-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wolflance
In Europe? Probably never common. Most of the time cuir bouilli was made into vambrace to protect the inside of your wrist (from archery-related injuries, like getting smacked by the bowstring).
The Morgan Bible contains illustration of poorer troops that apparently wear "cuirie", a (possibly) leather breastplate, and there are speculations that at least some early plate armor was made of leather instead of metal, particularly in Italy. But nothing concrete.
A leather body armor along with arm protections was discovered somewhere in Denmark as well (forget the name, it's not like I can speak Danish at all), but it was apparently made for teenagers, and used in training instead of real combat.
Leather armor was much more common in the East, particularly East Asia, although most leather armors should be called "rawhide" armor in truth. Rawhide is tougher and generally performs better as armor than tanned leather, boiled or not. They generally come in the form of rawhide scale armor or lamellar armor.
As far as protection goes, rawhide armor sits between iron armor and padded armor (gambeson etc), both in real life as well as in RPGs.
I see. So what were soldiers wearing that kind of armor using as weapons?
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Epimethee
Still about the wounds : what would a fight intended to be the most spectacular with the less lethality Look like? I mean something akin to gladiatorial fighting. You want real blood to please the peoples but you want also a fight longer than one or two exchanges and you mainly don’t want to kill your opponent.
Where should i aim to obtain the less incapacitating wounds with the biggest Visual? I understand that the weapons and styles of the gladiators are a good starting point, but i’m sure this thread will have some deep and specific knowledge.
And by the way what about the weapons? Would some of them never fit the bill of a mock fight with real wounds? Are some technics, like thrusting, too lethal to be ever used? ( so what about a trident?)
Many thanks!
I think "chubby" might be a bit of a misleading word and people grab onto this idea to much, but it's true that gladiators put on extra chub to get the a nice, slashable form. But they also had dumbel equivalents and did lifting exercises (amongst many other more soldier-practical fitness activities) so they also had muscle that was cosmetic, protective and practical under that fat.
Gladiator training notes are patchy and varied a lot because of all the different schools/regions/times/wealth of owner and so on.
The Manica is a sleeve armour that they wore, probably because the arm'll be more likely to end a career. The torso was hardly armoured, to encourage hitting it..
If you take a quick look at gladiator trident artifacts, they don't look like they would've been very sharp. Sharp enough to cut, sure, but not very deeply.
Gladiators would learn acting techniques and would be taught that if they were going to die, they should die with style. WWE is a maybe, maybe not kind of thing.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yora
Yes, but again, with the exception of vulnerable arteries, it's the stabs that pose much more danger than the cuts.
Another nasty thing about knives is that because they are so small, they are hard to see and require only small movements. Once the opponents close in to effective stabbing range, it becomes hard to even see a strike coming and do anything to avoid getting hit.
Since I don't mean to make lethal fights appear in any way glorious, I am seriously considering making shanking the main cause of violent death. Followed by unseen arrows. The most effective way to kill people is when they can't fight back.
It seems to have been a matter of debate. A stab requires much less energy to kill if it hits something important, but a powerful chop is more likely to hit something important in the first place. Additionally a cut might be more likely to quickly incapacitate or put someone out of action, for instance by completely severing major muscles or lopping off an arm or leg. A stab to the lower abdomen would usually be pretty lethal, but it might not kill right away unless you pierce the heart or the brain.
Regarding realistic melee fights, if it's an actual fight between two men or two small groups of men rather than someone getting shanked from behind without warning then most of the time it might not even be that lethal in the first place. Getting close enough to stab someone means you have to get close enough that they might hurt you back, which was extremely scary and extremely risky even for very skilled fighters. It may depend on the situation but instead you're likely to see a lot of posturing, shouting, quick jabs and flashy, sweeping moves, and perhaps getting close enough to make contact weapon on weapon or even recieve the occasional nick or scratch, but rarely actually getting close enough to cause or receive serious injuries while waiting for that elusive "opening", or just waiting for help to arrive or for the enemy to grow tired and leave. Whenever one fighter does think that he's at a significant disadvantage he's likely to give ground or just leg it out of there.
Getting back to the subject of wounds. This is much more speculation on my part so I'll let other people chime in if they want to, but it might be interesting to keep in mind the different visual or psychological effect different types of wounds might have in addition to just the physical effect. In a fight between two small groups of men it would be one thing to see your friend receive a stab to his right arm and unable to fight any longer, but something entirely else to see your friend clutching a bloody stump where the rest of his arm used to be, or to see his head split in half by a powerful chop from a greatsword or daneaxe. I suspect that the latter would cause you to lose confidence and end the fight much quicker than the former would.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tobtor
About the massacre:
About the missing weapons: We are at the very late era for large weapon sacrifices. That is the main period is early 3rd to late 4th century, but with some in the 5th century as well. We also do have classical writings indicating the practise:
"The enemy ... destroyed everything that had fallen into their hands in an outrageous and unprecedented ritual of curses; clothes torn and thrown away ... the mens breastplates chopped into pieces ... people were hanged from trees with a cable around their neck, so that nothing fell into the hands of neither victor nor the fallen, nothing exchange and no mercy." Orosius around 400AD.
Thank for your well thought answer. Let me comment on a few points.
About the sources, i intended specificaly on weapon in waters. I know of some sources on the ritual destruction of weapons, mainly classical sources. The main problem is that no source that mention a cult of water, like Tacite about Nerthus ( Germania XL) mention a dropping of weapon.
Even the text that clearly state what happened to the weapons of the losing side are not really clear. Plutarch for example, in the Life of Marius 22, explain that the best weapons were kept for the triumph and the lesser equipment was burned and dedicated to some unnamed divinity. But a triumph hardly qualifies as a religious celebration and the cremation seem not really meaningfull. It is at most an usefull mean of dealing with second rate material. The gods surely desserve better. You could think that Plutarch paint is subject in a pious light by attributing religious meaning to a custom of war.
Polybus narrate another interesting case in the war of Philippe V of Macedonia against the Etolians. He comment on the destruction of Thermos. The macedonian destroyed the temple. Around the temple are weapons «*hanged on the Portico*». They choose the best and burn the rest (more than 15’000 weapons ) and Polybus say that their destruction happened according to the rules of war. But the macedonians burn also the offering inside the temple. (Statues and such...) This act is an abomination. In this case the weapons are closer to a trophy than a offering. Their destruction is clearly not stated as religious even when they are hanged around the temple.
