died during the battle, if the number is lower/higher that of course changes it.

In the period after the Roman defeat in Northern Germany (the Varus Battle), we see a series of weapondeposits in Scandinvia, some with thousand of men participating (or rather thousands DYING). Multiple battles with thousands dying... that sounds like some large wars was fought.

One suggested reason is that we now that Romans had allied themselves with some of the germanic tribes, and after the Varus battle it was time to settle some scores, and inter germanic wars broke out but the Romans never noticed them.

We have a few very rich graves with Roman drinking vessels from Southern Denmark from the period, such as the Hoby grave:
http://denstoredanske.dk/@api/deki/files/88461/=daol-3-269.jpg

He might be one of the chieftains allied with the Romans, and who after the Varus battle needed to defend himself, but aperently the defending side did win several victories (though the number of defeats are unknown).

We cant know for sure how large these battles were, we can only get minimum numbers, which for some sites is way above 1.000, but that is at 100% loss rate. As multiple batlles often seem to occur with a short period (such as just after the Varus battle, again around 200 between 'Norwegian' and Jutlandish warriors, and again in the 4th/5th century AD with attacks coming from Sweden), the armies are likely bigger (otherwise you cant sustain multiple losses of 1.000 men). Yes there is far from 1.000 to 20.000 of a Roman consular army, but the 1.000 is the number of dead and captured enemies... I have a really hard time thinking they had multiple battles with 100% death and captured enemies...

Tobtor

2016-09-02, 03:30 PM

A quick bit of digging turned up the Roman warm period (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period) covering the middle Hellenistic/early Roman era, which made the Mediterranean able to support a lot more food than during cold periods.

I am generally cautious about equalling warm periods with growth on a uniform basis: draughts are just as much a problem as too much cold weather... (think of how parts of California is these days...). Even cold and rainy Denmark droughts is occasional a problem on some soil types. Instead I think we should use this formula: Stable weather is good, changes is bad. Grass etc grows faster when there is enough rain, thus wet a May-Juli is needed for a good harvest of hay for anmials for instance, so if you are big on animal husbandry its going to hurt you with no rain in June-Juli for example. In Denmark late frost can kill of pears, but at the same time traditional proverbs have it that May should be cold for a good harvest of cereal and so on.

Slow changes allow you to adapt, but just four or five really bad years can ruin the economy of even relatively stable societies. Unfortunately ancient climate reconstructions have primarily focussed on major shifts, not short term events (only now are they beginning to focus on that).

Mike_G

2016-09-02, 04:20 PM

quite simply I mean that this is where the Renaissance comes from

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Mitteleuropa_zur_Zeit_der_Staufer.svg/590px-Mitteleuropa_zur_Zeit_der_Staufer.svg.png

G

Wow.

I've been in bathrooms bigger than some of those fiefdoms.

"Lord of All the Lands From the Edge of the Bureau All the Way to the Dark Spot on the Rug"
kinda places.

Carl

2016-09-02, 04:58 PM

Wow.

I've been in bathrooms bigger than some of those fiefdoms.

"Lord of All the Lands From the Edge of the Bureau All the Way to the Dark Spot on the Rug"
kinda places.

LOL.

As an aside i should point out that there's no strict requirement for there to have been a lower world population in roman times and kiero's point to be a fair one, if the balance of population favoured greater concentrations in and around the mediterranean comparative to later years you could see a rise in world and even across european population without the mediterranean powers necessarily seeing great change.

cobaltstarfire

2016-09-02, 06:24 PM

Wow.

I've been in bathrooms bigger than some of those fiefdoms.

"Lord of All the Lands From the Edge of the Bureau All the Way to the Dark Spot on the Rug"
kinda places.

Yeah...I'm not even sure I can really see some of those political units *squints*

I feel like I have questions about this map and what's going on (socially, agriculturally, and defensively), but my head has been real fuzzy lately. I'm sure some/most of the answers are probably already in the conversation...

Kiero

2016-09-02, 07:25 PM

LOL.

As an aside i should point out that there's no strict requirement for there to have been a lower world population in roman times and kiero's point to be a fair one, if the balance of population favoured greater concentrations in and around the mediterranean comparative to later years you could see a rise in world and even across european population without the mediterranean powers necessarily seeing great change.

Good point, you could have a lower total population, with much greater concentration of the people there were around the Mediterranean. As an example, if the various peoples of north Africa were tending towards settling rather than a nomadic lifestyle in this period, due to the successes of states like Carthage, then that would give them a greater pool of manpower to draw upon, even without any sort of artificial increase in overall population.

Then with a collapse of central authorities, people disperse, meaning any one of the newer, smaller states has fewer people to draw upon. I saw an estimate that a census carried out by Augustus showed there were 4 million people in Italy in the last century BC. The population of Sicily at the time was around a million. These are serious concentrations of population.

Makedonia apparently had four million at the time of the wars of the Diadochi (no doubt in decline, given how much effort the Successors went to in order to attract Makedonians to settle in colonies their new kingdoms). Which is several times the population of mainland Greece, so another factor in Philip's favour.

Xuc Xac

2016-09-02, 08:26 PM

So got a question here. How would you fight with this weapon?

http://i605.photobucket.com/albums/tt138/geminiconcepts/ShowdowGuard%20Pike/ShadowGuard.jpg

What does my opponent have?

Tobtor

2016-09-03, 12:43 AM

Good point, you could have a lower total population, with much greater concentration of the people there were around the Mediterranean. As an example, if the various peoples of north Africa were tending towards settling rather than a nomadic lifestyle in this period, due to the successes of states like Carthage, then that would give them a greater pool of manpower to draw upon, even without any sort of artificial increase in overall population.

Then with a collapse of central authorities, people disperse, meaning any one of the newer, smaller states has fewer people to draw upon. I saw an estimate that a census carried out by Augustus showed there were 4 million people in Italy in the last century BC. The population of Sicily at the time was around a million. These are serious concentrations of population.

Makedonia apparently had four million at the time of the wars of the Diadochi (no doubt in decline, given how much effort the Successors went to in order to attract Makedonians to settle in colonies their new kingdoms). Which is several times the population of mainland Greece, so another factor in Philip's favour.

Estimates on population of italy around 1300 is about 10-13 millions according to wikipedia, and that fits with Numbers for other areas I have sen. It would be lower in 1400 (the plagues) but High by 1500. So at least italy seem to have had a higer population than during the Augustus period.

Blackhawk748

2016-09-03, 09:47 AM

What does my opponent have?

A typical lightsaber or is a stormtrooper, so no melee weapon.

Vinyadan

2016-09-03, 02:42 PM

quite simply I mean that this is where the Renaissance comes from

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Mitteleuropa_zur_Zeit_der_Staufer.svg/590px-Mitteleuropa_zur_Zeit_der_Staufer.svg.png

an extremely fragmented polity, if you look at it as a whole or even as regional zones. Northern Italy, Flanders, Rhineland, southern Germany etc. - these areas were what I would call 'failed states' , and yet they were thriving. There are two different kinds I guess.

A failed state is one which cannot control its own country, places like Yemen and Somalia (and some say Belgium, but I think that's just mean). If you want you can say that the HRE was, when it came to controlling northern Italy and some other areas, a failed state, but the Italian communes, as polities, surely weren't failed states. That's like saying that the many Spanish speaking states in the Americas are failed states because Spain couldn't hold on on them.

The Renaissance "happened" first in the Italian states, with a precedent in Petrarch and his new view of history, with an excellent pagan past for the first time seen as better than the Christian middle ages because of a new interest in man rather than God as agent in history. It was born in Florence, with the development of Latin Humanism, which brought about people like Alberti, Ficino, Brunelleschi, Pico della Mirandola... all of them living decidedly earlier than humanists or Renaissance artists anywhere else. After an expansion towards Venice, Rome, Northern Italy and Naples (where most intellectuals were actually Catalan), it reached Hungary under Matthias Corvinus. The very important personalities and developments of the northern Reinassance were born somewhat later (when Erasmus was born, Brunelleschi would have been about 90, Ficino was 33) and the Northern Reinassance only took off at the very end of the XV century, while the English Reinassance begun even later.
I say this to say that failed states really did not contribute, although a single, large, supranational entity or quasi-state (the HRE) was the place in which the most important things happened.

Anyway, seeing that there actually is historiography which handles the Italian communes as part of the HRE after the peace of Konstanz was a surprise to me. It seems to me like if Hellenistic historiography handled the English kings as kings of France, or the king of France as lord of Normandy during the 100 years war.

To me, the laser on a stick is a lightsaber meant for non force users. It is designed to be used as both lethal and non lethal weapon, and has a taser at one hand. If it goes well, you use it to brain people, otherwise you use it to cut people to pieces. I don't really see it as a naginata as I remember people fighting with naginatas in tournaments, more like a halberd. It could be a good formation weapon.

Galloglaich

2016-09-03, 03:35 PM

Wow.

I've been in bathrooms bigger than some of those fiefdoms.

"Lord of All the Lands From the Edge of the Bureau All the Way to the Dark Spot on the Rug"
kinda places.

Exactly. And yet those tiny little towns of like 20,000 people were making architecture like this:

http://blog.internations.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/InterNations-Expat-Community-Regensburg-Cathedral.jpg

http://c1038.r38.cf3.rackcdn.com/group1/building7081/media/strasbourg_cathedral.jpg

https://d1x3cbuht6sy0f.cloudfront.net/sales/1896/f315db5e_569c_40ea_aeab_89dada76f868.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Tympanum_of_main_portal_of_west_fa%C3%A7ade_of_Str asbourg_Cathedral.jpg

http://www.all-free-photos.com/images/religieux/PI25253-hr.jpg

https://curiouscatontherun.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/p8074798-1024x768.jpg

http://www.pommietravels.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/St.Marys-Basilica.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/St._Mary's_Basilica_Cracow_interior.jpg

http://sumfinity.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Altarpiece-Veit-Stoss-Krakow.jpg

https://photobyandrei.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/basilica-ceiling.jpg

http://stmaryrdg.com/images/bv_img45.jpg

http://www.gothereguide.com/Images/Czech_Republic/pragueSaintVitusCathedral_.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Interior_of_St._Vitus_Cathedral_Prague_01.jpg

http://orig02.deviantart.net/ff60/f/2011/353/7/7/___st__vitus_cathedral_2___prague_by_erhansasmaz-d4jk5v9.jpg

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2455/3806301921_0d64ab41e9_b.jpg

http://www.davidsanger.com/images/belgium/8-740-844.bruges.m.jpg

https://acestravels.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/brugge-belfry-tower-at-night.jpg

http://cdn.images.cunard.com/webimage/HeroImage/Global/Images/Destinations/Bruges_68239423.jpg

Hard to explain it based on the way we are taught to understand the world today. But the medieval period worked from a different kind of logic than the Classical, Early Modern, or Modern eras.

It's hard to even imagine how a giant city of 10 million people or more today, could afford to build one of those magnificent town halls or catehdrals, let alone a whole town like that. In spite of our technology, we couldn't even put that together today I don't think (with a few exceptions - Barcelona for example)

G

Galloglaich

2016-09-03, 03:49 PM

A failed state is one which cannot control its own country, places like Yemen and Somalia (and some say Belgium, but I think that's just mean). If you want you can say that the HRE was, when it came to controlling northern Italy and some other areas, a failed state, but the Italian communes, as polities, surely weren't failed states. That's like saying that the many Spanish speaking states in the Americas are failed states because Spain couldn't hold on on them.

The Renaissance "happened" first in the Italian states, with a precedent in Petrarch and his new view of history, with an excellent pagan past for the first time seen as better than the Christian middle ages because of a new interest in man rather than God as agent in history. It was born in Florence, with the development of Latin Humanism, which brought about people like Alberti, Ficino, Brunelleschi, Pico della Mirandola... all of them living decidedly earlier than humanists or Renaissance artists anywhere else. After an expansion towards Venice, Rome, Northern Italy and Naples (where most intellectuals were actually Catalan), it reached Hungary under Matthias Corvinus. The very important personalities and developments of the northern Reinassance were born somewhat later (when Erasmus was born, Brunelleschi would have been about 90, Ficino was 33) and the Northern Reinassance only took off at the very end of the XV century, while the English Reinassance begun even later.
I say this to say that failed states really did not contribute, although a single, large, supranational entity or quasi-state (the HRE) was the place in which the most important things happened.

Anyway, seeing that there actually is historiography which handles the Italian communes as part of the HRE after the peace of Konstanz was a surprise to me. It seems to me like if Hellenistic historiography handled the English kings as kings of France, or the king of France as lord of Normandy during the 100 years war.

To me, the laser on a stick is a lightsaber meant for non force users. It is designed to be used as both lethal and non lethal weapon, and has a taser at one hand. If it goes well, you use it to brain people, otherwise you use it to cut people to pieces. I don't really see it as a naginata as I remember people fighting with naginatas in tournaments, more like a halberd. It could be a good formation weapon.

You are really confused about a lot of this. It did start in Italy, you are correct about that. But it was not because of Boccaccio. His main role was as one of the 'Three Fountains' of Italian literature, and not for his work in Latin, but because of his work in promoting and elevating the Italian vernacular dialects as literary languages. Same with Petrarch and Dante.

Much more importantly, you are extremely confused about the "Northern Renaissance", though this isn't surprising or unusual.

You skipped Flanders , which was hand in glove with Italy and was in full swing Renaissance mode already in the 14th Century. Italian Scholars like Boccaccio and Petrarch traveled to Flanders. The explosion of literary artistic and technological development in Italy, Flanders, Catalonia, Bohemia, and many parts of Germany actually started before the era of Boccacio, the 'First Renaissance' was in the 13th Century, then it started again in the late 14th in all the same places - sparked by the developments in Florence, but not limited to them by any means.

It happened in many places, and for many reasons, not just cultural reasons (ala Scholasticism or Humanism which came later), some of them economic, some technological, some military, and not in the order you laid out. It sounds like you know a bit more about Italy than in the "Ultramontaine" regions.

G

Galloglaich

2016-09-03, 03:56 PM

Max_Killjoy

2016-09-03, 04:03 PM

Carl

2016-09-03, 04:09 PM

The whole "we couldn't build it today" thing... as far as I'm concerned, it's more a matter of having neither the need nor the desire, than it is anything about capability.

We could build near-perfectly symmetrical piles of stone bigger than the pyramids... but why would we?

You managed to completely miss his point. Where physically able to build a lot of that stuff, but we could never afford to do so. From an economics PoV it wouldn't work.

Galloglaich

2016-09-03, 04:30 PM

You managed to completely miss his point. Where physically able to build a lot of that stuff, but we could never afford to do so. From an economics PoV it wouldn't work.

Exactly. And it's not like there isn't a demand. Places like Bruges, or Prague or Venice draw millions of tourists every year. Rents are very high for shops and residences. That kind of beauty has inherent value. We do build modern cities explicitly with the intent of drawing people in to visit. But instead of this

http://www.venice-info.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/venice-italy-St.-Marks-Square-16.jpg

the best we can do is more like this

http://s3.amazonaws.com/estock/fspid9/87/13/33/lasvegas-lostwages-showbizkids-871333-o.jpg

I guess to me the more interesting question though is more what Carl pointed out. Why is it that in spite of our much larger population today and much greater wealth, automation, robots, lasers computers and all the other things that make work so much easier today, we really couldn't afford to build with that kind of quality.

