搜索结果: *

I really have no time to read the entire 46 pages of this thread, so I'll go to my point, if it serve any or not...

I came here after I saw some suggestion about vlandian being redone at the image of carolingians. I think this is a great idea. Yet, people had pointed out how difficult it is to render those since we lack a lot of material about carolingian armoury.

First thing of all, as a french military historian, I'll give a first warning about many misconception we do have nowadays in regards of terminology and armors from middle age, of ALL periods of it. Nowadays, most reenactors are using, knowing or not, the appreciation of medieval armament made by the professor F. Kelly, who in 1931, recusing his predecessor from the previous century, mr Meyrick, pretended that in early middle age, there was only one kind of mail, the one we now call in english "chainmail". This had lead to many misconceptions, even if it was good to correct Meyrick.
A more recent, but very unknown article wrote in 1962 by pr. François Buttin (which is available in pdf here for those who speak french: https://raco.cat/index.php/Memorias...itAbZx4WF8YtPUp-2FkltrQ7ILQQP22sCDj-5OKp6WVXI) aimed to rectify mr Kelly errors.
F. Buttin had crossed many sources, if not most of all, including iconography, archeology, epic songs, but also guilds rules, intendency purchase, sculptures in churches, etc... And made a great work on recovering the true meanings of words in medieval period.
From one example, the word "hauberk" we so frequently use to describe the mail tunic of a knight is incorrect in its current definition. Back then, the early medieval armor began with the "broigne", or "byrnie" in english, which, unlike what wikipedia etymology pretend, didn't came from an irish word, but from a german one, apparented to english "brown", but in older form, "brunn" which meant "polished" and "shinning". It covered all the torso, sometime also the shoulders, but usually did not covered neither the throat, nor the arms, nor the legs. Thus complementary parts of armors were added. Among those was the hauberk, which, as its etymology imply, covered the throat, neck and envelopped the head on a hood, its top crowned by the "coif", looking as a closed hood which covered the upper torso and shoulders. It is illustrated in the Song of Roland in many occasion, as knight are described wearing the brunie (byrnie) and dressing along the hauberk before battle (as it was an incomfortable piece).

Anyway, alongside this, the most important think that Buttin did was to clarify the many kind of mails that did existed in medieval era, unlike what Kelly, or recently Dan Howard, would claim. Profession rules, guilds and corporations charts along songs and intendency reports had let us known that there were many kind of mails, and that the one we called "chainmail" was not the most common, and not the most ancient in use since the V century. Already during the days of the late roman army, the abandonment of armor for most troop went along the increasingly cost of armament. The most common armor would not be the famous "lorica hamata", but instead the "squamata". In the Frankish lands, the franks adopted the word "brunie" to describe armor because, unlike a chainmail armor, a "scale armor" as we call it today could shine brightly if well polished, almost in white reflection (and thus explaining all the allusion epic songs made about the "white brightness of the mail").
A mail, unlike what the medieval latin autors of the XIII century through to translate, wasn't the etymological descendents of latin "macula", but of latin "malleum", which you still find in english in "malleable". The immediate parent of "mail" was the noun "maillet" (in english "mallet"), which was the hammer use by artesans to beat up the steal on an anvil. This operation in old french was called "mailler", nowadays we would say "hammering", and its product was the "maille" which gave the english "mail". It was a little piece of plain polished metal of either iron or steel (and chainmail back then couldn't be made of steel due to furnace temperature's problems unlike today). The mails on a set were all of the same shape and size, through many set of distinct mail could be use on different part of a same armor.
The most common category was the "nailed" mail, or "maille clavaine" in old french, which we would litt. translate by "clove mail" (english "clove" being a descendant of the same root latin "clavus"). It was a little piece of metal, round, square, triangular, leaf like, etc... nailed on a support, either fabric or leather. Of those "nailed mail" there were two kind: the "half nailed", this called because the nail was put at the "half" or better said today, in the middle of the mail; and the "double nailed" mail, where the nail(s) would be put on an extremity, imbricated alike scales (thus the imbrication made them "doubled"). It was the most resilient of all, despite the early risk of a weapon finding its way beneath a mail to unmail the armor (a problem that was partially resolved by making ranks of doubled mail alternated in different directions: most iconography we see are not chainmail, but double mail settled this way).
Another category was the "plaqued mail" (maille plaquée), which was a mail that was sewed with each others. Buttin point out that the so called "lamellar" (a term inexistant in middle age) armor we found at Visby is likely an armor of "plaqued mail" (the others are "plates", another term Buttin explain but which I won't discuss here).
The "tresliced mail" "maille treslis" was the actual term for what we call "chainmail" today. This term was quickly remplaced by "hauberk mail" as it became the favoured mail used for the hauberk, being more flexible than the others (but also less resilient due to the fact it was made up of iron only). It usually covered parts of the armor that needed flexibility, and were very rarely seen on torso armor.

