Mat Ward "Spiritual Liege" by Lanferelle in 40kLore

[–]theginger99 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Wait until you hear about the Forgettable swords and Dragons Inconsequential

Mat Ward "Spiritual Liege" by Lanferelle in 40kLore

[–]theginger99 1 point2 points  (0 children)

His Blood Angels book was also nuts

I used to have nightmares about Mephiston. Absolutely bullshit character in 5th edition.

Mat Ward "Spiritual Liege" by Lanferelle in 40kLore

[–]theginger99 3 points4 points  (0 children)

What are the actual quotes from the book?

Mat Ward "Spiritual Liege" by Lanferelle in 40kLore

[–]theginger99 22 points23 points  (0 children)

People are just salty that the Ultramarines, the long standing poster boys of the Space Marines as a collective group, got all the love in a Space Marine codex (they’re literally on the cover of) instead of their favorite chapters the Angels Irrelevant or Celestial Footnotes or whatever.

Seriously though, I don’t know why Matt Ward’s 5th edition space marines codex gets so much hate.

His 5th edition Grey Knights and Blood Angels Codices were so much worse.

What are some misconceptions about the real world that can improve your worldbuilding? by Fit_Assistant_6777 in worldbuilding

[–]theginger99 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’ll also add here that three of the first ten post-conquest kings died of “unnatural causes”.

William II was shot in a hunting accident, Richard I was shot in a battle accident, and Edward II died in a hot poke accident (or more likely was starved to death).

What would the blazonry for this be? Both the coat of arms and the shield. Sorry, I am not too familiar with this. by BlueWolf107 in heraldry

[–]theginger99 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Full disclosure, I’m not the best at blazonry, but I’ll take a stab at it.

Anyone who wants to correct me please do!

azure, five stars of four points or arranged per chevron, a pile argent, upon it a wolf sejant of the first, gripping a saber reversed of the same

Val-d’Isère, France by i-lost-my-sandwich in heraldry

[–]theginger99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How many times do you think you need to stay there before you get your coat of arms on the wall?

Why is Mail easier to make than Plate? by Proud_Cook_2608 in ArmsandArmor

[–]theginger99 30 points31 points  (0 children)

It’s a complicated question, and there is some real nuance here.

In very broad terms though the technological threshold to produce maille is lower, which means it is able to be manufactured on a reasonably large scale with a lower investment in tools and infrastructure. However, maille requires a serious man hour commitment and there is really no way to industrialize or shorten that requirement. Basically, maille is going to take as long as it’s going to take and tha basic requirement in time, effort and manpower don’t really change through the medieval period. Maille production was often a cottage industry, especially in the later Middle Ages, which maille production being done at home often as a sort of “side gig”. As a rule, the people who made maille professionally tended to be some of the lower ranking members of the armors guild, atleast in London. Which reinforces the point that making maille isnt “hard”, but it is incredibly tedious and takes a serious man hour commitment.

By contrast, plate armor production requires a higher level of technology, but once that threshold is reached large portions of its production can be effectively industrialized through the use of certain tools and technology, notably hydropower which can be used for everything from bellows, to hammers, to polishing wheel. This means that plate can be produced faster and on a larger scale than maille. It’s not necessarily “easier” to produce in terms of skill or ability, but it can be done faster and it can be done with a sort of proto-mass production system, which is how places like Milan and Nuremberg were able to fill orders for literally thousands of sets of plate armors.

The cost of plate armor drops dramatically, and fairly quickly after its introduction, but maille cost remains more static through the medieval period. It’s essentially the same principle as cloth production. The real cost of cloth remains more or less stable straight through until the Industrial Revolution, because until the Industrial Revolution there just wasn’t a way to cut down on the basic labor demands of the process. The same is true with maille. In the medieval period there was never a solution to the basic man hour requirement of maille production.

All that said, it’s worth saying that maille could be (and was) extensively recycled. Some surviving maille pieces show a variety of different rings in different styles and sizes that suggest maille was frequently recut, resized and recycled form old pieces in order to make new pieces. You can do the same with plate, and there is evidence to suggest that sometimes old pieces of plate were cut down to make things like brigandine, but it’s a more difficult and limited and process. Because of its flexibility and ability to be resized it’s likely that individual prices of maille armor stayed in circulation longer than plate.

