|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Jan 26, 2018 1:07:33 GMT
I've found I can put a 900g sword in somebody's hands, ask for an estimate of the weight, and commonly get 3-4kg as the estimate. At which point, I ask how the weight compares to a 2 litre bottle of milk, orange juice, coke, whatever. This is usually followed by a more accurate estimate of the weight.
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Jan 26, 2018 4:03:23 GMT
Priests would only use blunt instruments in fighting. Right, because "Priests weren't allowed to shed blood". As if smashing someone's head in with a mace wouldn't make them bleed.... I stand corrected: there were indeed some restrictions against clerics shedding blood: "18. Clerics to dissociate from shedding-blood
No cleric may decree or pronounce a sentence involving the shedding of blood, or carry out a punishment involving the same, or be present when such punishment is carried out. If anyone, however, under cover of this statute, dares to inflict injury on churches or ecclesiastical persons, let him be restrained by ecclesiastical censure. A cleric may not write or dictate letters which require punishments involving the shedding of blood, in the courts of princes this responsibility should be entrusted to laymen and not to clerics. Moreover no cleric may be put in command of mercenaries or crossbowmen or suchlike men of blood; nor may a subdeacon, deacon or priest practise the art of surgery, which involves cauterizing and making incisions; nor may anyone confer a rite of blessing or consecration on a purgation by ordeal of boiling or cold water or of the red-hot iron, saving nevertheless the previously promulgated prohibitions regarding single combats and duels."
Source: www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum12-2.htm#18
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Jan 26, 2018 11:36:47 GMT
Basically, a person will believe whatever they want to believe in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
On the other hand, however, supposedly late Middle Ages tilting armor was on the heavy side, but hardly so heavy that a person couldn't move. Anyone thinking about these questions should first try on a modern flak vest, then hang about 200 rounds of ammunition on your shoulders and pick up a rifle. It is claimed that soldiers, no matter when, have always had to carry the same weights into battle. It might be stretching a point to say that but it's easy to understand.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Jan 26, 2018 17:57:53 GMT
Anyone thinking about these questions should first try on a modern flak vest, then hang about 200 rounds of ammunition on your shoulders and pick up a rifle. It is claimed that soldiers, no matter when, have always had to carry the same weights into battle. It might be stretching a point to say that but it's easy to understand. You want to add a back pack radio such as the PRC-25 to that along with accessories and a spare battery? I humped many a mile with one. I cannot remember the weight other than heavy, which seemed to grow with time. That's not to mention all the other mess. Those were the days, I wish that I could relive them again.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Jan 26, 2018 18:00:57 GMT
Right, because "Priests weren't allowed to shed blood". As if smashing someone's head in with a mace wouldn't make them bleed.... "18. Clerics to dissociate from shedding-blood
No cleric may decree or pronounce a sentence involving the shedding of blood, ...
Source: www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum12-2.htm#18That’s assuming all religions are the same, which they are not.
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,844
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Jan 26, 2018 20:28:39 GMT
Right, Aztec priests weren't allowed to not shed blood!
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Jan 26, 2018 20:38:08 GMT
Metaphorically, dude, metaphorically. :P Also, literally. I have bent and broken steel with my bare hands. There are too many variables and vagueries to apply blanket statements to these particular enigmas. I think of it as part of the strong/weak concept. The sword is strongest at the point where you hold it. It's weakest at its tip, and can be much more easily manipulated there.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Jan 26, 2018 20:42:01 GMT
Right, because "Priests weren't allowed to shed blood". As if smashing someone's head in with a mace wouldn't make them bleed.... I stand corrected: there were indeed some restrictions against clerics shedding blood: "18. Clerics to dissociate from shedding-blood
No cleric may decree or pronounce a sentence involving the shedding of blood, or carry out a punishment involving the same, or be present when such punishment is carried out. If anyone, however, under cover of this statute, dares to inflict injury on churches or ecclesiastical persons, let him be restrained by ecclesiastical censure. A cleric may not write or dictate letters which require punishments involving the shedding of blood, in the courts of princes this responsibility should be entrusted to laymen and not to clerics. Moreover no cleric may be put in command of mercenaries or crossbowmen or suchlike men of blood; nor may a subdeacon, deacon or priest practise the art of surgery, which involves cauterizing and making incisions; nor may anyone confer a rite of blessing or consecration on a purgation by ordeal of boiling or cold water or of the red-hot iron, saving nevertheless the previously promulgated prohibitions regarding single combats and duels."
