ArabArcher35
Baron
13 Spider Bloody Chain said:
Well, it's either be vulnerable to everything, or vulnerable to some things. I think I'd choose the latter.
Playing devil's advocate
- Thread starter 13 Spider Bloody Chain
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Baron
Well, it's either be vulnerable to everything, or vulnerable to some things. I think I'd choose the latter.
Life or death is hardly a marginal issue13 Spider Bloody Chain said:
Sure, you could not bother, but then all someone needs to do is chuck a rock and you're dead..It wasn't solely for the field of battle either. When raiding an enemy town, plundering a farm or simply walking through the bad part of town there'd be few people correctly equipped to deal with it (whereas there's a whole host of household objects which can be lethally applied to someone without it). The thing about battles is that each side usually comes specifically equipped to hurt the other side, no matter what defences they employ.
No, but it's a dedicated gambler who decides not to bother with a potential life saving measure on the off chance it wouldn't be worth it. Lifejackets are completely useless in 90% of plane crashes, yet they're mandated by law to be carried aboard passenger planes.
Destichado
Squire
"Plate was proof" (meaning impervious) against the vast majority of weapons encountered on the medieval battlefield. That does not, however, mean ALL weapons. It wasn't undefeatable, but it certainly wasn't crap either.
Not everyone had shiny suits of full plate, not even most. Perhaps five percent of the battlefield were armoured "cap-a-pie" (head to foot -dé capite ad pedem), or in "three-quarter plate" -meaning full armor, excluding the greaves and sabatons. (common among those fighting on foot). The rest were unarmored entirely or wore whatever they could find -commonly helmets, breastplates (often without backplates) and gauntlets.
Swords were all but useless against plate. They can not cut through it, and they can not pierce it effectively; that's why the fighting manuals of the time are quite specific about holding the sword like a prybar and stabbing at the gaps -under the arms, the groin, the throat, eyeslits, etc. The same for spears and polearms -other than the poleaxe/bec de corbin. An axe might hope to get in a lucky blow that could shear through a helmet or breastplate, but it's more useful for battering the fellow inside, and maces do the same. Cloth-yard shafts from longbows are "generally accepted" to be ineffective against armor at all but close range, at which distance most archers will have already withdrawn or changed weapons.
We can demonstrate armor's effectiveness by using real weapons against real plate at full force and speed. There are actually people crazy enough to do this on a semi-regular basis.
It's hard to get them to agree to be shot at with longbows, which is one reason why the issue is still up in the air, but the matter of swords and cutting and thrusting weapons has been firmly settled.
So that leaves heavy crossbows, poleaxes, warhammers, military picks as a distinct threat to armor. And in fact, crossbows aside, these were weapons most often carried by other armor-wearers.
These weren't uncommon weapons, but they were a minority of the weapons faced on the battlefield. So a man in plate wasn't quite invulnerable, but he was proof against the majority of the weapons he could expect to meet in battle. But then, only about five percent of the people you could expect to meet in battle would be wearing a lot of it. I think an advantage like that would be well worth the expense, don't you?
Not everyone had shiny suits of full plate, not even most. Perhaps five percent of the battlefield were armoured "cap-a-pie" (head to foot -dé capite ad pedem), or in "three-quarter plate" -meaning full armor, excluding the greaves and sabatons. (common among those fighting on foot). The rest were unarmored entirely or wore whatever they could find -commonly helmets, breastplates (often without backplates) and gauntlets.
Swords were all but useless against plate. They can not cut through it, and they can not pierce it effectively; that's why the fighting manuals of the time are quite specific about holding the sword like a prybar and stabbing at the gaps -under the arms, the groin, the throat, eyeslits, etc. The same for spears and polearms -other than the poleaxe/bec de corbin. An axe might hope to get in a lucky blow that could shear through a helmet or breastplate, but it's more useful for battering the fellow inside, and maces do the same. Cloth-yard shafts from longbows are "generally accepted" to be ineffective against armor at all but close range, at which distance most archers will have already withdrawn or changed weapons.
We can demonstrate armor's effectiveness by using real weapons against real plate at full force and speed. There are actually people crazy enough to do this on a semi-regular basis.
It's hard to get them to agree to be shot at with longbows, which is one reason why the issue is still up in the air, but the matter of swords and cutting and thrusting weapons has been firmly settled. So that leaves heavy crossbows, poleaxes, warhammers, military picks as a distinct threat to armor. And in fact, crossbows aside, these were weapons most often carried by other armor-wearers.
These weren't uncommon weapons, but they were a minority of the weapons faced on the battlefield. So a man in plate wasn't quite invulnerable, but he was proof against the majority of the weapons he could expect to meet in battle. But then, only about five percent of the people you could expect to meet in battle would be wearing a lot of it. I think an advantage like that would be well worth the expense, don't you?
