New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 42 of 50 FirstFirst ... 1732333435363738394041424344454647484950 LastLast
Results 1,231 to 1,260 of 1480
  1. - Top - End - #1231
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    May 2018

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

    I have some computer issues so it is hard to follow exactly what happens in this thread. And you guys are amazing: the reach of topics is huge, the casual and the very specific and rigorous are well balanced.
    And there is always something new and interesting.

    I wished to respond to a few of the posts that i haven’t adressed yet. I’m a bit late but see the Computer issues above.

    To Snowbliss first. The Nagyrev scenario is clearly impressive and enticing from a storyteller point of view. Such strange circonstances call for a narratively satisfactory explanation and this one may be the most dramatic.

    About the Sabines, and generaly the problems with oral tradition, it is quite hard to discern the historical facts, the mythological motives and the literary embellishment. In Rome we have early texts but we know that they reflect some lost oral stuffs. What is historical is difficult to tell. In the Illiad, for comparison, the helmets and shields are accurate with archeological finds. So there musst be something of historical value there.
    What exactly, and how it reflect of what is a huge topic with a lot of contradicting positions from Euhemerism ( the legends represent misinterpreted facts and the gods were humans) to structuralism ( very roughly the myth change according to rule akin to the laws of linguistic).

    His underlying theories are rightly dissmissed today but Georges Dumézil demonstrated the connections between the ancient history of Rome and some known myths. Horatius Cocles or the Horaces have very similar cousins across the world, even in historical time. The attribute of the first kings match descriptions of gods and so on. Again, historical stuffs are certainly there. Rome was clearly at war with is Italian neighbours, but those events happened certainly not like in the Urbe Condita. And that’s only the stuffs we know. I mean, we have a lot of holes in our knowledge of myths.
    On a relative note i think far many cities were described as lost in tales around the world that were effectively lost. Only in Brittany i can think of more than a few like Ys, and they don’t point to anything existing.

    So i tend to be carefull with the use of traditions and even of historical sources. They are meant to inform but that’s only a part of their content.

    To Galloglaich, thanks, i forget Galen. Cool idea.

    About greek weapons: as already said, not many were described. The most famous example is of course the shield of Achilles, his depiction is one of the most celebrated literary piece in history. The shield was made by Hephaistos and brought by the divine mother of Achilles. The fight for the weapons and armor were important i Illuad but more as a symbol of the individual valor of a fighter than his power. Also there was some greed involved .

    Amazingly quite a few bows are mentionned and the Odysseus one may be the closer to a Symbol of kingship. Ok, that‘s not exactly a sword in the stone but the weapon can only be used by the rightfull sovereign of the place. Herakles, Apollo, Artemis all use bows and for the gods it is an important attribute.

    Theseus had to take is sword and sandals from under the rock were his father put them. Again The weapon is not really an attribute, more a token of recognition.

    Also i think there is a Zeus depicted with a labris, the two headed axe, but it‘s a foggy memory.

    I think the closest relative could be staffs, like the thyrse of Dyonisos or the caduceus of Hermes. The thyrse was used by priests but obviously it was no weapon and not used by kings.

    Also the club of Herakles is a specific case of depiction of the hero. Suffice to say that it is not intended to give him more but to show how special he was. Only a god could use such weapon efficiently.

    The fact is also that Greece was not as fond of individual military valoir as the neighbours. The weapons were collectively dedicated to temples, and the shield was valorised. The strength of the city was important so personal weapons were less valorised than, say, in medieval Europe.
    As much as i understand, few of the divine attribute were explicitly weapons cause few of the gods were fighters. Even then, some are mysterious like the famous Aegis.

    But i will read the worldbuilding proposition more carefully. I have to catch up to the thread again...

  2. - Top - End - #1232
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

    Swords in stones are a Eurasian steppe thing, they'd be placed in the barrows of dead lords to honour them.
    Last edited by Kiero; 2018-06-15 at 07:47 PM.
    Wushu Open Reloaded
    Actual Play: The Shadow of the Sun (Acrozatarim's WFRP campaign) as Pawel Hals and Mass: the Effecting - Transcendence as Russell Ortiz.
    Now running: Tyche's Favourites, a historical ACKS campaign set around Massalia 300BC.
    In Sanity We Trust Productions - our podcasting site where you can hear our dulcet tones, updated almost every week.