I know those cases are far in space and time from the massacre that started this discussion but the ritual meaning of the destruction of weapons is not clear. The text of Orosius tell about an «*exsecratio*», more like a curse than a ritual. It’s not far away but it does not implies a religious meaning. Also Orosius Talk about a war in 105 BCE, so 400 AD is far away and his christian context may be relevant here.
I have another close call in a lesser known source, Florus, in Epitome book IV, chapter 12 ( I have only found the first two books in english so i cannot offer you a translation)
Florus talk about the war against the Pannonians in the time of Augustus. The relevant lines state more or less that the weapons of the defeated were not burned «*more belli*» (roughly translated «*following the custom of war) but were broken and thrown in the river to bear witness of the name of Caesar to those who resisted.
There is no clear ritual or religious meaning but the destruction of the weapons is clearly stated. The insult, or at least the warning from the victorious forces seem relevant and echoes a little the exsecratio.
The texts that state the religious meaning of the destruction of the weapons (i think there is also Livy) are mainly apologetic. In the others sources it is not specified. In all the litterary examples i think we cannot even rull out Military reasons disguised with a pinch of piety or cursing.
Some sources, Livy again and Claudius Aelianus, tell a fews words about the Celts, mainly that they make trophies like the romans.
So the case for weapons sacrifices is not clear in the sources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tobtor
So destruction of enemy gear is a definite possibility in the period.
Agreed. It is the ritual meaning of such destruction that is less clear. I have only a few articles about the subject in Scandinavia. But the ritual interpretation of the destruction of the weapons of the defeated is only one explanation for the deposit of weapons alluded to in the article. Some others interpretations, like a funeral rite, a ostentatious destruction of wealth, a regular offering ( like the fountain of Trevi with swords), or even, as is more common in documented case, the offering of the victorious weapons, are more readily tried in other parts of the world. As difficult as it may sound, connecting such a slaughter with a deposit of weapons would go a long way to shed more light on a file than i understand as still open.
I agree fondly with the rest of your post and enjoyed your contextualisation of the population and of their possible distribution.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Epimethee
It is the ritual meaning of such destruction that is less clear. I have only a few articles about the subject in Scandinavia. But the ritual interpretation of the destruction of the weapons of the defeated is only one explanation for the deposit of weapons alluded to in the article. Some others interpretations, like a funeral rite, a ostentatious destruction of wealth, a regular offering ( like the fountain of Trevi with swords), or even, as is more common in documented case, the offering of the victorious weapons, are more readily tried in other parts of the world. As difficult as it may sound, connecting such a slaughter with a deposit of weapons would go a long way to shed more light on a file than i understand as still open..
About the sources: you are right they do not point directly to water, but do indeed point to systematic destruction of weapons post battle. And in southern Scandinavia "bogs" or small lakes are also used for al sorts of OTHER sacrifices, often in the same bogs, making the though plausible.
I doubt the "funeral rite" or "a regular" offering as explanation, they do not really work for the south Scandinavian weapon deposits. We are not talking a few spears here and there (we are for bronze age deposits though, where two spears is very common). The Illerup-find for example have one major deposit with more than 1.000 weapons (and then several other later deposits). The deposits also contains personal equipment of the warriors, such as belt-pouches with scrap-metal etc, looted valuables and mixed coins, but also combs and strike-a-lights, as well as other small personal items carried in a belt. The find also include quite alot of beltst/scabbards and such, but no human bone and very little jewelry (compared to graves). Thus we are finding exactly what is missing at the massacre site (except the women).
Interestingly the Illerup find is just a few kilometres up river from the Alken Enge which is a few centuries earlier and contains mainly human bones (and a wider use as place of various offerings of animals and pottery/food)
Illerup pictures:
Part of a scabbard from Nydam:
Quote:
as is more common in documented case, the offering of the victorious weapons
In the Scandinavian cases we know that it is "foreign" equipment being deposited based on the personal effects (Danish combs where made different from Swedish and Norwegian combs. So it is quuite clearly the "enemy" equipment (otherwise a foreign army would have deposited all their weapons and work-knives, strike-a-lights, combs, ears-spoons etc, in the middle of enemy territory!).
We can also exlude "military reasons", as the equipment have been so thoroughly OVER-destroyed (curled up, bend, scattered). Swords bent into S forms does not happen if you just want to get rid of them. Also it does not explain the other equipment gathered and deposited together with the weapons.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV
Quote:
Originally Posted by
snowblizz
I'll have to read the article see what it says. In general the period before "Viking" age is neither well researched or well known in Scandinavia. E.g. there's a village close to Lund that seems to have been a major, massive for Scandinavian circumstances, site for around 1000 years before around the middle ages (so basically 0-1000ad ) and nationstate forming, the royal power seems to create Lund as an alternative and later usurping town. This place, I forget the name is largely unexplored despite clearly been an important regional centre and likely seat of a powerful chieften or king.
We need Tobtor to dig more in the ground is what I'm saying.:
Well I think the period prior to the viking age IS well researched. And while we might know less (due to lack of written sources), we know quite a bit. While Uppåkre was definitely an important site (especially during the 600-800 timeframe), we have other similar sites, such as Sorte Muld on Bornholm, but I think the site of Gudme (short for Godheim, "Home of the Gods"), is more important. The Gudme hall was huge (by contemproary standards) with 47x10m it had a roof area of around 470 square meters. Next to it was a smaller (but contemporary) hall, with 25X10meters, thus a very large "home" and an enormous hall. A few kilometres away was the important trade-centre of Lundeborg.
The Broholm treasure found near Lundeborg:
So the period would have several small scale kings each with their local cult sites and halls, and the important ones also trade centre (such as Gudme and Uppåkra).
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Archpaladin Zousha
I see. So what were soldiers wearing that kind of armor using as weapons?
Spear, sword, axe, bow, crossbow etc - just like everybody else.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Jack
I think "chubby" might be a bit of a misleading word and people grab onto this idea to much, but it's true that gladiators put on extra chub to get the a nice, slashable form. But they also had dumbel equivalents and did lifting exercises (amongst many other more soldier-practical fitness activities) so they also had muscle that was cosmetic, protective and practical under that fat.
Gladiator training notes are patchy and varied a lot because of all the different schools/regions/times/wealth of owner and so on.
The Manica is a sleeve armour that they wore, probably because the arm'll be more likely to end a career. The torso was hardly armoured, to encourage hitting it..
If you take a quick look at gladiator trident artifacts, they don't look like they would've been very sharp. Sharp enough to cut, sure, but not very deeply.
Gladiators would learn acting techniques and would be taught that if they were going to die, they should die with style. WWE is a maybe, maybe not kind of thing.