I think that is a question you will never ask yourself unless you experience these places first hand. I spent a lot of my childhood in old parts of Europe and again as a young man in the Army in Germany, and I would marvel at what they made centuries before. I couldn't square it with the Monty Python thing, or with the kind of cheap architecture (private / individual and public) we usually settle for today.

G

Max_Killjoy

2016-09-03, 04:34 PM

You managed to completely miss his point. Where physically able to build a lot of that stuff, but we could never afford to do so. From an economics PoV it wouldn't work.

Again, a matter of priorities.

Somehow, it's been economically possible to build all of these (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_the_world).

And these (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_dams_in_the_world).

And these (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world%27s_longest_ships).

And these (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_suspension_bridge_spans).

And as pointed out below... none of them (that I noticed) took 100+ years to build.

Beleriphon

2016-09-03, 04:35 PM

It's hard to even imagine how a giant city of 10 million people or more today, could afford to build one of those magnificent town halls or catehdrals, let alone a whole town like that. In spite of our technology, we couldn't even put that together today I don't think (with a few exceptions - Barcelona for example)

G

I think you're looking at two issues with Cathedrals: supply and demand. Actually building a cathedral today isn't that hard from a construction standpoint, I mean they're really just warehouses with a fancy innards. As it stands there's a sufficient supply of cathedrals for most places, and there isn't the demand from people, the church, or governments to build them so they don't get built.

Magnificent town halls are a different ball of wax altogether. The Los Angeles city government building is pretty spectacular, and all kinds of crazy skyscrapers get built all of the time. The Burj Khalifa is a pretty amazing structure (at over nearly half a mile in height), its bigger, more impressive, and way harder to build than a medieval cathedral and it took less than a 182 years to finish construction.

Galloglaich

2016-09-03, 05:08 PM

Estimates on population of italy around 1300 is about 10-13 millions according to wikipedia, and that fits with Numbers for other areas I have sen. It would be lower in 1400 (the plagues) but High by 1500. So at least italy seem to have had a higer population than during the Augustus period.

So by estimates - and admittedly, that's all they are is estimates, 5 million in the Classical period in Italy and 10-13 million in the high medieval. Probably more like 8-10 million in the 15th Century due to the die off from the plague back around 1350.

But still twice as many people there as during Classical times. Which is about what I would have expected.

medieval society was much more efficient than Greek or even Roman when it came to things like food production. One medieval watermill could grind more grain than 50 Roman slaves, according to Jean Gimpel. Medieval society was much more mechanized and much more efficient in general.

If you think about it a bit, their main existential enemy during the medieval period, the Ottoman Empire, was a lot like the Roman Empire and in some ways could be thought of as it's direct descendant. It was a more slave based economy, definitely a strong State like the Roman Empire, very ruthlessly authoritarian. Had very large armies and controlled a huge territory.

And yet the medieval city-states like Genoa and Venice, small kingdoms like Poland, Hungary and Spain, and non-State entities like the Knights Hospitaliers etc. held them off pretty effectively, in spite of a chronic lack of cooperation or sustained unity.

(in fact France actively helped the Ottomans quite a bit in the 16th Century ,even allowing their fleet to anchor in Toulon and helping them to sack Nice, rather shockingly... but that's realpolitik for you)

G

Galloglaich

2016-09-03, 05:15 PM

I think you're looking at two issues with Cathedrals: supply and demand. Actually building a cathedral today isn't that hard from a construction standpoint, I mean they're really just warehouses with a fancy innards. As it stands there's a sufficient supply of cathedrals for most places, and there isn't the demand from people, the church, or governments to build them so they don't get built.

I think you are missing my point almost entirely, I wasn't just talking about Cathedrals, they are simply the easiest and most obvious example to point out. When it comes to Venice or Bruges or really any of those towns, it's really not the Cathedral that is the most important thing. Stasbourg well yes maybe due to the incredible size of the thing, but the city itself would still be a UNESCO World Heritage site without it.

Magnificent town halls are a different ball of wax altogether. The Los Angeles city government building is pretty spectacular, and all kinds of crazy skyscrapers get built all of the time. The Burj Khalifa is a pretty amazing structure (at over nearly half a mile in height), its bigger, more impressive, and way harder to build than a medieval cathedral and it took less than a 182 years to finish construction.

I've been to the LA City hall and I've been to the Bruges one, (and many other similar from the same era) and there is simply no comparison. Nor did the Bruges hall take 182 years to finish...

Burj Khalifa is amazing, but mainly just due to it's height. To me, that is far closer to your description of 'just a big box' than any old Cathedral I've ever been in. I mean I've never seen it up close but I have been in some enormous skyscrapers. There is a nice view but not all that much else to really inspire you. I'm not religious - but Notre Dame blows away the Empire State building in terms of the mark it leaves on you. In fact you can see some big modern skyscrapers in Paris on the same day that you look at the old stuff... for me Isle de la Cite is a lot more impressive (and draws a lot more tourist dollars) than all the skyscrapers in Chicago even if you stacked them one on top of the other.

I know a lot of us simply aren't going to agree on this issue, so all I can say is, let those who have eyes see the truth.

G

Max_Killjoy

2016-09-03, 05:33 PM

Kiero

2016-09-03, 05:39 PM

So by estimates - and admittedly, that's all they are is estimates, 5 million in the Classical period in Italy and 10-13 million in the high medieval. Probably more like 8-10 million in the 15th Century due to the die off from the plague back around 1350.

But still twice as many people there as during Classical times. Which is about what I would have expected.

medieval society was much more efficient than Greek or even Roman when it came to things like food production. One medieval watermill could grind more grain than 50 Roman slaves, according to Jean Gimpel. Medieval society was much more mechanized and much more efficient in general.

If you think about it a bit, their main existential enemy during the medieval period, the Ottoman Empire, was a lot like the Roman Empire and in some ways could be thought of as it's direct descendant. It was a more slave based economy, definitely a strong State like the Roman Empire, very ruthlessly authoritarian. Had very large armies and controlled a huge territory.

And yet the medieval city-states like Genoa and Venice, small kingdoms like Poland, Hungary and Spain, and non-State entities like the Knights Hospitaliers etc. held them off pretty effectively, in spite of a chronic lack of cooperation or sustained unity.

(in fact France actively helped the Ottomans quite a bit in the 16th Century ,even allowing their fleet to anchor in Toulon and helping them to sack Nice, rather shockingly... but that's realpolitik for you)

G

Efficiency wasn't a goal for classical, slave-based economies, simply put. Not only did you have the issue of comprehension I mentioned before (most rulers were aristocrats, who understood taxes, rents, appreciation in land value and making profit from sales of produce), but using slavery removes the incentive to maximise output from a given amount of labour. When there's always more slaves who can be acquired, there's little immediate value in getting the maximum return from the ones you have. Furthermore, there's the fear in the back of slaveholder's minds - if capital becomes a lot more efficient, requiring less labour, what are you going to do with all those idle slaves? Or more accurately, what are they doing to do with all that time on their hands, and reduced prospects of buying their own freedom through work?

When you have virtually unlimited, cheap labour, there's no reason to seek the hugely profitable gains that can be made through good investment and use of capital. We now know that real economic gains come through efficient application of capital, but they didn't. And the people with the expertise in that area, generally of the mercantile class, were beneath the dignity of the people in charge to engage.

Galloglaich

2016-09-03, 06:26 PM

Honestly, I'm looking at these structures from the standpoint of engineering, architecture, art, and construction techniques. There's no awe or reverence that comes from any of them, for me -- ancient, medieval, renaissance, industrial, modern, whatever.

The cathedrals, etc, are remarkable human achievements, born of ingenuity and hard work. I'm not saying otherwise. But if we had a reason, now, today, we could build the same sorts of buildings.

Well, I could sneer and say "you sound like somebody who has never stood in one of these places", but let's skip that, and just point out - the intangible qualities of these places that do inspire awe in millions of people, putting aside religion for a moment, since that complicates things and is controversial in a way we don't need to get into here... but taking into consideration places like Venice and Bruges and Florence where the focus isn't necessarily just on a big church, the value is quantifiable, in terms of tourist dollars. Tens, hundreds of millions of tourist dollars. By comparing it to Las Vegas (or Disneyland etc.) I was trying to point out, we do make places just for the intangible value that they provide to people, for fun in other words. Because it generates income.

Even the Cathedrals... you could look at these almost as temples to art and technology, and civic pride, as much as they were religious. Many of the most famous ones were finished during times when the bishop or archbishop had already been banned from the city. Quite a few reigned over towns which were no longer Catholic shortly after being completed, or even before they were completed, but they still finished them and the locals are still very proud of them. And they certainly draw tourists by the millions today even though many of them are no longer used as religious centers.

The real point is, I find it interesting to contrast the economic capabilities of various social structures.

In 1450, a town with 20,000 people in it could build the kinds of things I linked upthread. I don't believe any town in the US with that population could build anything approaching one of these places. They would not have that much expertise in a city that size for one thing, in spite of the fact that such expertise is indeed in demand. Things just work differently today. Even in a city with 10 or 100 times that population, I doubt they would have enough expertise, and they couldn't afford the budget.

In ancient Rome, the economy was tuned for slave labor. In medieval Strasbourg or Krakow or Florence, it was tuned for skilled labor. In say, modern Indianapolis, I'm not certain what it's tuned for. Consumption I guess.

G

Mike_G

2016-09-03, 06:40 PM

I think you are missing my point almost entirely, I wasn't just talking about Cathedrals, they are simply the easiest and most obvious example to point out. When it comes to Venice or Bruges or really any of those towns, it's really not the Cathedral that is the most important thing. Stasbourg well yes maybe due to the incredible size of the thing, but the city itself would still be a UNESCO World Heritage site without it.

I've been to the LA City hall and I've been to the Bruges one, (and many other similar from the same era) and there is simply no comparison. Nor did the Bruges hall take 182 years to finish...

Burj Khalifa is amazing, but mainly just due to it's height. To me, that is far closer to your description of 'just a big box' than any old Cathedral I've ever been in. I mean I've never seen it up close but I have been in some enormous skyscrapers. There is a nice view but not all that much else to really inspire you. I'm not religious - but Notre Dame blows away the Empire State building in terms of the mark it leaves on you. In fact you can see some big modern skyscrapers in Paris on the same day that you look at the old stuff... for me Isle de la Cite is a lot more impressive (and draws a lot more tourist dollars) than all the skyscrapers in Chicago even if you stacked them one on top of the other.

I know a lot of us simply aren't going to agree on this issue, so all I can say is, let those who have eyes see the truth.

G

I think the difference is craftsmanship and detail.

If you look at the Big Dig in Boston, it's more impressive in terms of tons of earth moved, concrete poured, etc than any Roman road. But it was done in a few years, and done in a very utilitarian fashion. There are no Triumphs carved into the sides of the Zakim Bridge.

I think a lot of this is a difference in mindset. We don't have young boys enter an apprenticeship as a stonemason and basically grow up perfecting techniques of carving and fitting stones. Now the focus is on efficiency and scale, not painstaking detail.

I'm not sure we could assemble enough actual artisans to build a cathedral with the level of detail that the medieval ones have. We could build a church bigger and faster and stronger. But I don't see use spending the time and money and sweat to replicate the gargoyles.

Tiktakkat

2016-09-03, 06:50 PM

If you think about it a bit, their main existential enemy during the medieval period, the Ottoman Empire, was a lot like the Roman Empire and in some ways could be thought of as it's direct descendant. It was a more slave based economy, definitely a strong State like the Roman Empire, very ruthlessly authoritarian. Had very large armies and controlled a huge territory.

I don't see how you can possibly describe the Holy Roman Empire as a "failed state", while contrasting the Ottoman Empire with the Roman Empire (and the Byzantine Empire) as a "strong state".

Certainly you can find 30-50 year periods where a strong ruler and his immediate heirs kept the civil wars and splintering off of random satellites/clients/what have you to a minimum, or even reversed it for a bit, in the history of the Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman Empires, but you can find the same in the history of the Holy Roman Empire as well (going back of course to the Carolingians and Merovingians.)
Likewise the Holy Roman Emperors were as ruthlessly authoritarian as they could get away, much like the Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman Emperors. And they had very large armies and controlled a huge territory - as theoretically as the Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman Emperors. This is compounded once you get the Hapsburgs inheriting Spain. (And then split, a much more relevant parallel to the Roman and Byzantine Empires.)

If you go as minor as Belgium, then the Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman Empires were all woefully failed states, and what you need to consider is how a failed state can not merely stagger on for centuries, but do so in a way as to be a Great Power, or at least a fully functional facsimile thereof.

And yet the medieval city-states like Genoa and Venice, small kingdoms like Poland, Hungary and Spain, and non-State entities like the Knights Hospitaliers etc. held them off pretty effectively, in spite of a chronic lack of cooperation or sustained unity.

(in fact France actively helped the Ottomans quite a bit in the 16th Century ,even allowing their fleet to anchor in Toulon and helping them to sack Nice, rather shockingly... but that's realpolitik for you)

G[/QUOTE]

Hardly surprising.
Odaenathus of Palmyra held off the Sassanian Persian Empire, yet Palmyra disappeared under the Romans a few decades later, much as kingdoms that resisted the Ottomans held out then disappeared or were absorbed by the Hapsburgs, Capetians/Bourbons, or Romanovs.

Galloglaich

2016-09-03, 06:50 PM

Galloglaich

2016-09-03, 07:04 PM

I don't see how you can possibly describe the Holy Roman Empire as a "failed state", while contrasting the Ottoman Empire with the Roman Empire (and the Byzantine Empire) as a "strong state".

Let me explain. I don't see the Roman Empire (or late Republic) tolerating open disobedience to the emperor for years, or decades on end from cities or local princes. But during the medieval period, strong Emperors were very much the exception. The rule was Emperors who lacked the strength to even collect taxes in most cases, let alone obedience in things like diplomacy or war.

The Roman Empire, especially in it's declining centuries, certainly suffered from brutal interregnums and an unruly military, as did the Ottomans and most similar Empires, but during the active reign of a typical Emperor you could call what was going on a State, in the modern sense of the word. Maybe not a fantastically efficient State, but a state with the same weights and measures, a clear top down chain of command, and fairly predictable level of routine adherence to Imperial demands

In the medieval period, the Holy Roman Empire was almost never even close to unified. I'm mainly an expert on the 15th Century, and I can tell you with certainty that during that entire Century there was never an Emperor sufficiently powerful to unify the entire HRE. Most of the period was spent with one the largest areas within the 'Empire' (Bohemia) under heretical religion which technically, the Emperor had banned, the entire region of Switzerland openly defying the Emperor and often fighting on behalf of France, entities within the Empire including princes, towns, town-leagues and prince-prelates (bishops and archbishops etc.) openly at war with one another, and the Emperor unable to leave his own home territories on the fringe of the Empire and himself at one point captured by the citizens of a town and held captive.

I don't imagine Emperor Nero or even Claudius tolerating being held captive by say, Cremona and handed over to his brother and (if he survived being put into the hands of a family member) allowing the citizens of that city to survive. In the HRE, when a stronger Emperor did attempt to assert his Imperial prerogatives, like Maximillian did in his attempt to reign in the Swiss, they got embarrassed.