Source: www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum12-2.htm#18This was addressing punishments, but there were indeed a variety of official condemnations of clerics who fought and operated as knights and soldiers. It never worked too well ;-) The Church councils and Popes had also been condemning judicial dueling for centuries but the nobles ignored them. It's similar to all the manifold restrictions on the practice of sexual relations the Church imposed. How well these worked can be seen by the request that parishioners at LEAST stop having sex in the church during services. The medieval attitude towards the Church rules seems to be similar to modern American attitude towards a lot of federal laws. Some you know won't be enforced, others you pay attention to. These "no fighting" rules seem to have fallen into the former category, considering the number of Bishops who not only cut people's heads off in combat but ran armies and castles. There's a bunch of current research on this topic, with at least three scholarly books published in the past five years from academics looking into armed clergy. We HEMAists have known about it for a long time of course. The disconnect between what was SAID by Church lawyers and officials and what was DONE by the militant Bishops and priests was remarkable. But in the end if you are a cleric with knightly training as the younger son of a noble and your family and King need you, you're very likely to ignore the Pope. Or both Popes. So by the late medieval you end up with clerics openly practicing a trade as sword masters under the protection of local lords. And Bishops commanding whole armies. And of course the Pope had his own military forces during the period. Though I don't know if any of the pontiffs ever carried a weapon. By the modern era things calmed down and with the rise of nations states and shattering of Church power in much of Europe, there was much less reason for noble family members to become clerics. And plenty of opportunity for them running professional armies. The idea of clerics with maces seems to have come from some Victorian sources conflating the no bloodshed in torture rule, the no fighting rule and Bishop Odo's command stick to arrive at this conclusion. The Clerics in D&D were originally vampire hunters, but quickly morphed into their present role where they kind of have to be restricted in weaponry or nobody would want to be a fighter.
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Jan 26, 2018 21:14:36 GMT
That’s assuming all religions are the same, which they are not. I was referring specifically to Catholic Christian priests of the Middle Ages. I stand corrected: there were indeed some restrictions against clerics shedding blood: "18. Clerics to dissociate from shedding-blood
No cleric may decree or pronounce a sentence involving the shedding of blood, or carry out a punishment involving the same, or be present when such punishment is carried out. If anyone, however, under cover of this statute, dares to inflict injury on churches or ecclesiastical persons, let him be restrained by ecclesiastical censure. A cleric may not write or dictate letters which require punishments involving the shedding of blood, in the courts of princes this responsibility should be entrusted to laymen and not to clerics. Moreover no cleric may be put in command of mercenaries or crossbowmen or suchlike men of blood; nor may a subdeacon, deacon or priest practise the art of surgery, which involves cauterizing and making incisions; nor may anyone confer a rite of blessing or consecration on a purgation by ordeal of boiling or cold water or of the red-hot iron, saving nevertheless the previously promulgated prohibitions regarding single combats and duels."
Source: www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum12-2.htm#18This was addressing punishments, but there were indeed a variety of official condemnations of clerics who fought and operated as knights and soldiers. It never worked too well ;-) The Church councils and Popes had also been condemning judicial dueling for centuries but the nobles ignored them. It's similar to all the manifold restrictions on the practice of sexual relations the Church imposed. How well these worked can be seen by the request that parishioners at LEAST stop having sex in the church during services. The medieval attitude towards the Church rules seems to be similar to modern American attitude towards a lot of federal laws. Some you know won't be enforced, others you pay attention to. These "no fighting" rules seem to have fallen into the former category, considering the number of Bishops who not only cut people's heads off in combat but ran armies and castles. There's a bunch of current research on this topic, with at least three scholarly books published in the past five years from academics looking into armed clergy. We HEMAists have known about it for a long time of course. The disconnect between what was SAID by Church lawyers and officials and what was DONE by the militant Bishops and priests was remarkable. But in the end if you are a cleric with knightly training as the younger son of a noble and your family and King need you, you're very likely to ignore the Pope. Or both Popes. So by the late medieval you end up with clerics openly practicing a trade as sword masters under the protection of local lords. And Bishops commanding whole armies. And of course the Pope had his own military forces during the period. Though I don't know if any of the pontiffs ever carried a weapon. By the modern era things calmed down and with the rise of nations states and shattering of Church power in much of Europe, there was much less reason for noble family members to become clerics. And plenty of opportunity for them running professional armies. Rodrigo Borgia. All I'm gonna say, heh. And yeah, armed clergy in Europe reminds me of the Buddhist warrior-monks of Japan. Not killing is a tenet of Buddhism, but we can see how well that was followed....