13 Spider Bloody Chain
Grandmaster Knight
Ok, new question:
The Maciejowski Bible is often described as an excellent work on weapons & armor. But many of the pictures in/on the book show people in maille hauberks getting hewn in half by what looks like gigantic cleavers; this is explained away as "fiction", and that the artists wanted to portray something cool and flashy like we do today sometimes. But how do we know for sure that they're intentionally making the pictures fictional, and not trying to portray what really happened?
The Maciejowski Bible is often described as an excellent work on weapons & armor. But many of the pictures in/on the book show people in maille hauberks getting hewn in half by what looks like gigantic cleavers; this is explained away as "fiction", and that the artists wanted to portray something cool and flashy like we do today sometimes. But how do we know for sure that they're intentionally making the pictures fictional, and not trying to portray what really happened?
Destichado
Squire
Good question, and one still hotly debated. There is no "answer" to this one.
I can tell you that there is a "working consensus" when dealing with iconography: that iconography depicting historical, legendary and religious events are to be regarded more carefully (in terms of actions performed and styles worn) than that which depicts contemporary secular events. But that is by no means universal. There are people who hotly disagree to either extreme -saying that iconography is alwaysrepresentative of existing material culture on some level; or saying that anything not depicting contemporary material culture can never be given any credence.
I can tell you that there is a "working consensus" when dealing with iconography: that iconography depicting historical, legendary and religious events are to be regarded more carefully (in terms of actions performed and styles worn) than that which depicts contemporary secular events. But that is by no means universal. There are people who hotly disagree to either extreme -saying that iconography is alwaysrepresentative of existing material culture on some level; or saying that anything not depicting contemporary material culture can never be given any credence.
Destichado
Squire
*snort*
Once a "sword" becomes an estoc, it is no longer a sword.
Personally I agree, the estoc is an excellent can-opener and I'd much sooner use one against a man in armor than I would a lance. I'm a very good horseman, going towards excellent, but putting the tip of a lance where you want it from the back of a galloping horse takes more luck than I'd care to spend in a fight.
Once a "sword" becomes an estoc, it is no longer a sword.
Personally I agree, the estoc is an excellent can-opener and I'd much sooner use one against a man in armor than I would a lance. I'm a very good horseman, going towards excellent, but putting the tip of a lance where you want it from the back of a galloping horse takes more luck than I'd care to spend in a fight.
Destichado
Squire
I don't put much of any stock in discovery and history channel shows. They get it horribly, hideously wrong so often, these days.
If we're lucky, maybe the maille will just be butted, this time. Instead of butted aluminum with the weave going the wrong way. *sigh*
If we're lucky, maybe the maille will just be butted, this time. Instead of butted aluminum with the weave going the wrong way. *sigh*
Actually at a glance it looked fine, I only really saw the equipment because I wasn't paying attention, but the equipment looked steel/decent iron, and the weapons looked fairly authentic, now naturally I can't tell metal comp. at a glance, but I can tell you it wasn't aluminum and it was being tested on a standing man (ACTUAL MAN) not against a surface.
and it was being tested on a standing man (ACTUAL MAN) not against a surface.
Regarding medieval iconography: While the renaissance strives for a realistic caption of events/persons, etc. (perspective), medieval iconography has a completely different approach. It would be far too simple to assume that so much antique knowledge was lost that people just couldn't depict anything realistically in the middle ages (people out of proportions, lack of detail and perspective). Much more the middle ages, based on christian ideals, didn't value an exact depicition of something as high as an "idealized" depiction of it. Take a look at pictures of baby-Jesus in the arms of Mary. In the middle ages, often Jesus - though still a baby - is depicted as an old man, symbolizing his divine "experience".
So, generally speaking, it's very dangerous to apply "scientific" standards of our time onto the medieval period that handled so many and so different ideals than our world nowadays. Personally I must say, that more and more often I prefer the medieval "proximity" to the "but can you prove it scientifically" of today.
And for further questions about mail, weapons and stuff, I suggest this thread is closed and Destichado just pms Bloody Chain
So, generally speaking, it's very dangerous to apply "scientific" standards of our time onto the medieval period that handled so many and so different ideals than our world nowadays. Personally I must say, that more and more often I prefer the medieval "proximity" to the "but can you prove it scientifically" of today.
And for further questions about mail, weapons and stuff, I suggest this thread is closed and Destichado just pms Bloody Chain
Destichado
Squire
Aww. 
But to be fair, the point of his thread was for him to see if he could get shot down or not. I think he had a good idea.
But to be fair, the point of his thread was for him to see if he could get shot down or not. I think he had a good idea.
It's a good idea if you believe in the unfailability of science, but since I don't...
Well, it's always good to discuss things, but I just disagree with the basic idea of finding pure factual scientific proof for something. It always reminds me of the "science-news" crap you can read every day in newspapers or see on discovery channel.