In short, I'd refer to Voltaire when he described the Holy Roman Empire is "Neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire"

I don't mean to be rude but you come across knowledgeable about the Classical world but less so about the later medieval.

G

Max_Killjoy

2016-09-03, 07:18 PM

Well, I could sneer and say "you sound like somebody who has never stood in one of these places", but let's skip that, and just point out -

It would be more accurate to say that "awe" is very weak part of my emotional spectrum...

I agree. I wonder about the stronger part. One of the impressive things about the medieval cathedrals when you are standing there looking at them (or at an impressive town hall like at Bruges or Siena or Gdansk) is that they lasted 5 centuries. I wonder how many modern buildings will last that long. Let alone as long as say, the Roman Colliseum or the Hagia Sophia or the Parthenon...

That part I do largely agree with.

Regardless of whether we could or should build things that will last the test of time... in most cases, we're not.

Tiktakkat

2016-09-03, 07:59 PM

Let me explain. I don't see the Roman Empire (or late Republic) tolerating open disobedience to the emperor for years, or decades on end from cities or local princes. But during the medieval period, strong Emperors were very much the exception. The rule was Emperors who lacked the strength to even collect taxes in most cases, let alone obedience in things like diplomacy or war.

Open disobedience like . . . the constant usurpers?
Who . . . at times maintained separate states for decades?
Until . . . the Emperors were reduced to recognizing various Germanic peoples as "foederati" and leaving them to rule the areas they had seized anyway?
Or even people like, as I already cited, Odaenathus?

As for the late Republic, do recall that it not only barely controlled only Italy, but it also fought multiple Servile Wars, including the Third led by Spartacus which lasted for years, as well as having to deal with the Social War among its Italian allies.

The Roman Empire, especially in it's declining centuries, certainly suffered from brutal interregnums and an unruly military, as did the Ottomans and most similar Empires, but during the active reign of a typical Emperor you could call what was going on a State, in the modern sense of the word. Maybe not a fantastically efficient State, but a state with the same weights and measures, a clear top down chain of command, and fairly predictable level of routine adherence to Imperial demands

It is better to suggest that the Roman Empire managed a few peaceful interregnums amidst a more usual state of civil war, interspersed with "barbarian" invasion, and a Great Power conflict with Persia, while the bureaucracy kept up the façade of a continuity of government, as did the Ottomans. At most, they may have maintained the same weights and measures, as well as coinage - at least when they weren't devaluing it to pay another enemy to go away that is - while the chain of command merely indicated who you would predictably declare Emperor when you decided you didn't want to leave your current garrison to deliver the aforementioned payoff.

In the medieval period, the Holy Roman Empire was almost never even close to unified. I'm mainly an expert on the 15th Century, and I can tell you with certainty that during that entire Century there was never an Emperor sufficiently powerful to unify the entire HRE. Most of the period was spent with one the largest areas within the 'Empire' (Bohemia) under heretical religion which technically, the Emperor had banned, the entire region of Switzerland openly defying the Emperor and often fighting on behalf of France, entities within the Empire including princes, towns, town-leagues and prince-prelates (bishops and archbishops etc.) openly at war with one another, and the Emperor unable to leave his own home territories on the fringe of the Empire and himself at one point captured by the citizens of a town and held captive.

I don't imagine Emperor Nero or even Claudius tolerating being held captive by say, Cremona and handed over to his brother and (if he survived being put into the hands of a family member) allowing the citizens of that city to survive. In the HRE, when a stronger Emperor did attempt to assert his Imperial prerogatives, like Maximillian did in his attempt to reign in the Swiss, they got embarrassed.

In short, I'd refer to Voltaire when he described the Holy Roman Empire is "Neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire"

I don't mean to be rude but you come across knowledgeable about the Classical world but less so about the later medieval.

G

I don't mean to be rude either, but you come across as knowledgeable about the 15th century but completely unaware about the Classical world.

Claudius was acclaimed Emperor by the Praetorian Guard after his nephew Caligula was assassinated.
He was, according to the CW, the complete tool of a succession of freedmen, Praetorian commanders and wives, was profoundly cuckolded by one wife then murdered by her replacement so that Nero could take over.
Nero may not have tolerated being handed over, but his "brother", Claudius' biological son, had to tolerate it - well, up until Nero had him executed anyway.
Claudius, while alive, had to sign off on an expedition to Britannia, which had theoretically been conquered by Julius Caesar but was by that time rather uninterested in the whole Roman thing. His intervention didn't particularly take, and Nero had to deal with Boadica's Rebellion.
Then of course Claudius had his friend Herod Agrippa, who was involved in his becoming Emperor get a bit "frisky" over in Judea, schmoozing with numerous neighboring rulers, until his sudden death. Judea of course remained so stable it was the jumping off point for the Flavians to fully replace the Julio-Claudians. That is, they used the prestige from putting down a rebellion there to press their claim for the Principate.
(Which sort of brings up another point to distinguish between the Republic, the late Republic, the Principate, and the Empire, as well as between the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire, but that's a whole other bit on distinguishing eras and terms and the character of the polity during each.)

Emperors were routinely murdered by their troops before battle, betrayed by the Praetorian Guard and turned over to attackers, turned on by the people of Rome or wherever they were ruling from.
Usurpers abounded, seizing territory and holding it for years.
When Diocletian won his civil war, he set up a magnificent system of administration, with 2 Augusti and 2 Caesari to manage the empire, had daughters married to waiting successors, had daughters of successors married to waiting sub-successors, got everyone running smoothly, then called it a day after 20 years. When he died 3 years later, his magnificent chain of command was already shredded by competing claims and civil war, and he fellow Augustus had received a damnatio memoriae after trying to make a comeback.
Attila claimed a request for help from the Emperor's sister was a marriage proposal to justify his claim for a dowry and invasion when it was refused. The Emperor had the man who defeated Attila murdered for getting too powerful, including betrothing his son to the Emperor's daughter. Of course whether Flavius Aetius actually was responsible for the victory and hadn't merely let the foederati, who by that time ruled all of Gaul on "behalf" of the Roman Empire, do the fighting and dying, is something historians question.

For every instance you can find to prove Voltaire's quip about the Holy Roman Empire, I expect I can find a similar incident for Rome, another for the Byzantines, and yet another for the Ottomans.

Kiero

2016-09-03, 08:31 PM

As for the late Republic, do recall that it not only barely controlled only Italy, but it also fought multiple Servile Wars, including the Third led by Spartacus which lasted for years, as well as having to deal with the Social War among its Italian allies.

Two of the Servile Wars were slave risings in Sicily, I don't think you can really count them as meaningful threats to Italy itself. The Social War was an exception to an otherwise pretty solid grip on Italy; the real troubles came later when the institutions of the Republic began to break down, and generals thought they could attempt to seize control of Rome itself at the head of an army. From Marius, through Sulla, Catalina, Pompey and eventually to Caesar was the period of weakness.

Tiktakkat

2016-09-03, 09:08 PM

Two of the Servile Wars were slave risings in Sicily, I don't think you can really count them as meaningful threats to Italy itself. The Social War was an exception to an otherwise pretty solid grip on Italy; the real troubles came later when the institutions of the Republic began to break down, and generals thought they could attempt to seize control of Rome itself at the head of an army. From Marius, through Sulla, Catalina, Pompey and eventually to Caesar was the period of weakness.

To conquer Italy?
No. But then Spartacus didn't threaten to conquer Italy either.

To starve Rome until there was a revolt?
Absolutely. Which is why Rome sent in consular armies to suppress them.

However the key element there is that Rome ruled the Italian peninsula at the time and not all that much else.
Yes, they were in the process of winning the Punic Wars and claiming the coast of Gallia and a sizable portion of Hispania - which of course they then had to conquer in major campaigns - but it was not the grand and glorious empire spread across the known civilized world that people associate it with later on.
It was a hopped up city-state with delusions of grandeur, rather like Carthage - or the Hapsburgs sitting in Vienna.
Which . . . promptly entered a century of chaos, as you note, much like the HRE under the Hohenstaufens.

Galloglaich

2016-09-03, 09:11 PM

I don't mean to be rude either, but you come across as knowledgeable about the 15th century but completely unaware about the Classical world.

Claudius was acclaimed Emperor by the Praetorian Guard after his nephew Caligula was assassinated.
.

I'm definitely not an expert on the Romans, and I'm sure you do know more about them than I do, but I have read Seutonius 12 Caesars so I'm familiar with that whole story. And I've read Julius Caesars Gallic Wars and Tacitus and excerpts of a few other primary sources, as well as a handful of basic modern overviews.

What you are talking about in my opinion is power struggles at the top of a State. Most authoritarian States do have those, it's one of the main problems with authoritarian States. The Ottomans actually formalized it into a system in which one of the sons of the last Sultan was expected to murder all of the others before he came to power. Made the harem a rather fraught place.

And I'll grant you that Rome did not always have control over all it's entities, but I think it was much closer to being what we would call today a State than... this place was:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/images/holy-roman-empire-1250-map-1.jpg

Rome had large standing armies, the HRE didn't.

The Roman government had a regular budget and a permanent Imperial bureaucracy, the HRE (post Charlemagne anyway) didn't have any such thing.

Rome had a capital, and permanent government buildings, albeit one that they occasionally moved. The HRE didn't have that either, the Emperor usually lived in his own estates and held court in various towns, Prague, Frankfurt, Nuremberg, Augsburg and Trier among other towns were all temporary Imperial capitals.

The Roman Emperor came to near-absolute power in some kind of bloody coup. The Holy Roman Emperor was elected and the princes that elected him were typically more powerful than he was. He had to answer to them, to the prelates of the Empire, and to the Free Cities, all of whom routinely flouted his commands.

If you were a senator or a general and flouted a public order from the Roman Emperor you were starting a civil war you better be ready to win. If you were a prince or an archbishop or a Free City and flouted a public order from the HRE you were starting a lawsuit and a bunch of gossip.

It's two very different worlds.

G

Tiktakkat

2016-09-03, 10:32 PM

I'm definitely not an expert on the Romans, and I'm sure you do know more about them than I do, but I have read Seutonius 12 Caesars so I'm familiar with that whole story. And I've read Julius Caesars Gallic Wars and Tacitus and excerpts of a few other primary sources, as well as a handful of basic modern overviews.

Are you aware that what is described in them is pretty close to the situation during the entire term of the Roman Empire?
And the Byzantine Empire?

What you are talking about in my opinion is power struggles at the top of a State. Most authoritarian States do have those, it's one of the main problems with authoritarian States. The Ottomans actually formalized it into a system in which one of the sons of the last Sultan was expected to murder all of the others before he came to power. Made the harem a rather fraught place.

You used Belgium as an example.
The only way in which Belgium does not constitute itself as a nation is its inability to form a government.
That's it.
It taxes.
It maintains the miniscule army it desires.
All it is having is a . . . power struggle at the top of the State.
Yet for Belgium, that is enough to make it a failed state, whereas for the Ottomans, you rate them as a strong state. Don't the Belgians at least deserve some credit for not executing the parties that fail to cross the threshold in each election?

And I'll grant you that Rome did not always have control over all it's entities, but I think it was much closer to being what we would call today a State than... this place was:

We who?
Me? I wouldn't call a Rome a failed state. But I also wouldn't call the HRE a failed state either.

Rome had large standing armies, the HRE didn't.

It managed armies large enough to stop the Ottomans.
And the Bourbons.
And even manage a stalemate in the 30 Years' War.

The Roman government had a regular budget and a permanent Imperial bureaucracy, the HRE (post Charlemagne anyway) didn't have any such thing.

But the HRE didn't have large chunks splintering off constantly.
And once the Hapsburgs settled in, it didn't have constant usurpers.

Rome had a capital, and permanent government buildings, albeit one that they occasionally moved. The HRE didn't have that either, the Emperor usually lived in his own estates and held court in various towns, Prague, Frankfurt, Nuremberg, Augsburg and Trier among other towns were all temporary Imperial capitals.

The Romans had Rome. And Ravenna. And Trier. And Sirmium. And Nicomedia. And Constantinople. And Syracuse.
Not counting the capitals of various usurpers or foederati of course.

The Roman Emperor came to near-absolute power in some kind of bloody coup. The Holy Roman Emperor was elected and the princes that elected him were typically more powerful than he was. He had to answer to them, to the prelates of the Empire, and to the Free Cities, all of whom routinely flouted his commands.

Some Roman Emperors were elected by their troops. Or the Senate. Or actually managed to inherit.
Some were appointed by their courts, particularly powerful generals. The next-to-last half dozen or so Western Roman Emperors were appointed and deposed by Ricimer, a German, with the last appointed and deposed by Odacer. another German.
Byzantine emperors were regularly subservient to their courts, and many Ottoman emperors complete figureheads.

If you were a senator or a general and flouted a public order from the Roman Emperor you were starting a civil war you better be ready to win. If you were a prince or an archbishop or a Free City and flouted a public order from the HRE you were starting a lawsuit and a bunch of gossip.

It's two very different worlds.

G

If you were a senator or a general and obeyed public orders from the Roman Emperor but were too successful you could be plotting a coup and faced assassination, or perhaps just mutilation so as to make you ineligible for the throne. If you were a prince or an archbishop or a Free City and were successful, indeed were fabulously wealthy, you were reasonably secure in your property and life.

Two very different worlds indeed!

Just which of those is the more stable polity?

With enough hedging and qualifying, you can establish any particular pre-20th century state as anything from "How could they not have conquered the world?" to "How could they have survived for more than a week?"
Should we talk about the extant of the Union of Kalmar?
How about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?
When exactly did post-Carolingian France become a country and not just the Western HRE?
Did Spain ever really stop being the Far Western HRE?
And England. Plus Wales. Cornwall. Great Britain? The United Kingdom! And of Ireland.
Indeed, the Angevin Empire.
For that matter, should we discuss how many times the Swiss Confederation nearly fell apart due to ennui or internal fighting, or how it was finally overrun by Napoleon and only reconstituted because nobody was willing to let anyone else have it, and even then it was "defanged" by prohibiting it from selling mercenaries?

You want to utterly disparage the HRE based on that map.
I note that it has acknowledged external borders.
And it had them for how many hundreds of years?
Quite a bit more than Charles II of Spain. Everyone expected him to die any minute, but he held out for 39 years.
And the Ottomans were the sick man of Europe for only a century or so.

The HRE may indeed be the worst empire you, or I, have ever heard of.
/start Jack Sparrow
But you have heard of it.
/end Jack Sparrow

And bear in mind exactly what I am saying:
I am not claiming the HRE was any paragon of government structural integrity.
Neither am I claiming that the Roman, Byzantine, or Ottoman Empires were as theoretical as the HRE.
I am merely stating that none can be called a failed state while excluding the others from a similar judgment, and if we are to go that far, then pretty much no entity before Louis XIII and Richilieu or James VI and I can in anyways be styled as a functional modern state, and even they barely qualify.

Galloglaich

2016-09-04, 12:01 AM

Are you aware that what is described in them is pretty close to the situation during the entire term of the Roman Empire?

I'm aware and I disagree.

And the Byzantine Empire?

