Scott
Member
Posts: 1,680
|
Post by Scott on Mar 6, 2020 4:20:41 GMT
What do we have here? It's been sitting around for a while, waiting for a new handle. Before I could make a handle the rivet that had helped the old handle on needed to be removed, which I did by passing a fret saw blade through the socket, attaching it to the frame and cutting it in half. I was going to make a short handle for it, which is appropriate for this type of billhook, but was at the hardware store and found some fern hook handles on clearance so I bought them. Sanded the lacquer off one then rasped down the end to fit the socket. The head still needs to be attached properly, currently it's a pressure fit which won't be enough. I'm planning to file down the rivet halves and use good technique them to nail the head on, which should work. Then oil the handle, tidy up the grind, then sharpen it.
|
|
Scott
Member
Posts: 1,680
|
Post by Scott on Mar 6, 2020 4:35:20 GMT
Anyone else have a peasant choppy thing or two?
|
|
|
Post by Lord Newport on Mar 6, 2020 4:48:31 GMT
Best way to deal with revolting peasants is to starve them...that and heavy cavalry with archers.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Mar 6, 2020 4:55:26 GMT
Best way to deal with revolting peasants is to starve them...that and heavy cavalry with archers. That'll learn um. The beatings will continue until moral improves.
|
|
christain
Member
It's the steel on the inside that counts.
Posts: 2,835
|
Post by christain on Mar 6, 2020 5:12:10 GMT
I AM a revolting peasant....who just happens to own weapons and armor.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Newport on Mar 6, 2020 5:28:59 GMT
I AM a revolting peasant....who just happens to own weapons and armor. Ownership of weapons and armor by definition prohibits your classification as a peasant, revolting or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Mar 6, 2020 6:00:25 GMT
An interesting question, could knights be peasants as well? I think someone could have been born a peasant and became a knight later but I'm not even sure of that. Another question is could a peasant have enough dough to have a suit of armor (maybe handed down, found, or something)?
|
|
|
Post by Lord Newport on Mar 6, 2020 6:16:58 GMT
An interesting question, could knights be peasants as well? I think someone could have been born a peasant and became a knight later but I'm not even sure of that. Another question is could a peasant have enough dough to have a suit of armor (maybe handed down, found, or something)? I suspect that possession of such things by a peasant would usually mean death...
|
|
|
Post by howler on Mar 6, 2020 7:29:01 GMT
An interesting question, could knights be peasants as well? I think someone could have been born a peasant and became a knight later but I'm not even sure of that. Another question is could a peasant have enough dough to have a suit of armor (maybe handed down, found, or something)? I suspect that possession of such things by a peasant would usually mean death... I'm also thinking that the quality of the suit of armor would make the peasant no longer a peasant.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Mar 6, 2020 8:03:40 GMT
An interesting question, could knights be peasants as well? I think someone could have been born a peasant and became a knight later but I'm not even sure of that. Another question is could a peasant have enough dough to have a suit of armor (maybe handed down, found, or something)? Depending on time and place and your definition of "knight" and "peasant", sure.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Mar 6, 2020 12:30:06 GMT
Ya, an interesting question. In Europe one was born into a class that could be knighted. In England one could earn knighthood regardless if I’m correct. A peasant would not have sufficient money but I suppose a peasant could obtain armour as a battlefield pickup. Whether he would be allowed to keep such I suppose depends. And it’s doubtful that he would have more than a piece or two at best. As far as weapons if I’m not mistaken Germany or what is now Germany was the reasoning behind a messer. While swords were forbidden a knife wasn’t and a messer fit their definition of knife. And near as I can tell it wasn’t what a peasant owned so much as his justification for owning it, much of the same as we experience today.
|
|
|
Post by RaylonTheDemented on Mar 6, 2020 12:30:33 GMT
I AM a revolting peasant....who just happens to own weapons and armor. Ownership of weapons and armor by definition prohibits your classification as a peasant, revolting or otherwise. What. that would make of Christain a revolting knight?