  3. - Top - End - #1233
    Orc in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2012

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

    You wound me sir! I'm always shocked how little respect I get in this forum after all these years. The herring market actually crashed for the first time in the end of the 14th Century. From the wiki:
    I did not mean to "wound you". But you come with very sweeping statements, and some of them are actually very wrong. You say I "confuse" or "misunderstand" things, So I could have equal rights to be wounded.

    On the Skania and the Herring markets

    The herring market actually crashed for the first time in the end of the 14th Century
    While the wiki-pedia has:
    "The abundance of herring around Scania abruptly ceased in the beginning of the 15th century and the region lost its importance as a trading place."
    So that seems to imply that it did NOT crash in the 14th but in the 15th century. Though it is at odds with Danish sources I have sayng it happens in the 1500-hundred (16th century). To mavoid "english" versus danish sources i here quote the Swedish wikipedia:

    Fiskemarknaderna i Skanör - Falsterbo drog årligen under 1200-talet fram till början av 1500-talet till sig tiotusentals besökare. Den danske kungen garanterade genom sina fogdar att ordning och lag upprätthölls på fiskmarknaden.
    https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skan%C3%B6rs_borg
    and

    När sillen uteblev 1560 slutade marknadens storhetstid i Skåne, Skanör och Falsterbo nästan ödelades, samtidigt med de vendiska städernas stagnationsperiod.
    https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sk%C3%A5nemarknaden

    Skanör (danish Skanør) and Falsterbo was the two most important herring markets in Scania. Perhaps its a translation error in the English wikiepedia (a situation were 15oo-talet became not 1500-hundreds but 15th century thing?). I can find my old medieval history professor wrting that the top of the herring trade was around 1400, thus excluding a crash in the late 14th century. I am more inclined to trust the combined statements of a history professor, the Danish and Swedish wikipedia, Danish encyclopedias etc, than the English wikipedia about stuff happening in Scania in the medieval period.

    More broadly, this is how I understand the Skania market. The market was seasonal and moved every year as it was always located wherever the herring were running.
    Again this is wrong. Sorry, but it is. I respect you knowledge on the Baltic, town history etc, but here you are out of you area. The Scania market is referring to a series of markets, often many held each years. They where held annually at both Skanør, Falsterbo and even on the island of Amager at Dragør (Amager is a island of the Zealand coast). The main sites where used every year, castles where built to run the trade and gather the taxes etc, thus not moving about every year! A few smaller markets where held in other places during high periods.

    More than once the Danes were thrown out.
    Really? Can you come with other examples than the one already discussed?

    The other booths selling various other more general trade items - beer, weapons, textiles, glassware, and so on, was an adjunct to the main show, i.e. the fish harvest and fish market.
    As I mentioned earlier: this is true in the early parts of the market history, but as towns grew in the 13th-14th century the Scania markets stopped being important for other trade, and became specialised herring places.

    On Scania and the political situation in Sacandinavia in the medeival period
    Scania may have technically been ruled by the Danish crown, but of course in theory Sweden was part of Denmark through out the Late Middle Ages, but one Kingdom laying claim to a given area was usually a matter of degree in those times.
    and

    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.
    Here you should be careful. You are mixing very different parts of Europe (did not you warn about that sort of things a few posts back?).

    First of: Scania was as Danish as Zealand during the medieval period (and until the 17th century!). They spoke danish, followed danish laws, elected danish kings, sat in the "dane court" and the bloody Danish archbishop was placed in Lund! It is as Danish as Kent or East Anglia is English. No one in the medieval period contested this! In Scandinavia there was much more agreement about which lands lay where than in "continental" Europe.

    The main issues like this was the border to Germany, as the danish lords (later dukes) of Slesvig also ended up with Holstein and was thus both Danish and German lords, and then situations arising from the "Baltic crusades" (Rügen became part of the Danish bishopry of Roskilde, even after the kings lost control).

    Secondly yes Sweden was sort of under danish control, but Sweden was not "part of Denmark". It was ruled with Swedish laws and a Swedish council under a common king/queen. So its like the "united kingdom". Scotland didn't become part of England, it became part of the united kingdom (though England was - and is- clearly the dominant party in the union...).