Byzantine Empire was again, a State. A weak and often dysfunctional State but a State nonetheless. Whereas medieval HRE was not, nor were the polities within it.

It managed armies large enough to stop the Ottomans.
And the Bourbons.
And even manage a stalemate in the 30 Years' War.

You seem to be discussing things in the 17th -18th Century, I was referring to the medieval HRE. The Renaissance HRE. The original Renaissance not the golden age of England or France in the Early Modern Period.

But the HRE didn't have large chunks splintering off constantly.

Actually it did. I mentioned two upthread - Bohemia and Switzerland. Another real big one would be Northern Italy.

And once the Hapsburgs settled in, it didn't have constant usurpers.

You seem to have a major misunderstanding about the role of the Hapsburgs. Outside of the reign of Charles V, which is in the Early Modern Era, there really weren't a lot of strong Hapsburg Emperors. The ones during the medieval period were all weak.

As for figurehead emperors, deposed emperors, interregnums etc., it doesn't mean you are a failed state if you have a few weak leaders. A badly run State isn't necessarily a failed State. The US has had a series of pretty weak leaders in my lifetime but it's still a very strong State. I'm not sure you understand what a State actually is.

If you were a senator or a general and obeyed public orders from the Roman Emperor but were too successful you could be plotting a coup and faced assassination, or perhaps just mutilation so as to make you ineligible for the throne. If you were a prince or an archbishop or a Free City and were successful, indeed were fabulously wealthy, you were reasonably secure in your property and life.

Two very different worlds indeed!

Just which of those is the more stable polity?

Yes indeed, very different worlds. One a very weak, in fact failed State that was nevertheless fairly easy to live in, and the other a dangerous and unpleasant, but quite strong State.

They were both stable - HRE lasted almost as long as the real Roman Empire. But one had multiple power centers and basically no State structure at all, just a patina really. The other was pretty dysfunctional and often chaotic, but it was indeed a State in the truest sense of the word.

Should we talk about the extant of the Union of Kalmar?

Definitely a failed State after Margaret died since it's power was always contested and never even close to stable.

How about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?

An intentionally weak State by design (200,000 nobles had a veto on every major decision, according to laws which predated Polands merger with Lithuania), even though it was militarily strong thanks to the initiative of it's powerful nobles. Though it did a good job of staying out of Catholic vs. Protestant disputes which tore apart Europe in the 16th and early 17th Centuries, it suffered badly and had it's back ultimately due to ethnic - religious disputes internally, followed by devastating foreign invasions that it fought off but at great cost. It became a failed State similar to the HRE, until it was so weak that it was partitioned by it's neighbors.

When exactly did post-Carolingian France become a country and not just the Western HRE?

Different historians have different theories, some go back to the Capetin's in the 10th Century, either Hugh Capet himself or his first son Philip II, who called himself Francorum Rex. France spent most of the medieval period trying to make itself into a real State (with the ultimate dream of 'uniting' not just France, but all of Europe per the dream of Charlemagne.) It was certainly a kingdom and a recognizable entity completely separate from the HRE by the time of the Valois dynasty (starting in 1328). I wouldn't say that France was a State though until Louis XIV initiated the worlds longest and most vicious dinner party at Versailles.

Did Spain ever really stop being the Far Western HRE?

Yes.

For that matter, should we discuss how many times the Swiss Confederation nearly fell apart due to ennui or internal fighting, or how it was finally overrun by Napoleon and only reconstituted because nobody was willing to let anyone else have it, and even then it was "defanged" by prohibiting it from selling mercenaries?

I'm quite conversant with the history of the Swiss Confederation and I can say categorically that it never came close to falling apart due to ennui. They had 3 or 4 serious civil wars and internal disputes, but the Swiss Confederation was (and is) a weak, decentralized state quite by design. But today it is a State, albeit a weak, decentralized one.

You want to utterly disparage the HRE based on that map.

Not at all, I'm a big fan of the HRE. I'm just saying it was a failed State, which you can see clearly on that map (and many other similar ones) because it shows all the different centers of authority within the HRE. It was ungovernable as a State.

I note that it has acknowledged external borders.

That is just because that (modern) map is a map of the HRE. It actually wasn't ever so cut and dry.

And bear in mind exactly what I am saying:
I am not claiming the HRE was any paragon of government structural integrity.
Neither am I claiming that the Roman, Byzantine, or Ottoman Empires were as theoretical as the HRE.

Well, and I'm saying you are wrong, since the HRE wasn't ever really a government at all. The ancient Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman Empires did have governments. They had spy agencies, effective tax systems, effective judicial systems, and strict top-down hierarchies in place which allowed whoever was pulling the levers of power (an Emperor, or his harem, or his advisors, his generals, or his doctor, or whomever) to actually control a vast system, which we call a State.

By we I don't mean you I mean it's a general consensus, which you may or may not be aware of.

G

Tiktakkat

2016-09-04, 01:23 AM

I'm aware and I disagree.

And I disagree with your assessment.

Byzantine Empire was again, a State. A weak and often dysfunctional State but a State nonetheless. Whereas medieval HRE was not, nor were the polities within it.

If the Byzantine Empire and the polities within it qualify, then so does the medieval HRE.

You seem to be discussing things in the 17th -18th Century, I was referring to the medieval HRE. The Renaissance HRE. The original Renaissance not the golden age of England or France in the Early Modern Period.

I thought I was referring to 1529.
However, if you want to go back further than that, then when exactly are you talking about the Ottoman Empire threatening the HRE, and indeed all of Europe? Certainly not during the medieval or Renaissance era.

Actually it did. I mentioned two upthread - Bohemia and Switzerland. Another real big one would be Northern Italy.

Except Bohemia wasn't part of the HRE and so couldn't splinter off, while Switzerland was quite a small portion.
Northern Italy, indeed all of Italy, is a different story, but then it was more of a 500-year battleground, and more comparable to Armenia constantly being fought over by Rome/Byzantium and the Persians.

You seem to have a major misunderstanding about the role of the Hapsburgs. Outside of the reign of Charles V, which is in the Early Modern Era, there really weren't a lot of strong Hapsburg Emperors. The ones during the medieval period were all weak.

I have a rather clear understanding about the role of the Hapsburgs. The thing is, when you brought the Ottomans into the picture as a the major threat, you moved into the 16th-18th centuries, which means the Hapsburgs are entirely relevant.

As for figurehead emperors, deposed emperors, interregnums etc., it doesn't mean you are a failed state if you have a few weak leaders. A badly run State isn't necessarily a failed State. The US has had a series of pretty weak leaders in my lifetime but it's still a very strong State. I'm not sure you understand what a State actually is.

A few?
The vast majority of Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman emperors were weak. That is why the strong ones are so notable in history.

Yes indeed, very different worlds. One a very weak, in fact failed State that was nevertheless fairly easy to live in, and the other a dangerous and unpleasant, but quite strong State.

Fairly easy for who - the peasants slaughtered in the various wars among the splintered minor states of the HRE?
Dangerous and unpleasant for who - the peasants who lived for 400 years before seeing an invaded in the Roman Empire?

They were both stable - HRE lasted almost as long as the real Roman Empire. But one had multiple power centers and basically no State structure at all, just a patina really. The other was pretty dysfunctional and often chaotic, but it was indeed a State in the truest sense of the word.

Except there is no "truest sense", only whatever thoroughly subjective bounds anyone feels like setting.

And so . . . pretty much no polity qualifies as a state prior to the 16th century, but you will make an exception for the Romans, Byzantines, and Ottomans?
I disagree completely.

Not at all, I'm a big fan of the HRE. I'm just saying it was a failed State, which you can see clearly on that map (and many other similar ones) because it shows all the different centers of authority within the HRE. It was ungovernable as a State.

And yet it endured as a concept.
Why?
Clearly the members found some value in being part of the HRE such that they didn't simply wander off.
The Electors kept showing up and kept voting for new Emperors.
If the State was so failed and so ungovernable, why would they keep bothering?

That is just because that (modern) map is a map of the HRE. It actually wasn't ever so cut and dry.

Nothing in history was ever so cut and dry.

Well, and I'm saying you are wrong, since the HRE wasn't ever really a government at all. The ancient Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman Empires did have governments. They had spy agencies, effective tax systems, effective judicial systems, and strict top-down hierarchies in place which allowed whoever was pulling the levers of power (an Emperor, or his harem, or his advisors, his generals, or his doctor, or whomever) to actually control a vast system, which we call a State.

By we I don't mean you I mean it's a general consensus, which you may or may not be aware of.

G

If their spy agencies were so competent, their tax and judicial systems so effective, and their top-down hierarchy so strict, how did so many usurpers and invaders manage to conquer so much, from whole provinces to the entire empire, time and time again?
Clearly the Emperor or whoever did not actually control those vast systems, which you call a State.

As such, your general consensus is neither particularly general nor a consensus.
Indeed you acknowledged it was a "provocative statement" to use such a descriptor.

There is a difference between a government failing to control everything it thinks it should control to the degree it wants to control it, and a government that fails to function at all.
You are improperly conflating the two, and winding up with a flawed analysis of the conditions that produced the Renaissance. To wit:

an extremely fragmented polity,

IF, the HRE was not an actual polity as you assert;
THEN, that map does not in fact show a fragmented polity.
It shows the multitude of successors to said polity.

IF, the HRE was an actual polity;
THEN, that map shows . . . a polity.
One with a multitude of districts, but a polity nonetheless.

Of course that excludes the middle, wherein we can find a map of what the HRE claims is the extant of a unified polity, but which we know is actually a patchwork of autonomous, semi-autonomous, quasi-autonomous, crypto-autonomous, pseudo-dependent, actually dependent, and otherwise functional States, Statelets, and entities, all of varying levels of stability, success, and pending duration.
Which of course means setting up parsing whether the HRE must consider the whole of what was claimed, or can be focused solely on what was controlled.

Knaight

2016-09-04, 08:53 AM

Well, I could sneer and say "you sound like somebody who has never stood in one of these places", but let's skip that, and just point out - the intangible qualities of these places that do inspire awe in millions of people, putting aside religion for a moment, since that complicates things and is controversial in a way we don't need to get into here... but taking into consideration places like Venice and Bruges and Florence where the focus isn't necessarily just on a big church, the value is quantifiable, in terms of tourist dollars. Tens, hundreds of millions of tourist dollars. By comparing it to Las Vegas (or Disneyland etc.) I was trying to point out, we do make places just for the intangible value that they provide to people, for fun in other words. Because it generates income.

There's plenty of awe inspired by some of the modern structures as well. I've stood by the Akashi Kaikyō Bridge, and it blew me away. That's not to say that medieval architecture isn't more than good enough to single handedly dispel a lot of the dumber myths about the period (or at least it should be), but I think you're understating how impressive some modern architecture is.

Max_Killjoy

2016-09-04, 09:22 AM

There's plenty of awe inspired by some of the modern structures as well. I've stood by the Akashi Kaikyō Bridge, and it blew me away. That's not to say that medieval architecture isn't more than good enough to single handedly dispel a lot of the dumber myths about the period (or at least it should be), but I think you're understating how impressive some modern architecture is.

Even without the awe, there's a lot to be learned. The major building projects of the time should dispel a lot of nonsense about how "backwards" and "stupid" people of the period "between Rome and Reconnaissance" were.

To me, the idea that "we couldn't build that now!" is just the flip side of "these buildings are so amazing that the people back then couldn't have built them, they had to have had some sort of mysterious help!" (See, nonsense about the pyramids.)

Galloglaich

2016-09-04, 10:34 AM

And I disagree with your assessment.

Ok. Lets see what that is based on.

However, if you want to go back further than that, then when exactly are you talking about the Ottoman Empire threatening the HRE, and indeed all of Europe? Certainly not during the medieval or Renaissance era.

The Ottoman Empire started invading Europe in the late 14th Century. Their first major defeat of the Holy Roman Empire was at the battle of Nicopolis in 1396. The Emperor Sigismund was almost personally killed and barely escaped with his life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nicopolis

They began gradually taking over the Eastern Mediterranean in the 15th Century and were considered a major emergency by the 1450's. The personal estates of the Emperor at that time, Frederick III, were under threat (and raids) from the Ottomans throughout his reign.

Except Bohemia wasn't part of the HRE and so couldn't splinter off, while Switzerland was quite a small portion.

Not only was Bohemia part of the HRE, it had the largest single number of electoral votes (3) in electing the Emperor. From the wiki: " It was an Imperial State in the Holy Roman Empire, and the Bohemian king was a prince-elector of the empire." Prague was actually the capitol of the Holy Roman Empire for a while during the 14th Century, in the reign of one of the very rare strong Emperors, Charles V of Luxemburg.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Bohemia

Northern Italy, indeed all of Italy, is a different story, but then it was more of a 500-year battleground, and more comparable to Armenia constantly being fought over by Rome/Byzantium and the Persians.

No, you are incorrect again. The Emperor was forcibly evicted from Northern Italy by the Lombard League of cities in the 12th Century, shortly after the Battle of Legnano in 1176 and no longer had any significant control of that area until the Early Modern era.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombard_League

I have a rather clear understanding about the role of the Hapsburgs. The thing is, when you brought the Ottomans into the picture as a the major threat, you moved into the 16th-18th centuries, which means the Hapsburgs are entirely relevant.

See the above. You don't know the medieval history.

And yet it endured as a concept.
Why?
Clearly the members found some value in being part of the HRE such that they didn't simply wander off.
The Electors kept showing up and kept voting for new Emperors.
If the State was so failed and so ungovernable, why would they keep bothering?

Because they liked things the way they were. I think life in the HRE was a lot better for most of the people who lived in it for most of the time it endured than in the Roman Empire. For one thing there were almost no slaves.

But I admit that is totally subjective. The rest of the conversation isn't so much though, and you need to catch up a little on this unfamiliar era before it's worth debating, because you keep throwing out things that aren't part of the history.

G

Galloglaich

2016-09-04, 10:35 AM

Kiero

2016-09-04, 10:38 AM

To conquer Italy?
No. But then Spartacus didn't threaten to conquer Italy either.

To starve Rome until there was a revolt?
Absolutely. Which is why Rome sent in consular armies to suppress them.

However the key element there is that Rome ruled the Italian peninsula at the time and not all that much else.
Yes, they were in the process of winning the Punic Wars and claiming the coast of Gallia and a sizable portion of Hispania - which of course they then had to conquer in major campaigns - but it was not the grand and glorious empire spread across the known civilized world that people associate it with later on.
It was a hopped up city-state with delusions of grandeur, rather like Carthage - or the Hapsburgs sitting in Vienna.
Which . . . promptly entered a century of chaos, as you note, much like the HRE under the Hohenstaufens.

A hopped-up city-state that had by the time it conquered all of Italy defeated numerous hostile enemies including Celts and Samnites and a foreign invasion of southern Italy led by one of the most capable generals of his age (Pyrrhos). I'm no Roman fanboy, but they unified Italy by overpowering anyone who might have stood in their way, not by diplomacy and co-opting sympathetic powers and gradually cosying them along. They also lost a number of times along the way - the Celts took Rome itself and the Samnites humiliated them in battle several times before they were overcome.