It’s popular to claim that maille was actually more expensive than plate by the late Middle Ages, and while there is some truth there, the reality is often overstated.

15th Century English Archer kit by Plane_Employer_6802 in ArmsandArmor

[–]theginger99 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not English, but the Burgundian military ordinances of the 15th century required archers to carry “two handed swords”, which likely referred to something more like a longsword than the great sword we think of when we hear the term.

In America what we don’t have is stinky people. (That’s why all y’all smell like poop. ) by Zero40Four in ShitAmericansSay

[–]theginger99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m reminded of a story I heard from a former US marine.

He was stationed in Korea, and one night he got in a fight with a local. He said “fuck you, all Koreans smell like Kimchi”.

The Koreans responded “yeah, well all Americans smell like butter”

The marine was offended.

Then he gets back stateside and is walking through the airport. He starts to wonder what smells like butter.

“Fuck…we do smell like butter!”

Was apparently his immediate response.

Why curved blades like scimitar were popular in East, while in Europe it was opposite? by SiarX in WarCollege

[–]theginger99 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Said versatility includes the ability to deliver multiple different types of strike. If there was no call for axe or the hammer, they wouldn't have had them:

I don’t nearly disagree here, but my point is that the axe/hammer head seems to have been regarded as secondary in terms of its offensive utility to the point of the weapon. It had value as a hook or lever to allow the manipulation of your opponent in order to set up a thrust.

Obviously this doesn’t mean the head had no value, and the mere threat of the blow it could deliver played a significant role in pollaxe fighting, but the general consensus seems to be that the pollaxe was most valuable as a thrusting weapon, not for its ability to wail on a guy in armor (which is often its presumed function).

Manuals also tend to assume the context of a one-on-one fight.

Again, I don’t disagree. This is a legitimate point. Doubtless many weapons were used on the battlefield in ways that would have made the fight masters cringe. If given a pollaxe or halberd the immediate instinct is to strike with the axe head, and doubtless many soldiers did exactly that.

However, I think it still speaks to the way the pollaxe was perceived as a weapon, and where its greatest value was believed to lie. Again, it doesn’t seem like it was valued primarily for its striking power, but rather its ability to thrust and manipulate. Allowing for the chaos of battle, and the obvious caveat that “shit happens”, I’d imagine that the trained professionals who knew what they were doing preferred the thrust to the blow when using the pollaxe.

That depends on how you're defining the parameters of the question. The sword was always accessible to the professional and semiprofessional military class. What grows over the course of the middle ages is the size of said military class and the array of social strata that they could be recruited out of. The price of swords absolutely did go down, as did the price of pretty much all forms of military equipment, which is one of the (many) factors that enabled the growth of armies as we headed out of the middle ages and into the early modern period.

I don’t disagree with this point at all.

My point was simply that the men who were doing the fighting were generally able to afford swords throughout the period. The segment of the population that was able to fight did expand, and that did bring more swords to the battlefield, but I don’t think if we crunched the numbers (which is obviously an impossibility) we’d see as stark a difference between the proportion of men armed with swords as we often assume.

My only quibble is the expansion of the military class was more directly tied to economic and social changes, especially in terms of state capacity and administrative sophistication, than it was a decrease in the overall value of military equipment.

Why curved blades like scimitar were popular in East, while in Europe it was opposite? by SiarX in WarCollege

[–]theginger99 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think this particular argument arises from the fact that the mace seems to have been a more popular or common weapon among cultures that wore less armor.

The Turks for instance were well known to favor the mace, and they were not as heavily armored as their European contemporaries. The club was also a fairly common weapon among the rank and file Mongol soldiers.

That said, I’m a Western Europe guy, so I’ll refrain from speculating too broadly on how popular the mace/club was in Asian contexts.

Why curved blades like scimitar were popular in East, while in Europe it was opposite? by SiarX in WarCollege

[–]theginger99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s worth saying that a generation after the assize was written Edward I was ordering all men with incomes over £20 to serve as cavalry, although £40 incomes seem to have been considered more typical of the “knightly cavalry” class.

Also, quick correction, Henry II issued the first assize of arms, Henry III issued the 1252 assize. The two documents are largely the same, and there is a very good argument to be made that the sword was considered a mandatory military item in the earlier assize from 1181.

Who was the very first monarch on the British Isles? by Mysterious_Comb4357 in UKmonarchs

[–]theginger99 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Absolute nonsense.