Two example can be given to illustrate this:
A gisant of Gilbert Marshal (https://c8.alamy.com/compfr/ahdwwh/...e-marshall-1241-sculptee-medievale-ahdwwh.jpg): Here unlike what one might think, those are not chainmail, but double mail, of distinct dimensions for the torso and the members (smaller pieces for those). They form reversed alternated ranks horizontally, and the all armor must have thousands of mails, if not ten of thousands (as some reports of corporations precised...).
Here the gisan of a Catalan knight (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...e_Fontfroide-Gisant_de_Chevalier-20140608.jpg): It is clearly a "tresliced mail" or "chainmail" as we called it today. As you can see, the byrnie is marked off the hauberk, the hauberk being a little more proeminent on the upper torso, marking the man status of knight.

Having said all that, and recommanding strongly the reading of the article (which I couldn't find in english sorry), I now point out a thing: if someone want to reskin Vlandia to a more "appropriate" way for the supposed period of the events, in a more "carolingian" way, I strongly recommend to look at the works of Pierre Joubert, a former painter for children history books. I give some example were he made superb depiction of early medieval armors with the kind of mails I described (and also outfit of early franks), including a depiction of Hastings which is on my opinion one of the more accurate (he made some errors too in some occasion, but globally is depiction of early middle age is one of the most vivid I ever found):

I hope this can bring inspiration to any of you as at the end, the game don't try to reach historical accuracy, but in its own setting, on my opinion, it would feel more authentic to have vlandians with those kinds of armors...

There is a misunderstood usually in many forums about about warfare and war techniques on battlefields, where there is no accordance with historical research. People usually think because they see those videos were there is "martial experts" trying on the execution of an ancient technique based on pictures of ancient manuals of martial art. But this are biated sources because there is very few thing allowing to tell that those techniques were actually used and in fact in accounts of battles from european to japanese, according to the relate of the deeds, but mostly to the descriptions of wounds and the progresses of archeology, the battlefield have another face than those manuals. You should read "Le dimanche de Bouvines" (the Sunday of Bouvines) of George Duby or "Vikings" of Régis Boyer are any work of René Grousset, those people being specialist of Middle Age and above all who don't make "battle history" (histoire bataille" like some anglo-saxon still doing nowaday. In middle age actually we assume that swords were in fact very blunt and used in this manner on the fields while in japan, accounts of sword fight usually can be resumed as a tentative of one strike kill with the men attack the base between neck and shoulder or the neck itself or the face, for yari usually they try (we have to say try, because they mostly don't succed) to thrust to the face, and sometime to armpits, while we have founded on unearthed battlefields evidences of strikes on the face with the pommel of the yari and loose wounds on arms (see works of Thomas Conlan).

Those ancient martial books are biaised sources and the people who tryied to reenact their techniques are mislead because 1) They forget about the commercial use of the book and the school. Those books in europe were not secret like the one in japan, but in the same manner of japan, they were used in private school were the professor was trying to get an auditory. By more the techniques look "flashy" by more they bring attention to them, but on battlefield those techniques were altmost unsused because of the simple tension and confusion of the situation. 2) In the case of japanese, those draw techniques are mostly Edo period techniques were in fact the idea was to fight in duels and brawls, but they were no battlefields. 3) Those books were not very diffused as for the techniques, in fact we see sometime in Japan commendation to a warrior because he began attending a sword school or else because mainly warriors train in their home with simple way (cutting bamboo, sparing wood swords, etc...). In Europe, techniques began to spread with court sword which were mostly design for duels.