Galloglaich

2016-09-04, 10:44 AM

Even without the awe, there's a lot to be learned. The major building projects of the time should dispel a lot of nonsense about how "backwards" and "stupid" people of the period "between Rome and Reconnaissance" were.

To me, the idea that "we couldn't build that now!" is just the flip side of "these buildings are so amazing that the people back then couldn't have built them, they had to have had some sort of mysterious help!" (See, nonsense about the pyramids.)

You are just failing to understand my point - I'm not saying that we lack the engineering capability - though I do think, actually I know, we would have to do some learning to recreate some of this stuff they did, as we saw happen with swords and armor. But I'm sure we could do that.

The problem is the way we are organized socially, economically, and politically. I couldn't exactly define it in every detail but do you really think a town of 20,000 people could do something like that today?

G

Max_Killjoy

2016-09-04, 10:46 AM

You are just failing to understand my point - I'm not saying that we lack the engineering capability - though I do think, actually I know, we would have to do some learning to recreate some of this stuff they did, as we saw happen with swords and armor. But I'm sure we could do that.

The problem is the way we are organized socially, economically, and politically. I couldn't exactly define it in every detail but do you really think a town of 20,000 people could do something like that today?

If one looks at population proportionally, was 20000 a "town" in that era?

What's the equivalent in the present, to 20000 then?

Beleriphon

2016-09-04, 10:52 AM

I'm not sure we could assemble enough actual artisans to build a cathedral with the level of detail that the medieval ones have. We could build a church bigger and faster and stronger. But I don't see use spending the time and money and sweat to replicate the gargoyles.

Washington National Cathedral (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_National_Cathedral). It actually took 83 years to finish, and that's using modern building techniques, but that's more a design problem and the lead architects kept dying from old age. Every time they got a new one some design change ended up happening. Add to that every time the USA did something big and important another thing got added to the building, for example the stained glass has moon rocks in it, and there's a Darth Vader grotesque on one of the north-west tower
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Darth_vader_grotesque.jpg

If one looks at population proportionally, was 20000 a "town" in that era?

What's the equivalent in the present, to 20000 then?

That's actually a good question. Rough estimates place Paris around 50,000 in the 10th century, so slightly before Notre Dame actually started construction. By 1200ish the population had by some estimates doubled. In comparison Paris' population today is roughly 2.3 million. Other examples: Edo's population in the early 15th century (I know its after the roughly "medieval" time period of Europe, but its the only date I could find) was reported to be about 60,000 people (one estimate says 500,000) while Tokyo has a population today of about 35 million including the Greater Tokyo Area (13 million roughly for Metro Tokyo proper). Beijin in 1200 was around 130,000 and as of the 2010 census about 24.9 million for the metro area. Florence in 1000 to 1100 was about 100,000 while now it is roughly 382,000.

So there is no really comparison as far population goes, I think a better comparison might be what the tax revenue was for the area from all sources vs the average income of the residents of the area. The reason I suggest all sources is modern governments are likely to funnel collected taxes at the national level back to areas where some the money wasn't collected from. For example the German federal government helping to fund a subway expansion in Berlin doesn't directly help the residents of Frankfurt even though some of the money Frankfurt's citizens paid in taxes was used towards the project, but in the 12th century Berlin and Frankfurt were more or less separate countries that certainly wouldn't have shared tax revenue.

Tiktakkat

2016-09-04, 11:08 AM

Ok. Lets see what that is based on.

OKay, let's.

However, if you want to go back further than that, then when exactly are you talking about the Ottoman Empire threatening the HRE, and indeed all of Europe? Certainly not during the medieval or Renaissance era. The Ottoman Empire started invading Europe in the late 14th Century. Their first major defeat of the Holy Roman Empire was at the battle of Nicopolis in 1396. The Emperor Sigismund was almost personally killed and barely escaped with his life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nicopolis

First, 1396 is the absolute end of the 14th century.
Second, Nicopolis is in Bulgaria.
Indeed, the Ottomans were fighting the Byzantines, who controlled a part of the Balkans as far back as the 12th century.
That does not mean they were threatening the very survival of Europe at that time.
As for the HRE being involved:

"The Kingdom of Hungary was now the frontier between the two religions in Eastern Europe, and the Hungarians were in danger of being attacked themselves."

The very article you cite notes that it wasn't the HRE who was on the line.

They began gradually taking over the Eastern Mediterranean in the 15th Century and were considered a major emergency by the 1450's. The personal estates of the Emperor at that time, Frederick III, were under threat (and raids) from the Ottomans throughout his reign.

A major emergency for who?
The Hungarians certainly. Indeed on a certain level you could say the Ottomans saved the HRE from being conquered by the Hungarians.
However, looking at a map of Europe and checking the advance of the Ottomans, it is quite obvious they were not a threat to the everyone, or for any period of time during the medieval or Renaissance period.
Note that last - you made an issue of me bringing up the Hapsburgs. Sigismund was the last non-Hapsburg Emperor of the HRE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Bohemia

"Under these terms, the Czech king was to be exempt from all future obligations to the Holy Roman Empire except for participation in the imperial councils."

Review instead:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Bohemia

Bohemia was conquered absorbed into the HRE in 1002, repudiated that in 1198, and was recognized independent in 1212. Well, except for still voting in imperial councils.
Bohemia was a temporary addition to the HRE solely during the medieval period.

No, you are incorrect again. The Emperor was forcibly evicted from Northern Italy by the Lombard League of cities in the 12th Century, shortly after the Battle of Legnano in 1176 and no longer had any significant control of that area until the Early Modern era.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombard_League

"Under his later successors the Empire exerted much less influence on Italian politics."

And:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Italy_(Holy_Roman_Empire)

"The Imperial claims to dominion in Italy mostly manifested themselves, however, in the granting of titles to the various strong-men who had begun to establish their control over the formerly republican cities. Most notably, the Emperors gave their backing to the Visconti of Milan, and King Wenceslaus created Gian Galeazzo Visconti Duke of Milan in 1395. Other families to receive new titles from the emperors included the Gonzaga of Mantua, and the Este of Ferrara and Modena."

See the above. You don't know the medieval history.

You have cited three articles, all of which contain a very distinct statement in opposition to the view you are asserting.
So . . . yes. See the above and . . . perhaps consider the medieval history yourself.

Because they liked things the way they were. I think life in the HRE was a lot better for most of the people who lived in it for most of the time it endured than in the Roman Empire. For one thing there were almost no slaves.

Conversely, the people who lived in the Roman Empire were happy to remain Romans, despite the number of slaves.
Indeed, people loved the Roman Empire so much all those Germanic peoples made a point of becoming foederati and ruling as Romans, abandoning their own language and laws (with one notable exception) in the process. Indeed, they even went so far as to claim the name of the Roman Empire, adding "Holy" because they made a deal with the Pope.

But I admit that is totally subjective. The rest of the conversation isn't so much though, and you need to catch up a little on this unfamiliar era before it's worth debating, because you keep throwing out things that aren't part of the history.

G

You mean I keep throwing out the entire history, a that disrupts your narrative.
Yes, I know.
That's because I study history on a grand scope, rather than narrowly focusing on temporary elements, which can provide a false impression of an era when taken in isolation.
Like asserting that no "real" States existed in Europe between the fall of Rome and the early modern period, while simultaneously suggesting the Byzantines and Ottomans were actually states.

Vitruviansquid

2016-09-04, 11:13 AM

Beleriphon

2016-09-04, 11:34 AM

The point here is that we don't have as many skilled artisans in the modern age, per capita, as they did in medieval and renaissance times, right?

But to build monumental public buildings like a cathedral, I'd be fairly surprised if we can't do it in this day and age if we wanted to. A lot of work that used to require skilled artisans can now be done better and cheaper by machines. There are still artists around who can do the artistic work of, say, sculpting a gargoyle, that can't be automated (or would be pointless to automate)? And with modern transportation and communications, they can be made aware of any projects and be received from all over the world to do them. That's fair, right? I'm sure the medieval towns that built cathedrals also drew on talent from abroad.

I'm sure they did in most medieval towns have more artisans. Per capita we have less skilled artisans because we quite frankly don't need as many due to the fact that we can use less people more efficiently due mechanization of industry, at least as far as construction and manual labour goes. We probably have more if you look into things like engineering and computer related tasks.

Galloglaich

2016-09-04, 11:45 AM

OKay, let's.

[quote]
First, 1396 is the absolute end of the 14th century.
Second, Nicopolis is in Bulgaria.
Indeed, the Ottomans were fighting the Byzantines, who controlled a part of the Balkans as far back as the 12th century.
That does not mean they were threatening the very survival of Europe at that time.
As for the HRE being involved:

The very article you cite notes that it wasn't the HRE who was on the line.

Breh, what part of "the Emperor almost died in the battle" don't you grasp? The Emperor of the HRE. in case you think I'm talking about the Emperor of Japan.

The Ottomans weren't on the border of Germany, or Bohemia at that point, but everyone could see very clearly that if they weren't stopped where they were, they very soon would be - they had an army many times larger than that of any entity within Europe. That is why the Emperor was there.

"Under these terms, the Czech king was to be exempt from all future obligations to the Holy Roman Empire except for participation in the imperial councils."

Bohemia was conquered absorbed into the HRE in 1002, repudiated that in 1198, and was recognized independent in 1212. Well, except for still voting in imperial councils.
Bohemia was a temporary addition to the HRE solely during the medieval period.

In other words, like all those other 1000 polities within the HRE, Bohemia was largely autonomous. But it was still part of the HRE. You are conveniently forgetting that Prague was the capital of the Holy Roman Empire from 1355.

You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about. You are grasping at straws. I get it, nobody likes being embarrassed online, but you made a fool of yourself. I have 17 books on medieval Bohemia sitting on my bookshelf that I can see as I type this, I've been there. You probably couldn't find it on a map. It's painfully obvious that you are way out of your depth breh.

Again, same for Italy.

"Under his later successors the Empire exerted much less influence on Italian politics."

Yes. The Holy Roman Emperor didn't control much of anything in Italy after the 12th Century. As a realm, it had split away. Granting titles that you don't actually have any influence over doesn't mean much - it's just another excuse for a local prince to claim dominion.

You have cited three articles, all of which contain a very distinct statement in opposition to the view you are asserting.
So . . . yes. See the above and . . . perhaps consider the medieval history yourself.

You tried, apparently with some desperation to cherry pick things from the articles because you obviously don't know anything about the history I was referring to. You made a broad claim insisting that the HRE didn't have chunks breaking off - I pointed out that yes, it did and mentioned three that had already come up in the discussion. You then made the ridiculous claim that Bohemia wasn't part of the HRE, and I guess now are trying to say that the Emperor still controlled Northern Italy after Legnano? If you can prove that one you have a PhD certificate in your near future. I won't hold my breath!

G

Galloglaich

2016-09-04, 11:56 AM

The point here is that we don't have as many skilled artisans in the modern age, per capita, as they did in medieval and renaissance times, right?

But to build monumental public buildings like a cathedral, I'd be fairly surprised if we can't do it in this day and age if we wanted to. A lot of work that used to require skilled artisans can now be done better and cheaper by machines. There are still artists around who can do the artistic work of, say, sculpting a gargoyle, that can't be automated (or would be pointless to automate)? And with modern transportation and communications, they can be made aware of any projects and be received from all over the world to do them. That's fair, right? I'm sure the medieval towns that built cathedrals also drew on talent from abroad.

First, I'm not just talking about Cathedrals, I'm talking about city halls, churches, old towns of more than 200 or more small cities (most under 30,000 people)

Krakow
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Krakow_rynek_01.jpg

Prague
http://all-czech.com/wp-content/gallery/old-town-square/fish-eye-view-of-old-town-square-in-prague-hd-wallpaper-579044.jpg

Second, I don't think it's relative in terms of scale or elastic as in, you compare a city of 20,000 people then to one of 10 million today, because they built this huge thing. Could a town that size finance that today?

Yes of course they brought people in from many other towns, but again, I don't think it could be accomplished today. and as nice as the DC Cathedral is, I'm sorry it's not even in the ballpark to me.

G

Tiktakkat

2016-09-04, 12:58 PM

Breh, what part of "the Emperor almost died in the battle" don't you grasp? The Emperor of the HRE. in case you think I'm talking about the Emperor of Japan.

You say that as if it were of particular significance.
It wasn't.
He was leading his troops because that is what rulers did back then. They did not exclusively rely on generals, and they would actively lead from the front.
In fact, that is what happened to Sigismund's grandfather at Crecy! Are you going to tell me that the HRE was in dire danger from England?

The Ottomans weren't on the border of Germany, or Bohemia at that point, but everyone could see very clearly that if they weren't stopped where they were, they very soon would be - they had an army many times larger than that of any entity within Europe. That is why the Emperor was there.

No, the Emperor was there because he was also the King of Hungary.
Let's go back to the article:
"In 1394, Burgundy extracted 120,000 livres from Flanders, sufficient to begin preparations for a crusade, and in January 1395 sent word to King Sigismund of Hungary that an official request to the King of France would be accepted.[14]

In August, Sigismund's delegation of four knights and a bishop arrived in the court of Paris to paint a description of how "40,000" Turks were despoiling and imperiling Christian lands and beg, on Sigismund of Hungary's behalf, for help."

Sigismund, the Holy Roman Emperor?
No, King Sigismund of Hungary.
By staring at the tree of the title "Holy Roman Emperor", you are utterly missing the forest of titles and responsibilities that Sigismund held.

In other words, like all those other 1000 polities within the HRE, Bohemia was largely autonomous. But it was still part of the HRE. You are conveniently forgetting that Prague was the capital of the Holy Roman Empire from 1355.

No, not like all those others 1000 polities within the HRE.
Bohemia, incorporated for a short time, had NO imperial duties AT ALL, other than being an Elector.
They traded 200 years of occupation for a permanent seat on the ruling council.

You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about. You are grasping at straws. I get it, nobody likes being embarrassed online, but you made a fool of yourself. I have 17 books on medieval Bohemia sitting on my bookshelf that I can see as I type this, I've been there. You probably couldn't find it on a map. It's painfully obvious that you are way out of your depth breh.

Says the person who didn't mention that Sigismund was King of Hungary.
You are beyond grasping at straws attempting to defend an outrageous position against someone who has forgotten more history than you ever learned.
You aren't just out of your depth, but beyond your comprehension.

Again, same for Italy.

Yes, you are as woefully ignorant about the history of Italy as you are about European history in general.

Yes. The Holy Roman Emperor didn't control much of anything in Italy after the 12th Century. As a realm, it had split away. Granting titles that you don't actually have any influence over doesn't mean much - it's just another excuse for a local prince to claim dominion.

If it didn't mean that much, why did people want those titles so much?
If it didn't mean that much, why were so many wars fought over it?
If it didn't mean that much, why was it the focus of the Bourbon-Hapsburg conflict for 4 centuries?

You tried, apparently with some desperation to cherry pick things from the articles because you obviously don't know anything about the history I was referring to. You made a broad claim insisting that the HRE didn't have chunks breaking off - I pointed out that yes, it did and mentioned three that had already come up in the discussion.

No, you made a broad claim that chunks never broke off from the Roman Empire as they did from the HRE, and tried to support that with examples based on fringe regions that were never fully incorporated into the HRE in the first place.
Now you want to spin that by assigning a greater status to the cohesiveness of the HRE that completely contradicts your absurd classification of the HRE as a failed state.
And you are getting upset when I point out the clear history of a region like Bohemia, showing that it was not in fact a core part of the HRE.