    Denmark was mostly, though not always inimical, as they were in an almost permanent power struggle with the larger Hanseatic towns over control of the Oresund (
    and generally opposed to the burgher estate it seems
    ).
    Refering to the bolded opart.
    NO, not always. After Lübeck had been founded by Henry the Lion, it served a short period as Danish royal town (early 13th century) and theycontinued the rights and expanded the town (then due to shifting alliances it became German again and became a free town in 1220'ies). Also Christian the second was very popular among the burghers,and one of his main advisors was the mayor of Malmö (in Scania...), another was the Dutch born Sigbrit Villoms, mother of Dyveke who was mistress of the king. Even after the dead of Dyveke Sigbrit acted almost as chancelor for the king and he promoted dutch immigrant to Copenhagen and gave the towns extended rights etc. In general the kings was more on the side of the peasants and burghers of Denmark than the Hanseatic league who often supported the danish nobles in their struggle against the king. The nobles sought to limit burgher and peasant rights, this was supported by the Hnase partly due to wanting to damage the danish kings (and perhaps to avoid competition from Danish towns?).¨

    Well I guess it depends on how you define a 'minor battle', but you do have quite a few incidents. For example the Dalarna rising in 1434, led by Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson (say that 3 times with a mouth full of beer I dare you) which had quite significant consequences. As far as I'm aware it led to the expulsion of Danes from Sweden. And the army was mainly peasants, as well as some miners and a few burghers and petty nobles.
    Which is the ones I mentioned in my previous post:

    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!).
    You often in these threads alude to Swedish peasant being well armed as a result of mercenaries defeated, that requires that there is at least a few good of examples of such defeats...

    Did you read the wikipedia article? Englebrekt killed off a few locally appointed nobles, not a mercenary army. Then he lost power to another Swede (a noble): Karl Knutsson. Karl became King of Sweden when Eirk gave up bieng a king to turn pirate (much more fun!).

    Karl Knutson (the swede) was then thrown out by the peasant reinstating a Danish king, first Christopher, then Karl Knutson again when Christoffer died without children, and later the "lower nobility" and burghers got Christian I of Denmark installed. Karl Knutson came back several times though, finally he won power with an army of german and polish mercenaries (due to Christian 1 imprisoning a memeber of a leading Swedish noble family who had helped him gain the throne in the first place).

    The medieval period have many examples (Swedish, norweigean, finish, Danish etc) peasant rebellions. They are typiccally only succsful if they gain support from either a royal pretender or the nibility (often the lower nobility), or the Hanse.

    ... the one in Sweden being notable that it is only one of two I'm aware of on that scale in which the Peasants were specifically represented as one of the Estates.
    In the meeting of the estates in Denmark in the late 15th and the 16th century the peasants was represneted through elected peasant at the local things (herredsting - county things)....

    The three national things had been lawgiving and elected the kings in the early medieval, but had lost power to the court (Dane hoffet - the dane court - A sort of large assembly of nobles and bishops etc, and in afew cases possibly even peasant) in the 14th ad early 15th century. They at this time was mainly judicial in natur (judging according to the law, not making the law). But as the dane court gradually lost power in the 15th to a "rigsråd" (natinal counsel consisting of a small group of leading nobles), the meetings of the four estates became sort of a way for the King to limit the power of the high nobility (they at least in theroy had to elect the kings, and approve taxes etc). Note that Scanians was part of both natoiional things, the dane court, the national counsil, and the assmblages in their respective periods... Sweden and Norway had their own institutions separately but all under the Danish king (during the union period).
    Last edited by Tobtor; 2018-06-15 at 02:51 AM.

  4. - Top - End - #1234
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    ElfPirate

    Join Date
    Aug 2013

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

    Quote Originally Posted by Galloglaich View Post
    That said, Kalevala is a fantastic source for RPG type stuff: spells, creatures, characters, adventure hooks and situations. Great evocative poetry - it's very Tolkein-esque. Great for any campaign set in a woodland setting.
    Point of order! Tolkien is Kalevala-esque!

    He cribbed much of his writings off it. He was a big fan of all the Scandinavian traditional stuff and freely borrowed from them all of course.
    He found the lack of a similar British set of stories bothersome which is why he ended up inventing something himself to fill the gap.

    Quote Originally Posted by Galloglaich View Post
    Also look at that Olaus Magnus map I posted for the archers on skis, ice skates and war-reindeer and so forth.