Also is to be considered the use of those schools by the power, most in Japan. The case of the Jigen-ryu of Satsuma is very fascinating: After submitting to Hideyoshi in 1587, the Shimazu of Satsuma were to "justify" in someway their defeat in order to keep their retainer loyalty. One of the mean used in that objective was to attribuate the responsability of the defeat of the Sendai river on the same year to the said inefficience of the Taisha-ryu (School of the style Taisha). Following the years and after Sekigahara, the daimyo Shimazu Iehira was very impressed by the Jigen-ryu of the master Togo Shigekura and decide to settle which of the Taisha-ryu and the Jigen-ryu was best. Jigen-ryu was adopted after the victory of Togo in a "Taryu-jiai" (settle duel) against his Taisha-ryu opponent. Now why the Jigen-ryu was adopted? One can think that its because of the result of Taryu-jiai, but that nonsense because there are many schools aside of Jigen-ryu which could have be given the privilege to fight such duel, but only Jigen-ryu was allowed to do so. That because of the nature of the Jigen-ryu: his main training is to stroke violently a wood stake with very big screams. Its an incredible way to let off steam. The entire teaching of the school in fact is about self control and rigid restraint and that's something very important in time of peace in a province filled with violents and turbulent warriors. Did the Taisha-ryu was really ineffective? Apart from the Taryu-jiai (where in fact they could have win as they loose, and even perhaps this was pre-arranged to have the Jigen-ryu win by the authorities), the reason said of Taisha-ryu ineffectivness was because of the defeat of Sendai river, but that was not a true motive. Battle of Sendai river was lost because Shimazu were largely outnumbered and they didn't were able to lure the very well trained and experimented army of Hideyoshi like they lure the Otomo or the Ryuzoji. But because on an era where success decide of the fortune of one man, a daimyo like the Shimazu could not afford to be too much ashamed or his violents retainer will turn on him, thus he have to find an explanation in order to not loose the face.
And this is where we really see the nature of those martials school, in the same way that the Yagyu school were very prized because of their diplomatic use, martial schools have political goals, not martial. It was a manner to restrain warriors and not to really train them. All of those techniques displayed are precisly choregrafied because it is a way to restrain the violence of the warriors, it was not in fact by the most a true subject to war display, and when it was true fighting techniques, those were only some effective in duels and brawls situation in a time of peace, but not in battlefields where its common drills and manoeuvering who decide the fate of the army... and its courage. It is a fact to remember for ALL ancient wars because peoples (on forums most likely) give too much credit to techniques, like for to know if hoplites held spear forehead or not, this debate is meanless because in fact there was very few killing in actual combat, mostly because actual combat didn't last long, people were to run away very quickly.

About the sharp comparison. No, europeans were never great smithworkers, the only moment we have something a bit ahead of other culture is with celtic metallurgy, and today it is astonishing to see that those sword, by all the sharp they have, are very fragiles (like all very ancient weapons in fact, and those scenes of sword sparing in movies are purely fantaisy because swords of that era are too fragile to not broke when parring, this was one of the main explanation of the extent use of the shield in europe). In medieval time, only the wealthier have the means to import fine steel and pre-sharped fine blades, but most of the sword are in fact kinda of blunt, and even sometime have the tendency to twist in battle (but those swords were much more resistant than the ancients ones) while even rusty japanese sword were as cutting than the sharped sword of medieval knight. One appreciation that corroborate this statement is the trade. Europeans sword were never renowed and exported outside of europe itself and in fact they have the tendency to import steels and blades from outside while japanese swords were very exported in China and Corea and renowed as very reliable weapons.
This is also due to the different use of those weapons. In medieval europe, where the norm was to capture knights to ransom them, killing weapons were not sword or even axes but dagues and dirk which were renowed as "infamous" weapons attributed to routier and throat-cutter. When war became more deadly, close quarter weapons evolved to foil swords in order to thrust and make actual kill. It does happen in the same time of the Sengoku-jidai and a fine comparison can be held with the contemporary account of the passage of Hasekura Tsunesaga in France where the french are astonished by the sharp of japanese blades saying that "it would cut a paper by the simple force of a river stream". This kind of depiction of sharp swords exist elsewhere in europe: on mythological swords!