You then made the ridiculous claim that Bohemia wasn't part of the HRE, and I guess now are trying to say that the Emperor still controlled Northern Italy after Legnano? If you can prove that one you have a PhD certificate in your near future. I won't hold my breath!

G

You made the ridiculous claim that the Ottoman Empire threatened Europe during the medieval period, then insisted that the Hapsburgs weren't ruling the HRE at that time.
You want the HRE to be a splintered polity, but object to classifying Bohemia as part of the Hapsburg Monarchy rather than the HRE, even while insisting the Hapsburg Monarchy wasn't the HRE.
I won't hold my breath while get you try and reconcile that.

Tobtor

2016-09-04, 01:50 PM

Yes, you are as woefully ignorant about the history of Italy as you are about European history in general.

I think you should stop discussing now G. It will not lead anywhere (I tried myself a while back).

Max_Killjoy

2016-09-04, 02:00 PM

I don't think this "you're ignorant" vs "you're ignorant" assault-mode discussion gets us anywhere.

Tiktakkat

2016-09-04, 03:17 PM

I'm more than happy to discuss the subject civilly.

Galloglaich

2016-09-04, 07:55 PM

You say that as if it were of particular significance.
It wasn't.
...
No, the Emperor was there because he was also the King of Hungary.

And his successor was the (or some would say, a) king of Austria. They all had their local fiefdoms.

You actually made the argument that the Ottomans were not a threat to Europe in the middle ages. The Holy Roman Emperor (or the Duke of Burgundy for that matter) would not get directly involved in a battle if they didn't think Europe and their own specific territories was under threat. An army that size, if not stopped, wouldn't need to limit itself to Hungary. That is obvious and academic - I'm not taking an outlier position here.

Sigismund, the Holy Roman Emperor?
No, King Sigismund of Hungary.

He was both, just like Charles IV was King of Bohemia and Holy Roman Emperor, and Sigismund's successor Frederick III was King of Austria and Holy Roman Emperor, and Charles V of Hapsburg was King of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor, so on and so forth. They all had their own fiefdoms. Usually that is where the Holy Roman Emperor spent most of their time because as I've pointed out several times, in the later middle ages there really wasn't a fixed, permanent government of the Holy Roman Empire. The Diet (Reichstag) didn't even start meeting regularly until the late 15th Century.

No, not like all those others 1000 polities within the HRE.
Bohemia, incorporated for a short time, had NO imperial duties AT ALL, other than being an Elector.
They traded 200 years of occupation for a permanent seat on the ruling council.

First you were arguing that the Holy Roman Empire never had provinces that peeled off. Now you seem to be trying to argue (I'm pretty sure 100% due to a panicked and rushed perusal of the Wikipedia article I posted) that Bohemia peeled off earlier than I say it did. I guess because you have a problem reading the text when I point out that Charles V, one of the most powerful Emperors of the HRE, had his capital in Prague for most of his reign - in the 14th Century.

Either way you are conceding that Bohemia was part of the HRE which eventually 'peeled off' as you put it. Just like Switzerland and Northern Italy and many other regions.

Incidentally, I posted that article out of politeness, because it was clear that you didn't know what you were talking about. It was a hint to read up a little, as you are out of your depth.

You aren't just out of your depth, but beyond your comprehension.

I've been posting to this thread for a long time, several years. I think most of the older regulars on here know pretty well that I'm definitely not out of my depth.

I know that it's a drag to read a forum thread when two people start insulting each other. I apologize to everyone reading the thread - obviously just skip the discussion if it's bumming you out. I value history for it's own sake, and I prefer that people know more actual history and less cliché's, misapprehensions and myths, which is 100% of the reason I post on here - it's the only thread on this website I post on with a few rare exceptions. Just because somebody shows up once in a while who won't or can't admit when they are wrong doesn't mean I'm going to just nod my head and say yeah ok, your alternative reality is true.

You've made multiple claims that are just obviously and categorically wrong, not hard to disprove, not even controversial, just blatantly wrong. But you just dig your heels in and insist you are right anyway. People do that on the internet sometimes, you are hardly the first. Not even one of the most ridiculous. But you are a clear member of that species who double down on every mistake.

No, you made a broad claim that chunks never broke off from the Roman Empire as they did from the HRE, and tried to support that with examples based on fringe regions that were never fully incorporated into the HRE in the first place.
Now you want to spin that by assigning a greater status to the cohesiveness of the HRE that completely contradicts your absurd classification of the HRE as a failed state.
And you are getting upset when I point out the clear history of a region like Bohemia, showing that it was not in fact a core part of the HRE.

What precisely are the core parts of the HRE, pray tell? All those parts that never split away by definition? Just because you can't get your head around it doesn't make it an actual contradiction. Just because it contradictions your own misconceptions doesn't mean it's inherently contradictory either. The idea that Bohemia or Switzerland or Northern Italy were not part of the HRE are outlier positions - in academia, and on the wikpiedia articles you'll find, it's simply accepted that they were.

You made the ridiculous claim that the Ottoman Empire threatened Europe during the medieval period,

The Ottoman Empire started capturing and enslaving many parts of Europe in the 14th Century.

Bosnia, starting in 1384

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_conquest_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina

Bulgaria, 1370's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian%E2%80%93Ottoman_wars

Serbia starting in 1371

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Serbian%E2%80%93Turkish_conflicts

Hungary in the 1440's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Hungarian_Wars#Campaigns_of_John_H unyadi

Do you need me to post a map or do you grasp that all those places are in Europe?

then insisted that the Hapsburgs weren't ruling the HRE at that time.

That would be correct, as the Emperors from 1316 through 1437 were not Hapsburgs, they were from the House of Luxembourg.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Emperor#House_of_Luxembourg_2

It's a common misconception that the HRE was a fiefdom of the Hapsburgs among laymen but ... it's a misconception.

You want the HRE to be a splintered polity, but object to classifying Bohemia as part of the Hapsburg Monarchy

Bohemia wasn't part of the Hapsburg monarchy until the 17th Century, after the Battle of White Mountain at the beginning of the Thirty Years War. Again this is all academic. You seem really confused about the difference between Hapsburgs and HRE.

rather than the HRE, even while insisting the Hapsburg Monarchy wasn't the HRE.

Well, I certainly wouldn't be the firs to insist that!

I won't hold my breath while get you try and reconcile that.

You can let the air out now.

(just don't blow too hard)

G

Tough Butter

2016-09-04, 08:21 PM

Tiktakkat

2016-09-04, 11:20 PM

And his successor was the (or some would say, a) king of Austria. They all had their local fiefdoms.

Hungary was a bit more than just a local fiefdom.

You actually made the argument that the Ottomans were not a threat to Europe in the middle ages.

No, I didn't.
I disputed your assertion that the Ottomans were a threat to the survival of Europe in the middle ages.
That they managed some expansion at the tail end of the middle ages does not make them a threat comparable to say the Golden Horde, which only turned away at the last minute.
But you can prove this fully later on.

First you were arguing that the Holy Roman Empire never had provinces that peeled off.

No, I didn't.
I said that the Roman, Byzantine, and Ottoman Empires had provinces that peeled off with greater regularity and size than elements of the HRE managed to secure internal autonomy.
And I said that such autonomy is not synonymous with the actual splintering that those other three empires went through. Which . . . it isn't. If it had been, Bohemia would never have found a way to become a Hapsburg fief, would it?

I've been posting to this thread for a long time, several years. I think most of the older regulars on here know pretty well that I'm definitely not out of my depth.

When you make comparisons to the Classical world, you are.
I notice you have avoided trying to address my corrections to the errors you have made regarding that.

What precisely are the core parts of the HRE, pray tell?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Francia

Well, unless we want to go back to Charlemagne, in which case yes, massive elements of the HRE did splinter off.
But given the map you used, it is clear you are using "HRE" to refer to the polity built by East Francia after the Carolingian Empire was finally partitioned after the death of Louis the Pious, even though the imperial dignity originally went to Lothair in Middle Francia, in which case we have to start parsing about the HRE as a successor by conquest to the "original" HRE, which was a successor to the "original original" HRE.
As it goes, that did happen fully in the middle ages, and thus is significantly more germane to a discussion of the HRE at the time, rather than the late Renaissance/Reformation era events you keep holding up as entirely representative of the HRE.

The Ottoman Empire started capturing and enslaving many parts of Europe in the 14th Century.

Which is not the same as threatening the survival of Europe.
That it took until 1529 for the Ottomans to get from Bosnia to Vienna demonstrates that rather clearly, as well as putting it well beyond the medieval period.

You claimed the Ottomans threatened the survival of medieval Europe.
I challenged that.
You have now proven that I am correct.

Bohemia wasn't part of the Hapsburg monarchy until the 17th Century, after the Battle of White Mountain at the beginning of the Thirty Years War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lands_of_the_Bohemian_Crown#Habsburgs

"When Vladislas' only son Louis was killed at the Battle of Mohács in 1526, a convention of Bohemian nobles elected his brother-in-law, the Habsburg archduke Ferdinand I of Austria, new king of the Bohemian crown lands. Together with the Austrian "hereditary lands" and the Hungarian kingdom they formed the Habsburg Monarchy, which in the following centuries grew out of the Holy Roman Empire into a separate European power."

You are only a century off.
You are confusing the final consolidation of power (which is covered in the next paragraph of that article) with the actual incorporation.

Now then . . .
What can you tell me about the status of the Barbary States within the Ottoman Empire?
What about the status of Mamluk Egypt within the Ottoman Empire?
Or the Hejaz?
Where was the border between the Ottoman Empire and the Persian Empire, and how much did it change?
How did the wars with the Persian Empire affect the Ottoman threat to Europe?
When during the middle ages did those conflicts occur?
How did the Byzantine Empire dissolve in the face of Arab expansion?
What was the status of the Byzantine successor states after the Fourth Crusade?
What about the Byzantine successor states after the capture of Constantinople?
What was the Gallic Empire?
What territory did the Carausian Revolt separate from Rome?
How much territory did the Palmyrene Empire control?
How do those relate in terms of the stability required for a "State as we recognize it" to the HRE during the middle ages? The Renaissance? The Early Modern Period?

Let's get down to just how much you know when you contrast the HRE to those empires.

Galloglaich

2016-09-04, 11:30 PM

You claimed the Ottomans threatened the survival of medieval Europe.
I challenged that.
You have now proven that I am correct.

This is a direct quote from you, which anyone can read upthread: "You made the ridiculous claim that the Ottoman Empire threatened Europe during the medieval period, then insisted that the Hapsburgs weren't ruling the HRE at that time."

You added the 'survival' in this last post part as some kind of sad attempt to move the goalpost. You are clueless, inept, and clearly dishonest.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'survival' here (do you mean killed to the last man? eaten, perhaps?) but you clearly ain't on the level bruh.

G

Mr Beer

2016-09-05, 12:19 AM

Hey guys, basic question here.

Are there any real cases of soldiers or warriors using heavy, large weapons like the massive greats words we see in D&D? I've seen real swords and the like before, but nothing like those.

Thanks!

How massive? My guess is the heaviest weapons commonly used would be polearms.

Greatswords tended to around to weigh up to around 3 kilos. Did anyone ever use a 6 kilo greatsword? Maybe, but it would have been very rare, though I believe there were ceremonial parade greatswords that weighed that much.

Did anyone use a 20 kilo greatsword like some fantasy D&D pictures depict, something like a 6 foot long crowbar with sharp edges? No.

Tiktakkat

2016-09-05, 12:19 AM

This is a direct quote from you, which anyone can read upthread: "You made the ridiculous claim that the Ottoman Empire threatened Europe during the medieval period, then insisted that the Hapsburgs weren't ruling the HRE at that time."

You added the 'survival' in this last post part as some kind of sad attempt to move the goalpost. You are clueless, inept, and clearly dishonest.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'survival' here (do you mean killed to the last man? eaten, perhaps?) but you clearly ain't on the level bruh.

G

If you think about it a bit, their main existential enemy during the medieval period, the Ottoman Empire, . . .

G

There.
That is what you said.

Yes, I didn't bother to look back and get it precisely correct.
Yes, I clipped my reply.

So there is exactly what you said, linked back to where you said it.
I moved no goalpost.
You called it an existential threat.
Now you want to move the goalpost claiming my incorrect phrasing.

You have already proven that your statement is incorrect, and that the Ottoman Empire was not an existential enemy during the medieval period.
It was the main enemy during the Renaissance, but even then not an existential enemy, as it never challenged the existence of any country past the Hapsburg Monarchy (since you insist on parsing that as completely distinct from the HRE).
It was a thorn in the side of Russia and Poland, and it had absorbed Hungary and the Balkan states (such as they were).
It raided constantly, primarily through the autonomous Barbary States, but never posed any real threat of invasion to Spain or France, or Italy.

Or do you want to claim you meant something else by "existential threat" other than "a threat to the existence of"?
Really bruh?

Brother Oni

2016-09-05, 02:25 AM

Greatswords tended to around to weigh up to around 3 kilos. Did anyone ever use a 6 kilo greatsword? Maybe, but it would have been very rare, though I believe there were ceremonial parade greatswords that weighed that much.

I believe there was a French officer/soldier during the 100 Years War around the time of Joan of Arc, that was reputed to use a oversized two handed sword of the upper 6kg size.

I remember finding it and him for a previous version of this thread, but my google-fu is failing me (I want to say La Hire, but that may be due to his depiction in the game Bladestorm).

Martin Greywolf

2016-09-05, 03:08 AM

I believe there was a French officer/soldier during the 100 Years War around the time of Joan of Arc, that was reputed to use a oversized two handed sword of the upper 6kg size.

Eh, probably not. There are three main factors that give us 6 kg swords:

1) Ceremonial purposes

Parade swords are well known and documented, hell, you even have a sawfish two hander here. These aren't meant to be used, but rather to be seen. That said, not all parade swords are non-functional, for example, so-called Attila's saber (in reality being magyar sabre of 10th-12th century) is perfectly serviceable as a saber despite being blinged up like a rapper's teeth.

2) Polearms vs swords

A lot of the biggest swords are used more like polearms than swords, or like a hybrid between the two. This is by no means universal, but it does impact how the sword is designed and how it handles.

3) Period fakes

Many swords that supposedly belonged to a famous guy are fakes made after he died - two great examples are William Wallace sword and sword of Goujian. Wallace sword is especially relevant here, since it was apparently forged together from three blades and clocks in at 2.7 kg, which is a bit on the heavy side for a sword that size.

Basically, if someone wanted to make a claim to have a sword of someone famous, he may well forge it in a way that is not great for actual combat, but looks good. Telling these apart is not the easiest task, while Wallace sword is obvious fake, Goujian sword had much higher production values, so our only clue is that the type of the sword it is didn't really exist in Goujian's time.

4) Bonus point - in a pinch, style can slide

I mean, if you're in a parade and a ninja jumps you, you may as well brain him with the 6 kilo bar of sharp steel you are presently holding. If you are any good, you can even use it effectively (halfswording helps), but then and again, Jackie Chan can use a stepladder as a deadly weapon. That doesn't make the stepladder into a weapon, it just makes Jackie Chan really cool.