Keep in mind that there were different categories of gladiators, some wearing less armour than others, some with their torso fully protected.
http://eleggo.net/blog/2016/12/19/th...of-the-arbelos
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV
on the topic of stab vs cut wounds, its worth noting in passing that part of the impetus for the move to pistols in duelling was the tendency for sword armed duellists to receive wounds that were eventually fatal but not immediately incapacitating, and thus to keep fighting long enough to inflict a similarly fatal but not incapacitating wound to their opponents, leaving both parties at deaths door.
The general decline in swordmanship among the duelling classes was another factor, particularly due the tendency of semi skilled swordsmen to think only in terms of attacks and not properly defend, again leading to more double fatalities as duellists attacked into an attack* rather than parry-riposte.
It was these double kills that lead to the priority/right of way rules in modern sport fencing, as teachers tried to force students to parry more, and made the focus of training about surviving the fight, rather than killing the other guy.
* sometimes called a "stop-hit", it can work, if your good enough, and can ensure that the attack your counter-attacking doesn't connect, but its a risky and difficult move. much safer to just parry and then counter-attack (preferably in a single motion, i.e. smash the attackers blade aside while your own sword makes a cut at him)
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV
The Hamilton-Mohun duel was one such event that led to a great outcry against sword-duelling.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tobtor
About the sources: you are right they do not point directly to water, but do indeed point to systematic destruction of weapons post battle. And in southern Scandinavia "bogs" or small lakes are also used for al sorts of OTHER sacrifices, often in the same bogs, making the though plausible.
I will explore the links and references you gave us. Thanks also for the update on the others cities.
I used the sources to point that the case of a sacrifice is not so well made. I understand that different explanations are necessary for different finds. I could also point out that others objects in the same place are not a proof of a specific action. For example, in La Tène, humans and animals remains were found alongside the weapons. As much as a ritual seem implied, the offering of the weapons of the defeated is not proved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tobtor
I doubt the "funeral rite" or "a regular" offering as explanation, they do not really work for the south Scandinavian weapon deposits. We are not talking a few spears here and there (we are for bronze age deposits though, where two spears is very common). The Illerup-find for example have one major deposit with more than 1.000 weapons (and then several other later deposits). The deposits also contains personal equipment of the warriors, such as belt-pouches with scrap-metal etc, looted valuables and mixed coins, but also combs and strike-a-lights, as well as other small personal items carried in a belt. The find also include quite alot of beltst/scabbards and such, but no human bone and very little jewelry (compared to graves). Thus we are finding exactly what is missing at the massacre site
I never intended to specificaly explain the Scandinavian deposit. Nevertheless there are some arguments in favor of both explanations in the european context. The funerary one is mainly supported by the work of W. Torbrügge on the complementarity between the finds in waters ( here including bogs, swamps, sources and river) and the finds in graves. His maps include Scandinavia by the way.
The „regular“ offering is an argument about the timeframe of the deposits. You need only a few generations of small offerings to colllect a huge amount of stuffs. A large amount of weapons does not mean the aftermath of a fight. The sites excavated in the XIX century lack very offen a clear stratigraphy, a big part of the information about this point is sadly missing.
Illerup is a very specific site because it contain some of the fews example of swords intentionnaly bended in a way that implies a warmed blade. Others places include Gournay in France. The intentionality is proved beyond doubt but not the implications.
It is not clear that a sword treated in such a way was ever intended to be used in a fight. The possibility of swords made only to be sacrified cannot be ruled out. (Others finds are composed of weapons clearly used in war so there is likely many possibilities.)
The existence of miniature versions of weapons , like shields in the Salisbury hoard (http://www.britishmuseum.org/researc...31340&partId=1) may also reinforce this point.
As i understand the hypothesis on Scandinavians deposits draw a lot on the Illerup find. From a defensive war to the plunder of a local expédition the main hypothesis start with a defeated foe and a sacrifice. For Snowbliss, Hella Lund Hansen suppose that the latter deposits were the result of the return of mercenenaries, back after years of war for or against Rome.The bogs would have been the results of the power fighting between the locals and the newly returned.
Even so, my main article on the subject of scandinavian deposit( by Xenia Pauli Jensen) suggest to consider the implications of such a waste of wealth in the context of the expression of power in the societies of the time. She argue that one explanation may not be enough in regard to the differences between the finds and the various times of the deposits. Her conclusion is to reassess the deposits in light of their differences and in a more local context.
So i’m happy if what was found in conextually pertinent bog and what was missing in the massacre may match ( further discoveries pending).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tobtor
In the Scandinavian cases we know that it is "foreign" equipment being deposited based on the personal effects (Danish combs where made different from Swedish and Norwegian combs. So it is quuite clearly the "enemy" equipment (otherwise a foreign army would have deposited all their weapons and work-knives, strike-a-lights, combs, ears-spoons etc, in the middle of enemy territory!).
Agreed, but a defensive or an offensive operation could result in very different practices. Destroying the equipment of foreigners is not the same as dedicating what was obtained by war. Some of the deposits seem also to reflect a warrior ideology with a clear distinction between the equipment of the warrior, the soldier and the conscript. That it may reflect the local ideology add further complexity to the question. (I have relevant sources about this specific point if you wish.)
Consider also the case of Vimose in Funen island. The pieces that were found cover more than 600 years. They are very diverses in origins, inclunding foreign object and local ones. Asserting an interpretation of such a place seem difficult. Such Reflexion may also nuance the sacrifice of spoils of war hypothesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tobtor
We can also exlude "military reasons", as the equipment have been so thoroughly OVER-destroyed (curled up, bend, scattered). Swords bent into S forms does not happen if you just want to get rid of them. Also it does not explain the other equipment gathered and deposited together with the weapons.
Almost agreed for Illerup, bearing in mind that more or less twenty weapons were found curled up. That’s A very little proportion of the find. I don’t think it rule out totally the possibility of Military reasons, even simultanously pointing out to a kind of ritual.
The case of the intentional destruction of weapons is less well asserted for the most part of the finds in water and even so they tend to be brutally broken. As in many part of archeology, the more you state the known facts, the less you seem to be sure of an hypothesis. That’s what fascinate me in the site of the massacre. It seem so easy to connect it with the problem of the weapons of the defeated, it fit so well into what we are sure to know. I think it is fair not to take the hypothesis for granted, as seductive as it may look.
I would be amazed if a connection between a known massacre and a deposit could be proven beyond doubt, because of all of the above.
Even without this connection, the lack of weapons in the fort seem relevant and add further weight to the case of a specific treatment of the weapons of the defeated.