Then I rather read a good fictional book, that's more inspiring for me.
Well, it's always good to discuss things, but I just disagree with the basic idea of finding pure factual scientific proof for something. It always reminds me of the "science-news" crap you can read every day in newspapers or see on discovery channel.
Then I rather read a good fictional book, that's more inspiring for me.
Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction
Sure, believe me. Living in the center of the red-light district of Amsterdam, I experience every day stranger things I could ever think of. But if I write a book about it and 200 years later people only discuss whether there is scientific proof for it, I think it misses the point.
To make a short and simplified version of what I believe: With the secularisation in the western world during the past 40-50 years, people got rid of religions handling moral values and substituted them with an even more obeying belief into the unfailability of science. This is a natural outcome of a society that values reason and profit higher than spiritual values. But I don't want to abolish science, not at all, but every scientific research is based on a premise (Prämisse in german, hope that works in english
), just like in philosophy. Science is just a MEANS to proving assumptions, but it doesn't substitute moral values necessary for responsible scientific work.
Interestingly enough, many of the greatest scientists of the 20th century were actually very religious people (Einstein & others).
Hm, sorry to have touched this topic now because I really don't have time now to fully elaborate on what I think.
Thanks Arch, for making me post unfinished business...I think we should settle this next Werewolf Game
To make a short and simplified version of what I believe: With the secularisation in the western world during the past 40-50 years, people got rid of religions handling moral values and substituted them with an even more obeying belief into the unfailability of science. This is a natural outcome of a society that values reason and profit higher than spiritual values. But I don't want to abolish science, not at all, but every scientific research is based on a premise (Prämisse in german, hope that works in english
), just like in philosophy. Science is just a MEANS to proving assumptions, but it doesn't substitute moral values necessary for responsible scientific work.Interestingly enough, many of the greatest scientists of the 20th century were actually very religious people (Einstein & others).
Hm, sorry to have touched this topic now because I really don't have time now to fully elaborate on what I think.
Thanks Arch, for making me post unfinished business...I think we should settle this next Werewolf Game
Well, especially if it's illustratedAdaham said:
Morality has barely changed. You've had movements such as Eugenics which has moved for a pure scientific basis for morality, but in the main people have simply used science to provide a different justification for the same belief ( Don't steal, it pisses off God becomes Don't steal, it's bad for the economy).
As for infallibility, it's a kind of moot point. Applied science is by definition infallible (if it didn't work, it wouldn't be applied), though not necessarily perfect or beyond improvement.
Not all of them are actually, there's a lot of "bang em together and see what happens" kind of research which goes on too, and of course the ever favourite "record what actually happens rather than what should happen", which anyone taught practical chemistry at school probably learned to avoid
No, but it's not meant to. One of the reasons for the adoption of the scientific method was to provide a framework for 'practical' philosophy (i.e. how stuff works) independent of a religious or moral philosophy (i.e., how things should work).
I know it's late and we're all simplifying now, but religions (at least christianity) doesn't say "don't steal, it pisses off God", but it says "don't steal, because it's not good for your fellow citizens" (which is about one of the central points in religion, namely compassion). If you compare this to "Don't steal, it's bad for the economy, you'll see that there is a huge difference.Archonsod said:
I agree, but nevertheless it remains subjective. It only gains value through subjective interpretation. Sure, a TV works, so there must be something to it, but if there's no one to watch it and interprete the pictures, it's pointless. But again, I'm not saying that science is without merits, far from it, but what I criticize is the - nowadays very common - mindset that science could explain everything in our world. Just look around the various polls on taleworlds. Every 16 year old is proud to have a scientific mindset and has seen through religion for a long time. This might sound harsh, but I take the freedom to say so because I used to be myself a bit like that. In fact, it is nothing but ignorance for the questions of life that have troubled many great men in history. But thanks to science, every high-school student believes he can explain the world in three sentences. (And if anybody starts picking on my rhetorics, I'll refuse any further discussion on this topic
)I'd much rather call this random experiments than real science. Besides, even by choosing two things to bang together, you already make a preselection of what's going to happen, so one could argue we already have a premise.Not all of them are actually, there's a lot of "bang em together and see what happens" kind of research which goes on too, and of course the ever favourite "record what actually happens rather than what should happen", which anyone taught practical chemistry at school probably learned to avoid
A very good example in this respect is the story about the development of the atomic bomb. While (at least some) scientists handled serious moral issues, the purely scientific aspect finally triumphed above all moral questions and let to two devastated japanese cities. While this is an extreme example, it clearly shows, that science without a solid moral foundations is in danger of entering areas that should remain "no-go" areas. And you see it every day, in pharmacology & wherever. Political interests cover far too often a morally doubtfull scientific developments. Even worse, morally scientific research is far too often NOT taking place, because it just doesn't pay off.
Sorry for my spelling mistakes, I'm still not in bed...