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Mar 6, 2020 12:59:13 GMT
I know, right? If only the peasants would wash once in a while and learn some manners- and maybe learn how to read, then maybe they wouldn't be so revolting.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Thorfinn on Mar 6, 2020 14:16:28 GMT
And worst of all, they taste bad
|
|
|
Post by Lord Newport on Mar 6, 2020 14:48:49 GMT
I suspect that possession of such things by a peasant would usually mean death... I'm also thinking that the quality of the suit of armor would make the peasant no longer a peasant. Quality of armor would indicate the difference between a knight and a Man at Arms I suppose. Again, anyone who owns armor and weapons, by definition, is not a peasant. A peasant would not be allowed to own such things and would most likely sell anything found/picked up. An interesting question, could knights be peasants as well? I think someone could have been born a peasant and became a knight later but I'm not even sure of that. Another question is could a peasant have enough dough to have a suit of armor (maybe handed down, found, or something)? Depending on time and place and your definition of "knight" and "peasant", sure. It is doubtful that a peasant would ever have the time to acquire the training needed to become a knight, much less the equipment (weapons, armor, horses, squire). During the middle ages, a knight was a "business concern" whose training and capital requirement would be beyond someone who was bound to the land and lived hand to mouth. Ya, an interesting question. In Europe one was born into a class that could be knighted. In England one could earn knighthood regardless if I’m correct. A peasant would not have sufficient money but I suppose a peasant could obtain armour as a battlefield pickup. Whether he would be allowed to keep such I suppose depends. And it’s doubtful that he would have more than a piece or two at best. As far as weapons if I’m not mistaken Germany or what is now Germany was the reasoning behind a messer. While swords were forbidden a knife wasn’t and a messer fit their definition of knife. And near as I can tell it wasn’t what a peasant owned so much as his justification for owning it, much of the same as we experience today. When knighthoods became honors and not a business concern, yes anyone could become a knight. Ownership of weapons and armor by definition prohibits your classification as a peasant, revolting or otherwise. What. that would make of Christain a revolting knight? A very RUDE and revolting knight indeed. A class traitor as well.. I know, right? If only the peasants would wash once in a while and learn some manners- and maybe learn how to read, then maybe they wouldn't be so revolting. Washing is fine but teach them to read? Then they would be revolting... And worst of all, they taste bad Depends on how ya cook em, BBQ tends to hide some of the bad taste.
|
|
|
Post by fester on Mar 6, 2020 16:51:28 GMT
As to peasants possessing weapons it varied from place to place.
in England it was actually a requirement for all males to possess weapons since they could be called out to serve in the militia and armies.
Now the weapons varied from individual to individual depending on money but swords were normally not prohibited from ownership in England.
The carrying of the weapons was sometimes regulated depending on different factors but England was probably one of the most liberal realms in regards to weapons compared to the rest of Europe.
Armor fell under the same guidelines in England.
the rest of Europe varied on possession of weapons. But it seems not to have been enforced too rigidly even in places were weapons were prohibited. In other words there was a lot of lax enforcement of weapons laws
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Mar 6, 2020 17:09:38 GMT
By and large Japan had liberal laws concerning the carrying of weapons. The Samurai were the only ones allowed to carry two swords, but anybody could have one if they could afford it. Of course, it's a broad generalization and there were times and places where it became more restrictive, but for the most part owning a weapon was widely allowed.
|
|
|
Post by treeslicer on Mar 6, 2020 18:38:04 GMT
By and large Japan had liberal laws concerning the carrying of weapons. The Samurai were the only ones allowed to carry two swords, but anybody could have one if they could afford it. Of course, it's a broad generalization and there were times and places where it became more restrictive, but for the most part owning a weapon was widely allowed. The generally unregulated state of things prior to Edo (the Tokugawa shogunate period after 1600) was seen as having encouraged the temple-based Buddhist monk armies, which together with peasant revolts so exacerbated conditions during the Sengoku. Exterminating the armed monks and disarming the peasants was a goal of pretty much all the major daimyo during the late Sengoku. The laws specifying daisho to only be carried by samurai, along with the blade length restrictions and the fixed status of the four classes were decreed by the early Edo shoguns. The way it usually worked during Edo, anybody not considered a public threat could own a wak or a tanto for self defense, traveling merchants especially.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Mar 6, 2020 18:59:11 GMT
By and large Japan had liberal laws concerning the carrying of weapons. The Samurai were the only ones allowed to carry two swords, but anybody could have one if they could afford it. Of course, it's a broad generalization and there were times and places where it became more restrictive, but for the most part owning a weapon was widely allowed. The generally unregulated state of things prior to Edo (the Tokugawa shogunate period after 1600) was seen as having encouraged the temple-based Buddhist monk armies, which together with peasant revolts so exacerbated conditions during the Sengoku. Exterminating the armed monks and disarming the peasants was a goal of pretty much all the major daimyo during the late Sengoku. The laws specifying daisho to only be carried by samurai, along with the blade length restrictions and the fixed status of the four classes were decreed by the early Edo shoguns. The way it usually worked during Edo, anybody not considered a public threat could own a wak or a tanto for self defense, traveling merchants especially. And things aren't really much different today.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Newport on Mar 6, 2020 19:07:01 GMT
The generally unregulated state of things prior to Edo (the Tokugawa shogunate period after 1600) was seen as having encouraged the temple-based Buddhist monk armies, which together with peasant revolts so exacerbated conditions during the Sengoku. Exterminating the armed monks and disarming the peasants was a goal of pretty much all the major daimyo during the late Sengoku. The laws specifying daisho to only be carried by samurai, along with the blade length restrictions and the fixed status of the four classes were decreed by the early Edo shoguns. T he way it usually worked during Edo, anybody not considered a public threat could own a wak or a tanto for self defense, traveling merchants especially. And things aren't really much different today. I agree...
|
|