Thanks for those who answered on gladiatorial fight. I’m surprised by how simple it looks, almost repetitive. A few cuts on the chest, some splatter of blood. I understand the need tho have different styles of fighters...
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Epimethee
I will explore the links and references you gave us. Thanks also for the update on the others cities.
I used the sources to point that the case of a sacrifice is not so well made. I understand that different explanations are necessary for different finds. I could also point out that others objects in the same place are not a proof of a specific action. For example, in La Tène, humans and animals remains were found alongside the weapons. As much as a ritual seem implied, the offering of the weapons of the defeated is not proved.
I agree that other finds is not proof of the same action; but there seem to be some bogs used for offerings, and then we have the large deposits in the same ones.
Quote:
I never intended to specificaly explain the Scandinavian deposit. Nevertheless there are some arguments in favor of both explanations in the european context. The funerary one is mainly supported by the work of W. Torbrügge on the complementarity between the finds in waters ( here including bogs, swamps, sources and river) and the finds in graves. His maps include Scandinavia by the way.
Yeah, then he is wrong. Its completely different material in the graves and in the weapon sacrifices (except a few graves with very fancy belt equipment). There is really no relation.
Quote:
The „regular“ offering is an argument about the timeframe of the deposits. You need only a few generations of small offerings to colllect a huge amount of stuffs. A large amount of weapons does not mean the aftermath of a fight. The sites excavated in the XIX century lack very offen a clear stratigraphy, a big part of the information about this point is sadly missing.
At both Illerup, Nydam, Vimose and many of the others we find clear evidence of large single deposits. For example the weapons are often found in separate "heaps",clearly put down together. We also have frequent examples of "bundles" of artefacts tied together with strings/rope or packed in textile. Sometimes several such bundles can be tied together by lets say half of sword a was found with 10 spears, while the other half was found with another group of spears and parts of sword B wich was found togther with... and so on.
Quote:
Illerup is a very specific site because it contain some of the fews example of swords intentionnaly bended in a way that implies a warmed blade. Others places include Gournay in France. The intentionality is proved beyond doubt but not the implications.
It is not clear that a sword treated in such a way was ever intended to be used in a fight. The possibility of swords made only to be sacrified cannot be ruled out. (Others finds are composed of weapons clearly used in war so there is likely many possibilities.)
Uhhmm no. It happened in a lot of the Scandinavian bog finds. So does systematic destruction by other means. Also gravegoods prior to the weapon sacrifices are also bent to fit into urns. Also several weapons show signs of use, shields shown signs of repair (even the most fancy ones with silver and gold!) and so on. How it is abroad (France, Germany) is of less interest since the equipment from the last phase of the Scandinavian weapon sacrifices are mainly from "eastern Sweden" (that is the region with the massacre!).
Quote:
As i understand the hypothesis on Scandinavians deposits draw a lot on the Illerup find. From a defensive war to the plunder of a local expédition the main hypothesis start with a defeated foe and a sacrifice. For Snowbliss, Hella Lund Hansen suppose that the latter deposits were the result of the return of mercenenaries, back after years of war for or against Rome.The bogs would have been the results of the power fighting between the locals and the newly returned.
The weapon deposits all have the same basic characteristics as Illerup. Also newer re-excavations of older sites, confirm the picture.
Quote:
Even so, my main article on the subject of scandinavian deposit( by Xenia Pauli Jensen) suggest to consider the implications of such a waste of wealth in the context of the expression of power in the societies of the time. She argue that one explanation may not be enough in regard to the differences between the finds and the various times of the deposits. Her conclusion is to reassess the deposits in light of their differences and in a more local context.
Both Ulla Lund Hansen and Xenia Pauli Jensen agree there is a ritualistic element and that we are dealing with a large sacrifices. There is some debate weather it is "offensive wars" (like Roman triumphs), a result of defensive wars against invading neighbours (Jørgen Ilkjærs hypothesis and the most prevalent one), or indeed returning mercenaries (which I do not think work, due to the "local" appearance of clothing and smaller use-items which would not last for long periods as mercenaries/auxiliaries). There is of course also some discussion of WHY such a ritual sacrifice happens and why it is developed in the first place, what the underlying meaning is and so on. But that doesn't change the fact that is a ritual.
Quote:
Agreed, but a defensive or an offensive operation could result in very different practices. Destroying the equipment of foreigners is not the same as dedicating what was obtained by war. Some of the deposits seem also to reflect a warrior ideology with a clear distinction between the equipment of the warrior, the soldier and the conscript. That it may reflect the local ideology add further complexity to the question. (I have relevant sources about this specific point if you wish.)
Consider also the case of Vimose in Funen island. The pieces that were found cover more than 600 years. They are very diverses in origins, inclunding foreign object and local ones. Asserting an interpretation of such a place seem difficult. Such Reflexion may also nuance the sacrifice of spoils of war hypothesis.
Yes the bogs was used repeatedly, but with a few large deposits (and then some smaller ones as well). So there is continuity of practise, but a continuity with larger deposits intermingled with smaller ones. As mentioned we see all sorts of equipment there, puches, gaming pieces etc, and not only weapons (and yes these artefact ARE connected to the weapons).
Quote:
Almost agreed for Illerup, bearing in mind that more or less twenty weapons were found curled up. That’s A very little proportion of the find. I don’t think it rule out totally the possibility of Military reasons, even simultanously pointing out to a kind of ritual.
Quote:
The case of the intentional destruction of weapons is less well asserted for the most part of the finds in water and even so they tend to be brutally broken.
Yes some items are bruttally broken by other means, such as smashing them up. This include a horse that have been killed many times over.
Quote:
As in many part of archeology, the more you state the known facts, the less you seem to be sure of an hypothesis. That’s what fascinate me in the site of the massacre. It seem so easy to connect it with the problem of the weapons of the defeated, it fit so well into what we are sure to know. I think it is fair not to take the hypothesis for granted, as seductive as it may look.
So because the missing weapons fit the interpretation of the deposits, we shouldnt make the connection? Or... ?
Quote:
I would be amazed if a connection between a known massacre and a deposit could be proven beyond doubt, because of all of the above.
Nothing in humanities can be proven without a doubt (and very little in natural science).