    G
    Don't forget his "companion book to" the map. "Historia de Gentibus Septentrionalibus"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Desc...rthern_Peoples
    Last edited by snowblizz; 2018-06-15 at 03:10 AM.

  5. - Top - End - #1235
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2013

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

    Quote Originally Posted by Epimethee View Post
    About greek weapons: as already said, not many were described. The most famous example is of course the shield of Achilles, his depiction is one of the most celebrated literary piece in history. The shield was made by Hephaistos and brought by the divine mother of Achilles. The fight for the weapons and armor were important i Illuad but more as a symbol of the individual valor of a fighter than his power. Also there was some greed involved .

    Amazingly quite a few bows are mentionned and the Odysseus one may be the closer to a Symbol of kingship. Ok, that‘s not exactly a sword in the stone but the weapon can only be used by the rightfull sovereign of the place. Herakles, Apollo, Artemis all use bows and for the gods it is an important attribute.

    Theseus had to take is sword and sandals from under the rock were his father put them. Again The weapon is not really an attribute, more a token of recognition.

    Also i think there is a Zeus depicted with a labris, the two headed axe, but it‘s a foggy memory.

    I think the closest relative could be staffs, like the thyrse of Dyonisos or the caduceus of Hermes. The thyrse was used by priests but obviously it was no weapon and not used by kings.

    Also the club of Herakles is a specific case of depiction of the hero. Suffice to say that it is not intended to give him more but to show how special he was. Only a god could use such weapon efficiently.

    The fact is also that Greece was not as fond of individual military valoir as the neighbours. The weapons were collectively dedicated to temples, and the shield was valorised. The strength of the city was important so personal weapons were less valorised than, say, in medieval Europe.
    As much as i understand, few of the divine attribute were explicitly weapons cause few of the gods were fighters. Even then, some are mysterious like the famous Aegis.

    But i will read the worldbuilding proposition more carefully. I have to catch up to the thread again...
    I specifically avoided bows or shields to avoid stepping on Apollo, Artemis, or Athena, (who within the context of the events of Aphrodite and Hades wedding was a child at the time, (the fully formed bit of her conception has been dropped)), and also because as far cavalry and bows go it was Apollo and Artemis and Dionysus that transformed them to a well regarded weapon. But Apollo and Artemis won't be born for a while after the events of the wedding and the lead up to it.(This is to keep them out of the way of the events of the lead up. The negetive way the rest barring her parents treats Aphrodite just prior to her and Hades becoming a thing would undoubtedly elicit utter fury from her younger siblings as it did her parents, but when it's just her parents (however powerful they may be), vs the rest of mount Olympus its a reaction that's not going to be overtly challenged, indeed Hades pulling "reason you suck speech" is a big part of what drew him and Aphrodite together. He appreciated her for who she was, not the potential for power or lust they saw in her.)

    So 'm a little hesitant to bring bows in. Shields certainly wouldn't be an issue however. As a notation whilst all of the gods are capable of fighting, until Athena and Ares came along none where considered individual warriors as a core part of their identities. They could all fight and as Lord of Olympus first Zeus and th later Hades where expected to lead the armies thereof, but they weren't seen as doing so because they where amazing warriors but because a good ruler was expected to lead the troops into battle.

  6. - Top - End - #1236
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Brother Oni's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Cippa's River Meadow
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

    Quote Originally Posted by Epimethee View Post
    The fact is also that Greece was not as fond of individual military valoir as the neighbours. The weapons were collectively dedicated to temples, and the shield was valorised. The strength of the city was important so personal weapons were less valorised than, say, in medieval Europe.
    Please excuse me if I'm misunderstanding something as I'm not very familiar with Greek culture and legends of the time, but from warty goblin (another infrequent poster on this thread), I was under the impression that in Ancient times, great emphasis was put on the earning of kleos, that is the earning of glory through great deeds.

    Since spoils of war is one of the direct measures of your great deeds, earning stuff from raiding or killing important enemy officers would imply great military valour. In the Illiad, when King Agamemnon takes Briseis away from Achilles, he's directly taking away Achilles' kleos, resulting in Achilles' first temper tantrum.