Carl

2016-09-05, 03:34 AM

Also depends what is meant by fantasy sword, some of the oversized types are big, but not completely impractical, particularly for a very strong user or if they're supposedly made out of a light material like mithral. But go up to some of the really big stuff, (FF7 i'm looking at you here), nd in the real world it's unlikely even a worlds strongest man contestant could pick it up "properly" as apposed to a dead weight lift. And most people couldn't pick it up even dead lift.

Mr Beer

2016-09-05, 05:06 AM

Seems to me that if a 3 kilo greatsword is usable by a normal warrior, then an exceptionally large and strong man might be able to use a 6 kilo greatsword. The strongest men around are something like 4 times stronger than a normal man, so a x2 weight weapon seems reasonable for someone that powerful or nearly so.

EDIT

Just occurred to me that the world class strongman playing The Mountain in Game of Thrones is filmed using a greatsword in one hand to chop up hapless condemned criminals. I don't mean to use this as evidence, just thought it was cool and on topic.

Also depends what is meant by fantasy sword, some of the oversized types are big, but not completely impractical, particularly for a very strong user or if they're supposedly made out of a light material like mithral. But go up to some of the really big stuff, (FF7 i'm looking at you here), nd in the real world it's unlikely even a worlds strongest man contestant could pick it up "properly" as apposed to a dead weight lift. And most people couldn't pick it up even dead lift.

Yeah that trope annoys the crap out of me, even at age 12 I realised it didn't make sense.

Frozen_Feet

2016-09-05, 06:03 AM

You'd need to have an absurdly heavy weapon - over 30 kg - before it becomes impossible to lift up and swing for most people.

The cut-off point for useful weapons comes much earlier, because swinging heavy weights around is slow. A 6kg sword in the hands of a really big & strong guy is plausible if the sword's balanced, but a sledge hammer of similar weight tends to leave you open after each swing.

Brother Oni

2016-09-05, 06:40 AM

Eh, probably not.

I don't disagree with any of your points - La Hire using a very heavy sword may just have been propaganda or something that's been exaggerated over time.

I do disagree that it was impossible, just very rare.

As a bit of fun trivia, the largest ceremonial sword I know of is the Norimitsu Odachi at 377cm long and 14.5 kg (http://japantrip.tripod.com/nodachi/norimitsu.html).

Freud would have had a field day. :smalltongue:

Storm_Of_Snow

2016-09-05, 07:35 AM

Just occurred to me that the world class strongman playing The Mountain in Game of Thrones is filmed using a greatsword in one hand to chop up hapless condemned criminals. I don't mean to use this as evidence, just thought it was cool and on topic.

On that note, there's also Ned Stark using Ice to execute the Watch deserter in the first episode (and compare against Theon Greyjoy executing someone later on with a much smaller and lighter blade), so I guess there's that kind of ceremonial use for larger, heavier blades - executions, possibly ritual combat and so on, as opposed to something that's essentially for display and intimidation, and would be incredibly unwieldy in actual combat.

Beleriphon

2016-09-05, 09:03 AM

First, I'm not just talking about Cathedrals, I'm talking about city halls, churches, old towns of more than 200 or more small cities (most under 30,000 people)

Krakow
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Krakow_rynek_01.jpg

Prague
http://all-czech.com/wp-content/gallery/old-town-square/fish-eye-view-of-old-town-square-in-prague-hd-wallpaper-579044.jpg

Second, I don't think it's relative in terms of scale or elastic as in, you compare a city of 20,000 people then to one of 10 million today, because they built this huge thing. Could a town that size finance that today?

I have no doubt a similarly sized town today could finance anything they want. Its not that hard to actually do, the issue isn't if it could by why would they? Most large construction between say 1CE and say 1800CE would take years longer to build than it does now, which allows the financing to be spread out over a longer period of time. A town hall might not have taken 182 years to finish like Notre Dame, but they were probably built in major trade hubs which means substantially more taxes. As I recall Bruges is on the coast and sits right in the crossroads of the north end of Hanseatic League, so it was a trade town and it could afford a beautiful town hall, never mind the fact that it was a fairly large city for the time. If one wants to compare you need to look at equally large trade hubs now that have just as high a tax revenues, that means looking at cities with hundreds of thousands, or millions of residents.

A town with only 20,000 people now in North America is a low population, and is probably spread out over and area twenty times what one would find in northern Europe. I live in a city of 48,000 people, near by there's a township with 2500 residents. That's a farming community, in the same way surrounding farms would feed a large city in medieval Europe, and those communities weren't very big in comparison to the cities they fed.

And in fairness, the ancient world built bigger stuff faster than the medieval architects. The Pyramid of Khufu was finished in what 20 years? It weighs something like 6.5 million tons, which is about the mass of concrete in Hoover dam, just to compare. Incidentally the dam only took five years to finish.

Yes of course they brought people in from many other towns, but again, I don't think it could be accomplished today. and as nice as the DC Cathedral is, I'm sorry it's not even in the ballpark to me.

G

That's interesting because the DC Cathedral is intentionally built to combine both Gothic and Renaissance architecture. As for architecture, the city hall in my home is a similar style to Bruges, not quite as large because I live in Canada and we haven't had 600 years to expand the thing. I think you're also vastly underselling how much technical skill and cost goes into modern construction that governments pay for. LA city hall might not have the Gothic grandeur of very old European architecture, but it was just as expensive and stylistically pretty much exactly what was in fashion as the time (its a great example of art deco design BTW).

And of course the major reason massive building projects like cathedrals tend to take so long, its because of finances. They aren't usually directly funded by governments, so they have to solicit donations from the community to get the building done. Notre Dame is a bit of an exception on that front since it was so large and technically advanced at the time. I mean flying buttresses were state-of-the-art architecture in 1163.

So again I think it comes down to priorities, rather than abilities to fund projects. Cities of 20,000 aren't worried about making fancy buildings to marvel their neighbours or traveling merchants, they're worried about keeping the parks maintained, roads clean and garbage collected. A city of 1 million can worry about impressing the neighbours and making travelers feel amazed.

Galloglaich

2016-09-05, 09:55 AM

There.
That is what you said.

It raided constantly, primarily through the autonomous Barbary States, but never posed any real threat of invasion to Spain or France, or Italy.

Ok #1) Spain France or Italy are not "Europe". The Ottoman Empire was steadily invading and annexing Europe, in spite of the vigorous efforts of dozens of European polities (including the HRE) from the 14th Century onward.

And actually, they invaded Italy in the 1480's. 20,000 Turks captured the city of Otranto and performed mass-executions and other atrocities once they captured it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_invasion_of_Otranto

The Ottomans were considered an existential threat, the more so the further East you were, but certainly by the HRE, and the only reason they were kept mostly in the Balkans and Hungary was due to the energetic efforts of polities like the Holy Roman Empire, Venice, Castille, the Hospitalers of Rhodes, John Hunyadi and etc. and so on.

The Emperors of the HRE in the 14th and 15th Centuries (1316-1493) were all very concerned about the Ottomans, one was a King of Bohemia, the next a King of Hungary, and the one after that King of Austria, so yeah they felt the threat. Others felt sufficiently threatened to constantly send troops and pay for mercenaries for the Hungarian Black Army and so on.

You can keep claiming to be right even when you are wrong over and over and over again, it doesn't change the past, which is what we are talking about.

G

Max_Killjoy

2016-09-05, 10:02 AM

As I recall, the Ottoman Empire laid siege to Vienna, yes?

http://www.hostelruthensteiner.com/map-of-europe-austria-vienna.gif

http://www.turkishculture.org/images/page/lifestyles/ottoman_women_and_the_visual_arts/Ottomanmap2.gif

I'm not sure how someone could look at those maps and not consider the Ottoman Empire a dire threat to Europe.

Blackhawk748

2016-09-05, 10:14 AM

They did siege Vienna, then the Winged Hussars showed up and kicked their teeth in, which kind of put a really big damper on conquering Europe.

Max_Killjoy

2016-09-05, 10:15 AM

They did siege Vienna, then the Winged Hussars showed up and kicked their teeth in, which kind of put a really big damper on conquering Europe.

(My comment was somewhat rhetorical. :smallsmile: )

cobaltstarfire

2016-09-05, 10:25 AM

Galloglaich

2016-09-05, 10:26 AM

(My comment was somewhat rhetorical. :smallsmile: )

Yes they sieged Vienna twice but that was technically post-medieval, the first one in 1529 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vienna) and the one y'all were talking about when the Polish hussar charge did them in in 1683 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna). He was arguing that they weren't a threat until they were actually at the gates (even though that first siege is right on the end of the Medieval period)- I was saying that the Europeans were already plenty worried about the Ottomans and for good reason as early as the 1370's. They were downright freaked out after the Ottomans captured Constantinople in 1453. And with good reason!

Not fun to get defeated by Ottomans

http://www.medievalages.net/wp-content/themes/_journey/timthumb.php?src=http://www.medievalages.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/impalement.jpg&q=90&w=634&zc=1

http://i0.wp.com/listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Screen-Shot-2013-01-25-at-3.50.59-PM.jpg?resize=600%2C482

Once the impaling settled down you started having to give them a 'tax' of your little boys

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dev%C5%9Firme

G

Max_Killjoy

2016-09-05, 10:35 AM

Yes they sieged Vienna twice but that was technically post-medieval, the first one in 1529 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Vienna) and the one y'all were talking about when the Polish hussar charge did them in in 1683 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Vienna). He was arguing that they weren't a threat until they were actually at the gates (even though that first siege is right on the end of the Medieval period)- I was saying that the Europeans were already plenty worried about the Ottomans and for good reason as early as the 1370's. They were downright freaked out after the Ottomans captured Constantinople in 1453. And with good reason!

Not fun to get defeated by Ottomans

Once the impaling settled down you started having to give them a 'tax' of your little boys

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dev%C5%9Firme

G

For the record, I'm just offering up a counter-point to the idea that the OE was never a threat to Europe -- it takes very narrow definitions of "Europe", "threat", and "never" to think otherwise.

Galloglaich

2016-09-05, 10:55 AM

For the record, I'm just offering up a counter-point to the idea that the OE was never a threat to Europe -- it takes very narrow definitions of "Europe", "threat", and "never" to think otherwise.

yes of course, I agree 100%

Galloglaich

2016-09-05, 11:38 AM

In modern times if we build stuff with elaborate decorations, it'd get turned into a "look at all the tax dollars that got wasted on this thing". Or "We paid a famous architect to build a cool thing, and everyone hates it, lets never do this again."

Most of what me make now is meant to go up fast, be utilitarian, and with as little time and money used as possible. A lot of places in the US also aren't that interested in preservation of buildings or works that are in some way significant if those things are in a place that a large company wants to build something.

I'm not sure that large cathedrals are something we can't afford to do, so much as society has changed both in terms of what it values, and the aesthetics that it enjoys. Mega Churchs these days aren't as tall as something like the Bruges Cathedral, but they can cover far more ground, and have more usable space in them. They also don't usually have any emphasis placed on aesthetics.

This keeps going back to Cathedrals, but one of the reasons I brought up the Bruges tower is that it wasn't a Cathedral, it was the bell tower on the town hall (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfry_of_Bruges). This was a lookout tower for the town, and where they rang bells for the different work hours and so on. Many prosperous towns had very high towers, especially if they didn't already have a huge Cathedral or a large church, because it was so useful as defense and as an observation point.

But I concede, Bruges was a fairly large town by medieval standards.

So lets try to switch tacks again for a second because I want to exorcise another myth. Cathedrals and their equivalent giant churches, did not always take centuries to build. Some famous ones did, for a couple of different reasons, but the most common reason was because a lot of the famous ones were built at the end of the medieval period they simply stopped work on them when they converted to Protestantism, since Cathedrals (especially with all their embellishments as you put it) kind of went against the Protestant philosophy. Usually they couldn't bear to actually tear them down but many of the large Cathedrals in Europe were left unfinished in the 16th century and then not completed until a resurgence of interest in them in the 19th.

The other most common reason is that they built a church, then after 100 years or something they built another major addition to the church. That however isn't the same as saying it actually took them 100 years. It also gets conflated with churches (or other public buildings) that got built, then were destroyed by a fire or something and were rebuilt a second or even a third time, across the span of 3 or 4 centuries. That doesn't mean they spent that whole time working on it.

By the Late Medieval period they could build large buildings quite quickly.

As an example, Krakow. Though quite small compared to Bruges (10-20 thousand people depending on how you count the population and which municipalities you include), they built several very impressive structures in a fairly short time.

For example, earlier I posted pictures of their famous 'Cathedral', St Mary's Basilica. The church that we see today was built in three short periods, initially in 1290-1300. Then they added several side buildings and elongated the towers from 1355-1365. Then art of it collapsed in 1422 (possibly due to an earthquake), and they fixed that and added several new sections from 1425-1440. After that it was finished, except for a few additions to the top of the tower in the later 15th and 16th Century, and the addition of various adornments internally like a new organ and altar.

This for something that lasts 5 centuries, draws in tourist (and pilgrim) revenue all that time, and looks like this:

http://sumfinity.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Mary-Basilica-Krakow.jpg

https://images.trvl-media.com/media/content/shared/images/travelguides/destination/6035306/Krakow-119734.jpg

https://images.trvl-media.com/media/content/shared/images/travelguides/destination/6035306/St-Marys-Basilica-57676.jpg

http://www.uniquetravelphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/pol5263-copy1.jpg

http://www.uniquetravelphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/pol5266copy.jpg

https://watcherromano.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/web-st-marys-basilica-krakow-3-altar-detail.jpg

This timeline compares fairly well with a major modern construction project like the Big Dig in Boston. More on that in a second.

Krakow also has one of those big town-hall observation / bell towers. They built it in the 13th Century. Around the same time that they built their walls that repelled the Mongols.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_Hall_Tower,_Krak%C3%B3w

This tower has been standing 700 years. It now leans 55 centimers due to a storm in the 18th Century. The top also got burned away by a lightning strike in the 17th century but was repaired over the course of 3 years.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Krak%C3%B3w_-_Town_Hall_Tower_01a.jpg/404px-Krak%C3%B3w_-_Town_Hall_Tower_01a.jpg

Around the same time they built that tower, they got permission from a Polish Duke they had done a big favor for to build town walls. Parts of those are still standing too.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Brama_florianska.jpg/334px-Brama_florianska.jpg

This is St. Florians gate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Florian%27s_Gate), one of the old towns main gates, built, owned and operated by the Furriers guild, which repelled the Mongols one year after the walls were built, during the third Mongol invasion of Poland in 1287 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Mongol_invasion_of_Poland). During the first Mongol invasion the citizens of Krakow had to flee and hide in the woods. In the second one they hid in their citadel as the town was looted and burned. This time they stood and fought at their new town gates.

This is another surviving part of the gates, the Barbican

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/KR067.jpg

https://hawkebackpacking.com/images/pictures/europe/poland/krakow/poland_krakow_02.jpg

https://images.trvl-media.com/media/content/shared/images/travelguides/destination/6035306/Krakow-Barbican-57605.jpg

That third Mongol invasion was, incidentally, the last significant Mongol invasion of Poland proper (they did continue to raid what are now Ukraine and Belarus which later became part of Poland after they and the Lithuanians had captured them from the Golden Horde).