However, that we are dealing with large deposits of weapons, which is not related to the grave-cult, but non-the-less have a relation to rituals (systematic destruction and deposition in well known offering sites, and with a long history of repeated large deposition suggesting that the "place" was important beyond immediate military needs), these depositions consist of entire "equipment" of the warriors including belts and personal items, but little in terms of jewellery and clothing, and no bones of humans (but a few horses). At the same time we find a defensive site where there have been a massacre, where we have bones and a some (at present a bit unclear how much) jewellery but no weapons. This massacre happens in the very specific region where the "war" represented in the weapon deposits of the period appear to come. Can we prove a relation? No. But we must consider it a very LIKELY connection.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV
What sort of weapons and armor are typical for pre-modern marines? In particular, I'm thinking of those serving on the Ptolemaic and Venetian navies. My first assumption would be that a marine would want lighter, more compact gear than his land-bound counterpart, but I could be wrong about that.
Also, what ranges are typical of ballistae? The Age of Titans by William Murray gives a list of the size and weights of a series of semi-standardized ballista designs from the Hellenistic period, but references to ranges are difficult to find. I'm expecting a lot of variation, based on the size and weight of the ballista; I'd like an emphasis more on the smaller, ship-appropriate classes (the 5-span oxybeles, the 10-mina petrobolos, etc.) but anything would be helpful.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VoxRationis
What sort of weapons and armor are typical for pre-modern marines? In particular, I'm thinking of those serving on the Ptolemaic and Venetian navies. My first assumption would be that a marine would want lighter, more compact gear than his land-bound counterpart, but I could be wrong about that.
Also, what ranges are typical of ballistae? The Age of Titans by William Murray gives a list of the size and weights of a series of semi-standardized ballista designs from the Hellenistic period, but references to ranges are difficult to find. I'm expecting a lot of variation, based on the size and weight of the ballista; I'd like an emphasis more on the smaller, ship-appropriate classes (the 5-span oxybeles, the 10-mina petrobolos, etc.) but anything would be helpful.
Early Ptolemaic marines would probably have been like Athenian ones, given that was a relatively successful model for a good century or more. That would mean a mixture of hoplites (ie heavy spearmen with big shields - if they went overboard in armour, they drowned) and archers (often steppe peoples like Skythians - composite bows and long daggers, armour was rare).
However, as time went on, they tended to recruit their sailors and marines from southern Anatolia and the Aegean islands. Karians and Pisidians, along with Cypriots, Kretans and Rhodians. They all preferred lighter panoplies; helmets and smaller shields (pelte, small thureoi), some might have textile body armour (but not universal as with hoplites), with missile weapons (javelins mostly, but possibly bows for the Kretans, slings for the Rhodians) and swords for backup. Those javelins might include some heavier, dual-purpose ones like the longche, which was robust enough to be used as a spear as well as balanced for throwing.
Some of the reasons for the shift were the Ptolemaioi's problems with getting Greek manpower (since they didn't hold the mainland, only some islands, and got most of their Greeks as mercenaries) and the general increase in the size of marine complements. In the era of Athenian dominance, the primary naval platform was the trieres/trireme, which had limited space on deck (if it was aphract, then it didn't have much of a deck beyond a central board for the sailors to get about). Their complement tended to be just over a dozen, weighted primarily towards hoplites for defense against boarding. The oarsmen were always a potential emergency reserve of makeshift marines, since they outnumbered dedicated marines tenfold, and that's probably where the Athenian skirmishers at the battle of Sphacteria came from. Give them some javelins and you have a force of light infantry. That was a risky move, though, since they were also your motive force.
However, following Demetrios Poliorketes success at the battle of Salamis in 306BC, which was mostly due to his much heavier battle line, the standard battleship moved to the penteres/quinquireme, which not only had more oarsmen, but much more deck space. Their marine complements were 30-40 men each along with the addition of ship-board artillery. For a power already struggling to find Greeks to fill it's army and administration, using them for marines as well was too much of a stretch. Thus the employment of coastal peoples from lands they controlled in southern Anatolia.
Not sure about artillery, it doesn't seem to have been given much time even in the books I've read about Demetrios Poliorketes and his siege of Rhodes, for example. The ammunition used by some of them them (all-iron bolts) must have been ruinously expensive.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Epimethee
Yeah, for a third what if: the women were the killers all along! Such a scenario explain the missing weapons and the lack of women! The men went away fighting for Rome for so long that the women rebuilded their life and decided to kill them after their return. They had already taken care of securing their wealth and the necessary food. So they hide the weapons before striking. Also far fetched but there is an historical precedent in Hungary after WWI:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_Makers_of_Nagyrév
I’m not sure this scenario should be taken seriously. But it seem also to fit the known facts.
You know I was this ][ close to suggesting exactly that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Epimethee
What do you mean by the way by local traces?
I was thinking that if one community suffers such a massive loss the benefit should be visible in the other party.
Rome had the story about the women caputred from...er... ok can't remember the city. Something something Rome had no women so they went and enslaved some neighbouring city's women as wifes etc. Something like that is the story.
If a similar act happened locally on Öland I sorta would expect it to leave traces. Mainly since in some bizarre twist of fate somehow the "haunting story" sticks around for 1500 years!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tobtor
Well I think the period prior to the viking age IS well researched. And while we might know less (due to lack of written sources), we know quite a bit. While Uppåkre was definitely an important site (especially during the 600-800 timeframe)
So the period would have several small scale kings each with their local cult sites and halls, and the important ones also trade centre (such as Gudme and Uppåkra).
Uppåkra! It was bugging me. Stupid names. Well if you think it's well reasearched then you are all not doing a very job informing us about it ;P. Because all the popular science articles about it tend to go "eh, duno, maybe". The more they dig the more mysterious it seems it gets.
It's also rather sad when I hear that money is keeping stuff from being excavated.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV
Quote:
Originally Posted by
snowblizz
Rome had the story about the women caputred from...er... ok can't remember the city. Something something Rome had no women so they went and enslaved some neighbouring city's women as wifes etc. Something like that is the story.
Rape of the Sabine Women
Well, more a 'bride kidnapping'. Translation and all.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV
Quote:
Originally Posted by
snowblizz
As I always say, feudalism never really got a foothold in Sweden.
Agreed, though Sweden was by no means the only part of Europe that didn't. The establishment of Feudalism was surprisingly patchy in many areas including in general all around the Baltic.
Quote:
But Sweden was definitely poor. That's a thread you can follow all through history up to the 1800s. I got a book on Swedish economic history at home I was gonna take some stuff out of. It's grim
reading. Kings lament the deplorable state of their finances and subjects (neither are as good as what their colleagues down south have). The nobles are barely better than robber barons. The state and
I'd be willing to bet that Sweden was actually much more poor in the 1700's and 1800's than it was in say, the 1400's or 1500's. With the exception of a small number of princes, Nobles were barely better than robber barons in most of medieval Europe. Particularly up in that area where Frisia, Mecklenburg, Pomerania, the various islands like Rugen, Gotland and Saaremaa were known as bandit and 'pirate' havens from the times of Charlemagne through the 16th Century. As you mentioned the large organized pirate groups like the Victual Brothers and the Likedellers thrived in the Baltic, before that Curonians and Norse Vikings terrorized the coasts.