Hankyu and Daikyu are both yumi (弓). In "hankyu" (半弓) we have the kanji "half"(半) and the kanji "kyu" who can also be spelled "yumi" and simply mean "bow". In daikyu we have the kanji "tai" (大) wich mean "tall" or big and the kanji yumi again. Daikyu just mean "longbow" and hankyu "shortbow". They are not really category of specific weapons in fact, remember that most modern categories are modern construction.

Japanese did make a big use of shields called "tate", but those were used to form mobile shield wall where archers fire in defensives positions and advance behind them. Those shields look more like pavise or mantlets to us, but this was the evolution of shields in japan, it didn't disappear. In melee combat, japanese didn't really need hand shields at the contrary of other culture who relied on them because of the lack of efficiency of their own weapon, like europeans knights who's swords were more used like hammer than to actual cutting. They rely on swordstaff called "yari" which were as good for trust than for cut, and were more efficient than spears. During the Imjin war, in the few moments of melee fighting between chinese troops and japanese, we see japanese swordstaff trusting and piercing handshields of chinese swordsmen during the charge in the same manner phalanx pierce roman shields during macedonians war. In fact the chinese were about to rely more on haldeber after this encounter than swordsmen with shields and officers still import from japan japanese blades of swords and swordstaff and glaives (naginata) alike. Those weapons need 2 hands to be handled well and for the longest of them ("nagae yari", long swordstaff) they needed to be used in formations in order to be effective.
Yet Yari were not used like macedonian spears or modern europe spears. They form one to 3 row of spearsmen when ordered to fight infantry who are not as close than european tercio for example, in fact they are very mobile, but they must kneel and be immobile in line to stop cavalry. In infantry vs Infantry, they smack their enemy in a coordinated strike, pushing the blades togethers, melee never last long anyway and most of the time, it's the first charging who win.

Japanese, like many other people, used what was available to fight depending of their ressources. When Ikko Ikki marauders attacked Kyoto, noblesmen of the court cut down bamboo in order to arm citizens militias (machi-gumi) with bamboo spears. Peasants used many kind of weapons and we sometime see true war axes in hand of monks warrior. Yari were more reliable than other weapons because of political situation: war were now about to seize actual land rather than track down foe's kinship, but to do that, the ground was to be hold against cavalry and only trained spearmen could do that. From Onin war to the end of Warring states period, yari techniques on battlefield evolve greatly. Yari became longer and were massively used in line formation quarter called "yari blanket" (yari fusuma). Samurai footmen still used short yari in a less "formation" tactic like (but that don't mean they fight totally alone, in fact they fight in group, one keeping safe another back and protecting each other and helping to have opportunities to take a head) and were ordered to flank those long yari lines were the lenght of the yari became a disadvantage.

To import horses is big deal, more in statement of the warring state. Warlords have very few knowledge of outside world (and don't have really much time to dedicate to it) and could not make commands of specific thing. Instead, they rely on the offers of their own merchants, and if someone bring something interesting, they would make a command of it. The horses of today if they have the size, or even greater size than horses of this era, they are less strong and very less wild. Warriors like wild like horses because those bit people and smack them in battle and even if they were not as fast as the mongols one, they provide a great fighting plateform from where a spearmen could fight much alike an infantry men with some head ahead. The saddle was very stable as for the horsemen. In battle, horses units were in fact mixed with infantry followers. Knight were in fact "big infantry men" in much way than a tank. When charging, they scatter the enemy and disorganize his formation in order for the footmen following men kill isolated and scattered foe's in group and taking up the heads for them and protecting the knight and the horse when in danger. The operation begin with a fear like action, cavalry men riding around the enemy and suddenly charging one flank or another to break their formation, this was called "atenori" or "hit and run", then when enemy was brought by confusion with those successives attacks, knight will push their horses in middle of their ranks followed by infantry, this late action called "noriki". For spearmen it was very difficult to follow because nagae yari were more heavier than short spears and they have to provide a good formation in order to stop an actual charge, cavalry still can stop and easly flank them or attack elsewhere where the nagae yari were not anymore since they don't ride in wide formation like other country cavalry, but in very small teams of five or 10 horsemen and followers on foot.

Ps: sorry for bad english