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Jan 29, 2018 13:38:07 GMT
Judging from what I have read and putting two and two together, it may be that some well-known arms from the past weren't as good as all that. The general theory that such a thought runs contrary to, is that the older something is, the better it is. That seems to be a rule of thumb applied to everything. Don't buy something when it just comes out--wait until they get the bugs out. The parallel axiom is that "they don't make 'em like they used to." That isn't to imply that they make them better now, of course. One does read accounts of cavalry swords in the 19th century being of poor quality, though.
The functional qualities of a thing seem to have only a slight bearing on how well liked something is. Some objects, speaking here only of personal weapons, take on a mythical and eventually, venerated characteristic. Usually, however, they aren't entirely undeserved but they tend to overshadow faults. Speaking only of bladed weapons, one such weapon is the Sykes-Fairbairn knife. I've never had one and never saw one in three years in the army (never saw an M16, either--that had to wait until I was in the National Guard). But supposedly, they had weak tips that were prone to breaking. Have no idea if it is true but Rex Applegate came out with his own version of a fighting dagger. Never had one of those, either.
My father, who probably never saw a Sykes-Fairbairn knife either, said the old long bayonets would break easily. But I've never heard of any mythical qualities assigned to a long bayonet.
|
|
ChrisA
Member
Senior Forumite
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by ChrisA on Jan 29, 2018 15:55:09 GMT
As has been said several times in this thread already, the biggest myth I run into is the weight and sharpness of swords.
I have handed swords to my friends to have them tell me they are not "real" since they are so light. They had images of basically a thick, heavy, unsharpened, inflexible hunk of steel with a handle.
It took me a while to convince them that my swords are, in fact, real and that swords do not weight 10-15 pounds (thank you D&D!) and are pretty darn sharp.
Though I think they just agreed with me to shut me up...
|
|
christain
Member
It's the steel on the inside that counts.
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by christain on Jan 29, 2018 16:46:36 GMT
As has been said several times in this thread already, the biggest myth I run into is the weight and sharpness of swords. I have handed swords to my friends to have them tell me they are not "real" since they are so light. They had images of basically a thick, heavy, unsharpened, inflexible hunk of steel with a handle. It took me a while to convince them that my swords are, in fact, real and that swords do not weight 10-15 pounds (thank you D&D!) and are pretty darn sharp. Though I think they just agreed with me to shut me up... Haha....I was showing off one of my swords (Hanwei Cawood) to a lady friend of my wife's, and she said: "It's so light! Is it aluminum?" I just smiled and put it back on the wall.
|
|
seth
Member
Just Peachy
Posts: 977
|
Post by seth on Jan 31, 2018 18:34:01 GMT
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Jan 31, 2018 19:05:20 GMT
I have handed swords to my friends to have them tell me they are not "real" since they are so light. They had images of basically a thick, heavy, unsharpened, inflexible hunk of steel with a handle. Haha....I was showing off one of my swords (Hanwei Cawood) to a lady friend of my wife's, and she said: "It's so light! Is it aluminum?" I just smiled and put it back on the wall. (rofl) I cannot remember the details now but I was showing my swords and the person made a funny face as to say “Ya, sure/get real”. I took him out back, filling a plastic jug on the way. My cutting stand was already there, just needed be re-positioned. I made a perfect cut saying "your neck" and you should have seen his face. I made a believer.
|
|
christain
Member
It's the steel on the inside that counts.
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by christain on Jan 31, 2018 19:39:38 GMT
Hmmm.....$19.98 ? I bet that's a real keeper. I might buy one to cut down into a big dagger...or just leave it whole and use it as an anchor on my flat-bottom fishin' boat.
|
|
|
Post by RaylonTheDemented on Jan 31, 2018 20:38:54 GMT
Haha....I was showing off one of my swords (Hanwei Cawood) to a lady friend of my wife's, and she said: "It's so light! Is it aluminum?" I just smiled and put it back on the wall. ...I made a perfect cut saying "your neck" and you should have seen his face. I made a believer.' ' Your neck' This is gold, GOLD.
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Jan 31, 2018 21:50:31 GMT
...I made a perfect cut saying "your neck" and you should have seen his face. I made a believer.' ' Your neck' This is gold, GOLD. Awesome!
|
|
|
Post by Dalin Caulder on Jan 31, 2018 22:06:45 GMT
Armor = Decoration, see Starwars - Storm Trooper
|
|
|
Post by Dalin Caulder on Jan 31, 2018 22:09:15 GMT
Another one:
D&D Guy "A long sword is way better then (insert other sword)." Dungeons & Dragons logic.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Feb 1, 2018 12:10:58 GMT
Could Richard I (the Lion heart) really cut through an iron bar with his sword? And could Saladin's sword slice through a pillow? And which would you rather have?
|
|