A poor monarchy does not necessarily mean a poor people. The Holy Roman Emperor was a poor monarch compared to the King of France, but it did not mean that the HRE itself was poor. Sweden was mostly rural, very thinly populated it's important to note (even by the much lower norms of population density 5 or 6 centuries ago - something people tend to forget about) therefore of a largely subsistence economy and by today's standards quite poor, but by medieval standards rural wealth might mean 20 or 40 acres of land, a nearby creek or pond you could catch fish out of, and a few dozen reindeer or cattle*. Seemingly, many Swedish peasants did have that. The big dividing line between poor and 'yeoman' or rural middle class in medieval times was did you own your own land, and most Swedes apparently did. It may not have been the most productive land but they had a lot of it (low population density) and they did have things like lumber which had considerable value.
And they had enough surplus wealth to show up to muster during the (quite frequent) times of strife with quite respectable arms and armor, as we know from period records, and they were also able to fit out ships... though the arms and some of the money seems to have actually come from mercenaries sent by Denmark to tame them who were subsequently defeated and robbed and / or held for ransom.
You should be aware that economic conditions in Europe generally and Scandinavia in particular declined substantially in the 17th Century and kind of bottomed out in the 18th, with the 19th Century and Industrial revolution gradually reversing the trend by around 1900. You can see this quite clearly in charts of the height of skeletons across the centuries.
Quote:
Well it was integrated in the way that what little trade Sweden provided the Hanse controlled it all. I've never seen Sweden described as anything but a "subject" to the Hanse. The League controlled the
Stockholm was basically a Hanseatic city, as you noted half the Council was Swedish but the town was essentially controlled by German merchants (and had both craft and merchant guilds going back to the 13th Century by the way), but Visby, which was the epicenter of the Hanse until the mid 14th Century, was noted for having an international and largely Swedish population of merchants. Visby also incidentally had well developed guild system.
It was after a particularly nasty series of feuds between the Hanse and Denmark that Visby was broken, so to speak, and went into rapid decline, after which Lubeck became the de-facto seat of the Hanse, and the Hanse became much more an association of German cities, with Low German becoming the Lignua Franca and laws being passed (with mixed success) to exclude non-German merchants from the League.
Quote:
e.g. in trade. Basically a monopoly on Swedish trade. Sweden's position towards the Hanse has basically been described as subservient.
This is an oversimiplification. Norway was subservient to the Hanse. Sweden was basically an ally against Denmark. Sometimes Sweden was in conflict with the Hanse but much more often they sided with the Hanse against Denmark, or the Hanse sided with Swedish rebellions against Denmark. Denmark was wedded to the Feudal system and got into a bitter power struggle with the Hanseatic League, whereas Sweden was indeed linked to trade networks. They may not have made that much money from it but it was enough to align their interests with the Hanse - Swedish exports included (salted, dried, pickled or cured) fish, furs (especially from Finland), lumber, other forest products like 'pine resin' (potash seems to be surprisingly important) whetstones and millstones, and probably most important and profitable - iron. As I noted, high quality iron (and bronze) artifacts like guns show up in Hanseatic records (and in the archeological record) which come from Sweden as early as the first quarter of the 1300's but do not necessarily originate in any of the towns.
For example this bronze beauty, the so called morko handgonne dated to 1390, came from Sweden
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...eden_Morko.jpg
In exchange they imported a lot of salt, butter, cheese, beer, pickled foods, barrels, glassware, and textiles, especially wool cloth.
Quote:
Considering the Scania market lay in Denmark back then I stand by what I said. There was no Swedish contesting, it was Danish through and through. The Swedish wiki about the Scania market has
The Scania market (and theOresund) was under a near-constant political and military struggle for control by various forces. The Hanse took it away from Denmark several times and basically brought in Swedish fishermen to run the actual fishing part of the whole enterprise. The way the market worked was the Hanseatic traders would bring salt from Luneburg, buy fish from the fishermen, process the fish (largely using female labor they brought with them, who would gut the fish and pack it into barrels with the salt) and then ship it back to Germany from where it would be sold all over Europe at a large profit. Fish was supposed to be the only meat you ate during the 40 days of Lent, on every Friday, and on maybe a third of the 180 holidays (Holy Days) spread throughout the calendar year. Plus it was one of the cheapest forms of preserved protein food you could get.
in the Middle Ages it's a bit fraught to declare a given piece of land as "Swedish" or "Danish" or "German" or "Russian" since whatever government ostensibly laid claim to it often had a tenuous level of actual control.
Quote:
When do you purport that happened? When Valdemar Atterdag conqured Gotland after the Battle of Visby he specifically did not sack Visby, but instead taxed it (under duress but still) and confirmed it's privilleges.
He took a kings ransom from the city and had the wall broken. After that day Visby was repeatedly sacked by Pirates (almost as often as Bergen) and went into a sharp decline.
Quote:
It's not exactly mysteriosuly emerging from the deep forests. That's actually *how* it was even possible. Unlike much of the rest of Sweden the southernmost part of Dalarna was connected to a series of lakes and waterways cutting deep into the land. Stockholm is placed at the end, or start, of (snip) frontier settlement area still in the 1800s. Says something about how difficult communications are outside the areas you can reach by water.
Every trading city or zone in Europe was linked by water. It was basically the only efficient way to move heavy goods around.
Quote:
May have to challenge you on that one too. The valuable trade Sweden got form Finalnd was in fact the Russian trade and Swedish control was mainly focused on the coastal regions since sailing
You are forgetting about the furs. Ermine and mink and so on, but beaver fur was the most economically important. The underfur of beavers was used to make felt, one of the more important industrial materials in Europe, used to make relatively affordable warm clothing among other things.
Quote:
My point is none of this trade approached what the Hanse brought in, let alone compared to anything on the Mediterranean.
It was on a much smaller scale, but Sweden (and Finland, and Novgorod for that matter) was part of the Hanseatic trade network.
*it's worth noting, what was considered basic level peasant assets then, by today's standards that would make you rich!
G
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV
By the way, perhaps the most amusing and RPG friendly of the Swedish exports that you see on Russian and Hanseatic merchants records was the 'unicorn horn', a highly prized super-luxury. These were apparently narwhal horns.