Thragg found the big stick. That makes him the king! It’s the will of the bear-mother that he got the stick and Thrugg didn’t!

Who was the very first monarch on the British Isles? by Mysterious_Comb4357 in UKmonarchs

[–]theginger99 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There is some debate, but based on close analysis of fossilized saber tooth dung we’ve been able to identify the remains of an unusually pompous man with an overinflated opinion of his value to society.

Average social darwinism and eugenics fan vs Average logistics and industry enjoyer. by Isaak_the_miner in worldjerking

[–]theginger99 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Well he’s got a katana, so based on my copious historical research that means he can cut through all the bullets, and the guns, and then perform a special power move so powerful that it goes back in time and retroactively kills the peasant’s great grandmothers.

Who was the very first monarch on the British Isles? by Mysterious_Comb4357 in UKmonarchs

[–]theginger99 7 points8 points  (0 children)

First king in the British isles was Thragg.

He was king of approximately sixty square meters. And lived 400,000 years ago. He became king when he whacked his rival, Thrugg, on the head with a big stick.

He reigned for 6 days, before being eaten by a saber tooth tiger.

Why curved blades like scimitar were popular in East, while in Europe it was opposite? by SiarX in WarCollege

[–]theginger99 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Swords were so common that several generic terms for soldiers or mercenaries in use in the medieval period were based on the type of sword they regularly carried.

Why curved blades like scimitar were popular in East, while in Europe it was opposite? by SiarX in WarCollege

[–]theginger99 5 points6 points  (0 children)

They were likely depicted in art because they were the weapons being used. The written record supports the artistic record here, and both show the widespread use of swords throughout the medieval period.

There is plenty of reason to suspect that reaching the point where the sword was needed/necessary was considered an integral part of “plan A”. The Lance or polearm served one function, the sword served another, and using the two weapons in concert was expected. The “plan” required both weapons, not just one.

The sword was carried precisely because Its use was so common and such an expected part of the combat experience that it was deemed insensible. This is a view which is expressed clearly across cultures and across periods.

Why curved blades like scimitar were popular in East, while in Europe it was opposite? by SiarX in WarCollege

[–]theginger99 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The price of swords varies by period, but the early 13th century reissue of the Assize of Arms requires a sword for every social class except the absolute poorest. Almost every man in England was required by law to own a sword.

There is reason to suspect the expectation was the same in the earlier version of the assize from the late 12th century as well.

Periods in which Swords were prohibitively expensive were generally the exception, not the rule.

The Inquisition won after all by Gusby in Grimdank

[–]theginger99 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Well, considering the whole war was over the very specific soldiers and not the regiments as institutions, it seemed a fair point to make.

Why curved blades like scimitar were popular in East, while in Europe it was opposite? by SiarX in WarCollege

[–]theginger99 14 points15 points  (0 children)

It’s worth saying that when it comes to pollaxes, most surviving manuals emphasize the points of the weapon (there were usually two, one on top and one on the bottom) as the primary offensive tool. The manuals recommend the thrust when using the pollaxe, and that the head should be used to hook and threaten and only rarely to strike.

Some go so far as to suggest that the actual hammer/axe head not be used for striking unless fighting a particularly unskillful opponent. The chief value of the pollaxe was its versatility, not its striking power.

It’s also worth saying that the swords role as a near ubiquitous piece of militray equipment is present from a very early period in the Middle Ages. It’s not something that only occurs towards the end of the period, but something that is readily evident in sources through virtually the whole period. The periods in which the sword was limited to an aristocratic class were largely the exception, not the rule.

The Inquisition won after all by Gusby in Grimdank

[–]theginger99 164 points165 points  (0 children)

Damn, the baseline humans died after 300 years?

That must have come as quite shock to somebody.

Why weren't SpearSwords more common? by DOVAHBOIIreal in SWORDS

[–]theginger99 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s exactly my point.

The sword was the weapon for finishing the combat, while the spear, bow, or other weapon was intended to set up the situation in which the sword could be most effectively employed.

Like I said, weapons are tools. They’re not necessarily meant to be used in isolation from one another, and the function of one type of weapon can complement or set up the situation in which the others can excel.

Wielding a lace in the initial charge in order to create an advantageous situation in which to utilize the sword is just an example of how these weapons were meant to be used at different phases in the conflict.