Speaking of big Dig, inside the city limits of Krakow is another rather remarkable feat of medieval engineering, the Wieliczka Salt mine. It's kind of a real-life Moria which goes on for 250 miles underground, and is full of strange artwork, little chapels, statues, underground lakes, all kinds of mysteries. It continued in operation as a mine until 1996.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wieliczka_Salt_Mine

http://lowspread.nazwa.pl/aparthotelmaria.pl/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/mapa_wieliczki.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Wieliczka_salt_mine.jpg/640px-Wieliczka_salt_mine.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/Wieliczka_salt_mine_old_corridor.jpg

http://195.154.69.184/media/2016/06/wsm-08.jpg

http://www.unknownworld.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Wieliczka-Salt-Mine-6.jpg

http://www.cracowcitytours.com/galeria/big_1196254964.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Wieliczka-daVinci.jpg

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/mining-history-diorama-extraction-of-salt-wieliczka-salt-mine-poland-picture-id517648281

http://visitbus.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/wieliczka-salt-mine-tours-1.jpg

http://www.ft.lt/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Veli--ka1.jpg

http://partykrakow.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/wieliczka-saltmine-trip-krakow-stag-partykrakow-2.jpg

http://krakowtrips.co.uk/file_uploads/2012/02/4.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6g84FZ20VY4/Tiai2-no9fI/AAAAAAAAMNE/99R7jGH-aLs/s640/Wieliczka+13.jpg

https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/0c/d2/45/0d/wieliczka-salt-mine.jpg

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3034/2746698306_5d313cf318_b.jpg

Only downside is all those stairs...

To me, for a community of 10 or 20,000 people, these are pretty impressive accomplishments. And I'm really only scratching the surface of what was accomplished by that one small town.

At the very least it's certainly a much better RPG setting than any one invented today! ;)

G

Tiktakkat

2016-09-05, 12:13 PM

Ok #1) Spain France or Italy are not "Europe". The Ottoman Empire was steadily invading and annexing Europe, in spite of the vigorous efforts of dozens of European polities (including the HRE) from the 14th Century onward.

Spain, France, or Italy are not Europe?
What are they - Asia? Australia?

And actually, they invaded Italy in the 1480's. 20,000 Turks captured the city of Otranto and performed mass-executions and other atrocities once they captured it.

They invaded once.
Captured once city.
Were besieged.
And defeated.
Yeah, major threat.

The Ottomans were considered an existential threat, the more so the further East you were, but certainly by the HRE, and the only reason they were kept mostly in the Balkans and Hungary was due to the energetic efforts of polities like the Holy Roman Empire, Venice, Castille, the Hospitalers of Rhodes, John Hunyadi and etc. and so on.

To the Balkans.
Eventually to the Hapsburg Monarchy.
That's right, the Hapsburg Monarchy, not the HRE.
You made a big stink about distinguishing them from the HRE. Now you want it to be synonymous.
But:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Habsburg_wars

"The Ottoman–Habsburg wars were fought from the 16th through the 18th centuries between the Ottoman Empire and the Habsburg (later Austrian) Empire, which was at times supported by the Holy Roman Empire, Kingdom of Hungary and Habsburg Spain. The wars were dominated by land campaigns in Hungary (including Transylvania and Vojvodina), Croatia and Central Serbia."

It looks like the easily checked facts completely disagree with you.

You can keep claiming to be right even when you are wrong over and over and over again, it doesn't change the past, which is what we are talking about.

G

The only one trying to change the past here is you.

As I recall, the Ottoman Empire laid siege to Vienna, yes?

I'm not sure how someone could look at those maps and not consider the Ottoman Empire a dire threat to Europe.

There is "threat" and there is "existential threat".
Galloglaich clearly doesn't want to have to deal with the difference.
There is also "during the medieval period" and "for about 50 years during the Renaissance".
Again, Galloglaich doesn't want to have to acknowledge the difference.

As for those maps, how long did the Ottoman Empire hold those territories?
How much control did they have over all of those territories?
How many other enemies did they have?
How many other wars did they fight?

If you look at the overall history, you have Suleiman the Magnificent ruling for 46 years, during which time they reached that high water mark, followed by a swift decline under a series of incompetent rulers. A bit over 150 years later the second Siege of Vienna occurred, and the Ottomans were on their way out.

For the record, I'm just offering up a counter-point to the idea that the OE was never a threat to Europe -- it takes very narrow definitions of "Europe", "threat", and "never" to think otherwise.

Compare it to a statement like:
"The Angevin Empire was an existential threat to Europe during the middle ages."

Is that a reasonable assessment?
How long did the Angevin Empire exist?
How stable was it?
How much territory did it control for how long?
How much of Europe was actually under threat?

Certainly France almost lost the Hundred Years' War.
And certainly Angevin-Norman offshoots established holdings as large as kingdoms from Spain to Jerusalem.

But an existential threat? For the entire middle ages?

So . . . yeah . . . "counter-point".

Galloglaich

2016-09-05, 01:00 PM

Dude, you just ain't on the level bruh.

Max_Killjoy

2016-09-05, 01:15 PM

If one considers Constantinople part of Europe, then the Ottomans are some level of threat to Europe from 1300 until World War 1.

If one considers the Ottomans the direct inheritors of the Seljuks, then there's a case to be made for going back as far as the Byzantine defeat at Manzikert.

https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/89/4789-004-2F86E60E.jpg

http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1400/1400_Southeast.jpg

As starting points.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_the_Ottoman_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine%E2%80%93Ottoman_Wars

Max_Killjoy

2016-09-05, 01:20 PM

Spain, France, or Italy are not Europe?
What are they - Asia? Australia?

I thought it was pretty clear that his point was that Spain, France, and/or Italy are not the whole of Europe.

As for those maps, how long did the Ottoman Empire hold those territories?

A good deal of it they held for nearly 500 years.

Compare it to a statement like:
"The Angevin Empire was an existential threat to Europe during the middle ages."

Is that a reasonable assessment?
How long did the Angevin Empire exist?
How stable was it?
How much territory did it control for how long?
How much of Europe was actually under threat?

Certainly France almost lost the Hundred Years' War.
And certainly Angevin-Norman offshoots established holdings as large as kingdoms from Spain to Jerusalem.

But an existential threat? For the entire middle ages?

In what way would the victory of the "Angevin Empire" have shredded the cultural and religious fabric of Europe?

Tiktakkat

2016-09-05, 01:54 PM

If one considers Constantinople part of Europe, then the Ottomans are some level of threat to Europe from 1300 until World War 1.

"Some"
"Existential"

Hmmm . . .

I thought it was pretty clear that his point was that Spain, France, and/or Italy are not the whole of Europe.

So it should be pretty clear that the Balkans, Hungary, and Austria are not the whole of Europe either.

A good deal of it they held for nearly 500 years.

But not the parts that threatened Austria proper. (As opposed to the Austrian Empire.)

In what way would the victory of the "Angevin Empire" have shredded the cultural and religious fabric of Europe?

1. The Angevins had abandoned the Salic Law.
2. The Angevins had embraced the concept of Common Law.
3. The Angevins had a North Germanic-Celtic cultural base as opposed to a West Germanic-Roman cultural base.
4. The Angevins had access to a heterodox religious interpretation.

Despite having originated in France, the Angevins had transformed into a Brittano-Viking invasion of Europe after they replaced the Normans in England.
Tweak a bit of history and the Black Prince is Henry VIII 150 years early, with no Hapsburgs to stop him after he disposes of the Valois.

Dude, you just ain't on the level bruh.

The level of confusing an existential threat with a general threat?
Nah bruh, I ain't on that level with you dude.

Max_Killjoy

2016-09-05, 02:11 PM

"Some"
"Existential"

Hmmm . . .

So to have ever have been an existential threat, they had to have been an existential threat for that entire time?

And they weren't even an existential threat while knocking on the gates of Vienna and holding a large swath of the European landmass under their rule?

So it should be pretty clear that the Balkans, Hungary, and Austria are not the whole of Europe either.

Yes, that's clear, and also something of the reverse of the entire point here.

But not the parts that threatened Austria proper. (As opposed to the Austrian Empire.)

So in order to be a threat to Europe, they have to be on the doorstep of "Austria proper"... I see. But isn't this in opposition to the claim that when they were knocking on the door of Austria they still weren't a threat?

1. The Angevins had abandoned the Salic Law.
2. The Angevins had embraced the concept of Common Law.
3. The Angevins had a North Germanic-Celtic cultural base as opposed to a West Germanic-Roman cultural base.
4. The Angevins had access to a heterodox religious interpretation.

Um... OK... but that really doesn't represent the sort of threat to Europe as a political and cultural entity that a Turkish/Arab Islamic takeover would have.

Despite what certain historians have been wont to claim, European/Western culture has quite a bit in the way of ties back to Celtic culture -- they were in close continuous contact with the Greek, Latin, and Germanic "forefathers" of western culture for their entire existence.

The level of confusing an existential threat with a general threat?
Nah bruh, I ain't on that level with you dude.

I think he means that your standard appears to keep swinging back and forth between strict specificity and broad generality depending on what will make the evidence fit your opinion.

See the post I'm responding to here as an example of where you appear to do that.

Mr Beer

2016-09-05, 03:12 PM

On that note, there's also Ned Stark using Ice to execute the Watch deserter in the first episode (and compare against Theon Greyjoy executing someone later on with a much smaller and lighter blade), so I guess there's that kind of ceremonial use for larger, heavier blades - executions, possibly ritual combat and so on, as opposed to something that's essentially for display and intimidation, and would be incredibly unwieldy in actual combat.

I don't know historical examples but it completely makes sense to me that special execution weapons could be made heavier than a battle-weapon, in the same way that an axe used for chopping wood is generally going to be heavier than a fighting axe.

Mr Beer

2016-09-05, 03:22 PM

Also, as a disinterested observer, the case has been much more strongly made for the Ottoman Empire reasonably being considered an existential threat to Europe from the 14th century onwards than otherwise.

Spiryt

2016-09-05, 04:00 PM

As far as medieval engineering goes, one has to mention that lots of the stuff in Wieliczka salt mine is indeed post medieval, usually very post medieval, though.

For some examples:

This chamber is from 1896:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Wieliczka_salt_mine.jpg/640px-Wieliczka_salt_mine.jpg

Sculptures were getting made since that date throughout 70 years.

This chapel is from 1859:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6g84FZ20VY4/Tiai2-no9fI/AAAAAAAAMNE/99R7jGH-aLs/s640/Wieliczka+13.jpg

In general, most of the lower, bigger chambers date from 1700-onwards.

PersonMan

2016-09-05, 04:36 PM

My two cents on the Ottomans - Europe thing: I think one of the kernels the argument boils down to is just how great a threat needs to be before one considers it 'existential'. It'd be fairly easy to argue that, well, the Ottomans never threatened Scandinavia, the British Isles, the now-BeNeLux region, the Baltic region; so therefore it wasn't existential, if one wanted to.

Anyways, after the last round of helpful answers, I have another question somewhat related to the first. Namely, if someone is supernaturally fast (not in general, more as a 'top speed' kind of thing - like some athletes can sprint amazingly fast for 10 seconds, they can move at superhuman speeds mentally and physically for a while, without being 'stuck' in that state) and they receive training in martial arts*, how much will they benefit? A lot of martial training seems intended to minimize the conscious thought and delays involved in fighting, so would it help someone who can just "brute force" things with insane speed?

*The ones with more martial than art in them; both unarmed and armed versions of not-dying and making the other guy die.

Tiktakkat

2016-09-05, 04:42 PM

So to have ever have been an existential threat, they had to have been an existential threat for that entire time?

See your comment below: the standard he is using changes based on my response, including my specific citation of his claim.

And they weren't even an existential threat while knocking on the gates of Vienna and holding a large swath of the European landmass under their rule?

Maybe.
I have no doubt they were perceived as one by the people directly fighting them.
It is equally clear that they were not perceived as such by the people directly fighting those people, such that they actively allied with the Ottomans.
So . . . who do we believe:
Charles V: "Ermagerd! They're at the gates of Vienna! Paris is next, and London next week!"
or;
Francis I: "Sucks to be you mon amis! Hey Suleiman, want to sack Nice together?"

And look!
Charles V wound up winning, and Austria later annexed a third? of the European Ottoman territories, stopped from acquiring more only because of those miserable Romanovs in Russia and the continued interference of those darned Bourbons in Paris.

Yes, that's clear, and also something of the reverse of the entire point here.

It is precisely the point:
If the part is not the whole for me, then clearly the part is not the whole for him.

So in order to be a threat to Europe, they have to be on the doorstep of "Austria proper"... I see. But isn't this in opposition to the claim that when they were knocking on the door of Austria they still weren't a threat?

No.
In order to be a threat to Austria, they have to be a threat to Austria - not Hungary; not Transylvania; not Bulgaria - Austria.
To be a threat to Europe, they have to actually threaten all of Europe, and not merely a portion of Europe.

Um... OK... but that really doesn't represent the sort of threat to Europe as a political and cultural entity that a Turkish/Arab Islamic takeover would have.

Really?
Is that why the French didn't keep fighting for over 100 years?
Is that why the Hapsburgs didn't try getting a crusade proclaimed against all of England, and send the Spanish Armada?
Is that why the line between Common Law and Roman Law is drawn at the border of England?
Is that why the French fought another round of wars for another 100 years to prevent England from dominating the world?

Despite what certain historians have been wont to claim, European/Western culture has quite a bit in the way of ties back to Celtic culture -- they were in close continuous contact with the Greek, Latin, and Germanic "forefathers" of western culture for their entire existence.

Yes and no.
There are certainly traces of Celtic presence throughout Europe and into Asia Minor.
That is significantly different from full-on Celtic culture, which was pretty marginal even in England by the time in question, except for the lingering/perpetual influence of Celtic Christianity.

I think he means that your standard appears to keep swinging back and forth between strict specificity and broad generality depending on what will make the evidence fit your opinion.

See the post I'm responding to here as an example of where you appear to do that.

That is because he does:
First he relies on a general statement.
Then he switches to specific incidents.
Then he returns to the big picture.
Then he cites specific incidents again.
Each time flipping when I demonstrate why the particular citations he is using do not support his interpretation.
I make a general rebuttal, he demands I explain specific incidents.
I make specific rebuttals, he demands a big picture overview.
You have actually addressed my rebuttals, for which I thank you.
He simply flips his argument to yet another angle.

And again, let me state my original objection to his claim:
How can you call the HRE a "failed state" while citing the Ottomans, as well as the Romans and Byzantines, as exemplars of strong states?
To avoid answering that he has wandered every which way, evaded any questioning of the depth of his knowledge of those empires, fudged the time period he is referring to, parsed technicalities and random events, and generally not been able to come up with anything even vaguely resembling a direct answer.
Mind you, I will accept responsibility for letting him change the subject like that, but do let us recognize that he is the one who has changed the subject so much.

If you want me to answer on specifics, pick one and let's stick with it. I'm fine with that.
If you want me to answer on the generalities of 500-1,000 years of history, accept that it is going to skip around a LOT. I'm fine with that too.