G
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV
Quote:
Originally Posted by
snowblizz
I know G has pics he usually posts but can't rememer the artist nor find them in older threads. Did a load of woodblocks of life of a soldier from the time. Think name starts with a D. Annoying me now.
You probably mean Paul Dolnstein who was a Landsknecht himself who did a lot of sketches from his experiences. Urs Graf is also quite good, he did more woodcuts, but he focuses more on Reislaufer, the Swiss equivalent, and you might say inspiration for the Landsknechts.
some guy posted on Myarmoury that he was translating Dolestein's diary for his Masters Thesis:
https://myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=215295
I can't hotlink but you can see a clear distinction between the armor of the Landsknechts vs. some Swedish peasants they were fighting in the first image.
He also shows interesting details like this 'sword staff' which may or may not have some kind of links to earlier Viking "halberds"
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...9777716%29.jpg
Edit: note by the way that the Swedish 'peasant' has a metal helmet, (I think) a cuirass, and a longsword sidearm in addition to his polearm. And a canteen.
G
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galloglaich
By the way, perhaps the most amusing and RPG friendly of the Swedish exports that you see on Russian and Hanseatic merchants records was the 'unicorn horn', a highly prized super-luxury. These were apparently narwhal horns.
G
Narwhal teeth, actually... :smallbiggrin:
But pedantry aside... That's hilarious!
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Epimethee
I would be amazed if a connection between a known massacre and a deposit could be proven beyond doubt, because of all of the above.
Even without this connection, the lack of weapons in the fort seem relevant and add further weight to the case of a specific treatment of the weapons of the defeated.
Just wanted to say, this is a fascinating discussion. Another (for sure long shot and unlikely) explanation of valuables being left behind but not weapons, are some stories in certain Sagas, I think for example Hrolf Kraki saga, in which "Vikings" threw down treasure they had captured as they were fleeing, in the hopes of slowing down their pursuers who would stop to pick it up.
Not saying this explains it it just reminded me of those stories.
That story about all the Angel Makers of Nagyrév was quite chilling. Reminds me a bit of that very scary film Heredetary I saw last night. Sometimes I think the ladies would kill all of us men if they could!
Quote:
Thanks for those who answered on gladiatorial fight. I’m surprised by how simple it looks, almost repetitive. A few cuts on the chest, some splatter of blood. I understand the need tho have different styles of fighters...
A possible good source on gladiatorial combat would be Galen. he is one of the three 'auctores' or "authorities" upon whom most medical teaching was done in pre-industrial Europe - the other two being Hipporcrates and Avicenna. For some reason Hippocrates is the only one still in the mix.
Galen was a physician or surgeon who early in his career sewed up wounded Gladiators, that is how he learned his trade so to speak. Later he was the personal physician of Emperors. There has been a great deal written about him. I have read some excerpts from Galen and he does get into detail about cut and stab wounds and how to treat them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen
G
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VoxRationis
What sort of weapons and armor are typical for pre-modern marines? In particular, I'm thinking of those serving on the Ptolemaic and Venetian navies. My first assumption would be that a marine would want lighter, more compact gear than his land-bound counterpart, but I could be wrong about that.
Usually the weapons and armor used at sea were the same as those used on land. There usually wasn't a clear distinction between "marines" and regular soldiers either.
The 13th century Scandinavian King's Mirror does briefly discuss fighting at sea. It claims that "Wide shields and chain mail of every sort are good defensive weapons on shipboard; the chief protection, however, is the gambison made of soft linen thoroughly blackened, good helmets, and low caps of steel."
iirc there's been some suggestion that because it points out the gambison in particular perhaps that means some soldiers did prefer to wear lighter armor at sea, but other than that it doesn't seem to have been much of an issue.
Quote:
If you are fighting on foot in a land battle and are placed at the point of a wedge-shaped column, it is very important to watch the closed shield line in the first onset, lest it become disarranged or broken. Take heed never to bind the front edge of your shield under that of another. You must also be specially careful, when in the battle line, never to throw your spear, unless you have two, for in battle array on land one spear is more effective than two swords. But if the fight is on shipboard, select two spears which are not to be thrown, one with a shaft long enough to reach easily from ship to ship and one with a shorter shaft, which you will find particularly serviceable when you try to board the enemy's ship. Various kinds of darts should be kept on ships, both heavy javelins and lighter ones. Try to strike your opponent's shield with a heavy javelin, and if the shield glides aside, attack him with a light javelin, unless you are able to reach him with a long-shafted spear. Fight on sea as on land with an even temper and with proper strokes only; and never waste your weapons by hurling them to no purpose.
Weapons of many sorts may be used to advantage on shipboard, which one has no occasion to use on land, except in a fortress or castle. Longhandled scythes and long-shafted broadaxes, "war-beams "and staff slings, darts,: and missiles of every sort are serviceable on ships. Crossbows and longbows are useful as well as all other forms of shooting weapons; but coal and sulphur are, however, the most effective munitions of all that I have named. Caltrops cast in lead and good halberds are also effective weapons on shipboard. A tower joined to the mast will be serviceable along with these and many other defenses, as is also a beam cloven into four parts and set with prongs of hard steel, which is drawn up against the mast. A "prow-boar": with an ironclad snout is also useful in naval battles. But it is well for men to be carefully trained in handling these before they have to use them; for one knows neither the time nor the hour when he shall have to make use of any particular kind of weapons. But take good heed to collect as many types of weapons as possible, while you still have no need of them; for it is always a distinction to have good weapons, and, furthermore, they are a good possession in times of necessity when one has to use them. For a ship's defense the following arrangement is necessary: it should be fortified strongly with beams and logs built up into a high rampart, through which there should be four openings, each so large and wide that one or two men in full armor can leap through them; but outside and along the rampart on both sides of the ship there should he laid a level walk of planks to stand upon. This breastwork must be firmly and carefully braced so that it cannot be shaken though one leaps violently upon it. Wide shields and chain mail of every sort are good defensive weapons on shipboard; the chief protection, however, is the gambison made of soft linen thoroughly blackened, good helmets, and low caps of steel. There are many other weapons that can be used in naval fights, but it seems needless to discuss more than those which I have now enumerated.
Once you get into the late middle ages and the early modern period you often find war books illustrating or describing an inflatable leather "girdle" designed to let a man in heavy armor cross a river or body of water without drowning:
https://i.imgur.com/IqQHcGh.png
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lemmy
Narwhal teeth, actually... :smallbiggrin:
But pedantry aside... That's hilarious!
Yeah it's almost a kind of sardonic Swedish peasant joke played on the world. The whole reason Unicorns exist in the popular Zeitgeist may originate from this 'racket' ;)
G
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV
On the subject of landsknecht armor, it's probably worth noting that it could vary quite a bit depending on how successful a regiment was and even within the regiment itself. In combat officers and the best paid, most experienced troops would usually be put at the front, rear, and sides of a pike square and might be pretty well armored compared to the newest recruits further inside the square. As a result you might have some landsknechts pretty well kitted out with a complete 3/4ths harness while others in the same company had just a bishop's mantle or no armor at all.
https://www.arador.com/armour/wp-con...7/woodcut6.jpg
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galloglaich
By the way, perhaps the most amusing and RPG friendly of the Swedish exports that you see on Russian and Hanseatic merchants records was the 'unicorn horn', a highly prized super-luxury. These were apparently narwhal horns.
G
Narwhals in Sweden?
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blymurkla
Narwhals in Sweden?
No idea where they originally came from, but the horns... sorry teeth, were traded from Sweden
G
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galloglaich
No idea where they originally came from, but the horns... sorry teeth, were traded from Sweden
G
Narwhal is endemic to the Artic Circle and regions slightly south. The Atlantic coast of Sweden could certainly have Narwhal. Or they could have originally been traded with Iceland whalers, which is probably more likely.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beleriphon
Narwhal is endemic to the Artic Circle and regions slightly south. The Atlantic coast of Sweden could certainly have Narwhal. Or they could have originally been traded with Iceland whalers, which is probably more likely.
I know by the 14th century they were getting a lot of sulphur and I think maybe potassium nitrate from Iceland so maybe that was the source.
I think Norway traded some other 'whale products' like baleen, ambergris, and whale oil
G
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV
Am glad to see someone else caught this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galloglaich
I know by the 14th century they were getting a lot of sulphur and I think maybe potassium nitrate from Iceland so maybe that was the source.
I think Norway traded some other 'whale products' like baleen, ambergris, and whale oil
G
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beleriphon
Narwhal is endemic to the Artic Circle and regions slightly south. The Atlantic coast of Sweden could certainly have Narwhal. Or they could have originally been traded with Iceland whalers, which is probably more likely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galloglaich
No idea where they originally came from, but the horns... sorry teeth, were traded from Sweden
G
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blymurkla
Narwhals in Sweden?
Definitely not.
Narwhal teeth most definitely would come to Sweden from elsewhere. Sweden doesn't exactly have an Atlantic coast either. Definitely not in the medieaval period where up until the 1500s they only had a tiny breathingspot along Göta älv where it empties into the North Sea. Supposedly given to them to solve a border dispute between Danish and Norwegian kings (keeping them separate with a sliver of Swedish lands) in the 1300s or thereabouts. The Swedes built a castle in the 1360s at least.
Trade through Norway would be the likeliest explanation. It is also possible that you get some trickling through from the east (and north, essentially Sami lands) however. There was some trade coming from the Arctic sea down waterways in Finland and Karelia, which would likely end up in Swedish hands. Sweden wasn't particularly west oriented, essentially lacking ports on the west coast. It's not really until the founding of Göteborg in the 1600s we get a reasonable port in the west. The earlier attempts were generally pccupied and burnt down in conflicts with the Danish. That Älvsborg e.g. got ransomed twice at an exorbiant cost to the people. And also made Swedish taxrecords of the 1500s some of the most complete documents from the time.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galloglaich
No idea where they originally came from, but the horns... sorry teeth, were traded from Sweden
G
G: do you have a source?
As mentioned Sweden does not have an Atlantic port, and the North Sea does not count as the narwhal was mainly found in Iceland and Faroese.
More problematic is however that there, as I understand it, were not really any big trade of Narwhal in the medieval period. The reason is that there were no large scale systematic whale hunting before the 17th century (and then dominated by the Dutch, and a few Danish ships). Before that it was only very coastal hunting (if even that, it is debated that this does not really come into play before 16th century, but we have a few accounts, so maybe). Anyway: Main source of whales during the medieval was natural occurring beachings. However, whalrus tusks was traded as "ivory". But not really "mainly" from Sweden. Possibly the went through Visby in their travel eastwards, but thats not really what you seem to think.
It is therefore from the 17th century we have most "unicorn" narwhal teeth, like the danish Unicorn throne:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/27/54...1ab6009211.jpg
(and gifts from the Danish kings to various European royalty, such as Luis the 14th).
Quote:
The Scania market (and theOresund) was under a near-constant political and military struggle for control by various forces. The Hanse took it away from Denmark several times and basically brought in Swedish fishermen to run the actual fishing part of the whole enterprise. The way the market worked was the Hanseatic traders would bring salt from Luneburg, buy fish from the fishermen, process the fish (largely using female labor they brought with them, who would gut the fish and pack it into barrels with the salt) and then ship it back to Germany from where it would be sold all over Europe at a large profit. Fish was supposed to be the only meat you ate during the 40 days of Lent, on every Friday, and on maybe a third of the 180 holidays (Holy Days) spread throughout the calendar year. Plus it was one of the cheapest forms of preserved protein food you could get.
As far as I am aware the Hanse only took the Scanean market once (1368-85). And in that war their main ally was Jutlandic nobles rebelling against the king (the nobles lost, the Hanse won, that is the nobles lost power in Denmark, and the king had to give up the Scanean market for a period). Earlier the market was Royal domain, and during the 14th and 15th century there was a more dierse trade, that is also English and Dutch merchants (who was often opposed to the Lübeck dominanse in the Hanse).
Also remember that whole of the 15th century Sweden was not very strong, and only at times independent.
Also which wars are you referring? The Peasant rebellions during the rule of Erik (1412-1439)? Because in that war Erik fought against the Hanse and Holstein duchy, but the taxes cause rebellions in Sweden and Norway (AFTER the war had ended!).
Looking through medieval battles from the conquest of Gotland in 1360'ies to the Stockholm blodbath in 1520 I cannot find that many Danish defeats (and I am not purely "national" in this department, as I can find plenty of defeats in the 16th and especially 17th century onwards). Maybe the victories of Gustav Vasa in liberating Sweden (1520-1523?)? But the King Christian II was very popular among the merchants, and the Hanse supported him, so that cant be what you are refering to either.
Also there are many crushing defeats from the Sweden peasant armies in the 14th-16th century, the wars Sweden won was typical by attrition, not battlefield victories (whch dramatically change in the 17th-18th century). By the way Denmark and Sweden are the countries which have officially been at war the most times (in the world! England and France a nice and friendly neighbours by comparison).