  7. - Top - End - #1237
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    May 2018

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Oni View Post
    Please excuse me if I'm misunderstanding something as I'm not very familiar with Greek culture and legends of the time, but from warty goblin (another infrequent poster on this thread), I was under the impression that in Ancient times, great emphasis was put on the earning of kleos, that is the earning of glory through great deeds.

    Since spoils of war is one of the direct measures of your great deeds, earning stuff from raiding or killing important enemy officers would imply great military valour. In the Illiad, when King Agamemnon takes Briseis away from Achilles, he's directly taking away Achilles' kleos, resulting in Achilles' first temper tantrum.
    That’s true for the heroic ages , the time of Homer and the stories of demi-gods. By the time of the city, the classical periode, the individual glory was less important.

    I’m not home so i use my memories here and some further readings may complete the picture. But the emphasis on thecollective of the city, the line of battle where the warriors stand together was greater. The morality of the fight was about togetherness, and i think i saw somewhere some fighter chastised because he had breaked the frontline. (I may be wrong on this last one). The Greeks fight together unlike the barbarians.

    This tie also with the classical ideology of a state of (very roughly) equals citizen. Most of the weapons were dedicated in the name of a city. There was no use of a specific weapon to remember a specific warrior as long as the glory of the city was celebrated.

    Contrast for example with the emphasis on individual valor that seem apparent in the grave were swords and other pieces of equipement were found.

    Again i have to read a few things but i remember somebody talking about the balancing of the collective needs with the individual values of the aristocratic families of the ruling classes.
    I hope i responded to the question but maybe a bit roughly i’m affraid.

  8. - Top - End - #1238
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

    We are getting very deep into the weeds here, and I can tell that this touches a nationalistic nerve with you. I believe we have a clear disagreement on some points of this history, but some of it is a matter of interpretation of history which is far slipperier and can vary widely for the same events between countries. Most of my sources on the Skania market, disputes between Hanse towns and Denmark and the herring fishery derive ultimately from Hanseatic records in the (Low) German language, though some from Polish (Jan Dlugosz) also some from Stockholm and Visby or the Teutonic Knights. Others are Swedish. I admit I have not used any Danish sources, mainly because they haven't been as accessible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tobtor View Post
    So that seems to imply that it did NOT crash in the 14th but in the 15th century. Though it is at odds with Danish sources I have sayng it happens in the 1500-hundred (16th century). To mavoid "english" versus danish sources i here quote the Swedish wikipedia:
    Late 14th / early 15th - my understanding is that it was actually a series of bad fish catch "harvests" which started in the 1390s and finally collapsed around 1405. There are various theories as to why, some say the herring migrated into the North Sea, others say that overfishing caused a population crash. Cod and Herring fisheries also became much more developed around Holland and in the North Sea.

    As for when the Skania market and associated herring fishery declined, rather than wikipedia, or this article which looks quite promising but for some reason Brill doesn't seem to have made it available even on JSTOR, I will quote directly from the most respected Academic source on the Hanseatic League in the last 150 years, Philippe Dollinger. This is from page 239 of his The German Hanse.

    "Although Denmark occupies an important place in the political history of the hansa and had many immigrants from Germany, it was economically of secondary importance, apart from Skania. Being almost exclusively an agricultural area, it had nothing to offer the great Hanseatic merchants. The Germans purchased from the Danes mainly oxen and horses. The Oxen bought in the markets of Ribe or Rendsburg were moved on the hoof each year in thousands (about 20,000 in 1500) to the Wendish towns or to Holland. There was probably also a considerable trade in butter, and in exchange the Hanseatics sold the Danes salt, wine, cloth and iron.

    The Skanian herring trade was on a far larger scale. The fish were caught on the shores of the southern Sound from July to September....[] The yield was unpredictable, as the shoals, although usually enormous, varied considerably in size from year to year. The fisheries were already very prosperous in the thirteenth century and seem to have reached their peak towards the end of the fourteenth century, after which they declined."


    Declined doesn't mean nobody caught any herring there, it just means it became far less economically important. Dollinger estimates a peak of 300,000 barrels of herring in the 14th Century. Hanseatic records indicate that 65,000 barrels went to Lubeck alone in 1400 (officially, there were probably more than that off-books). By 1494 the rate had declined to 47,323 barrels for all merchants put together, according to tax receipts of the Danish bailiff. That is 15.7% of the peak volume.

    Dollinger is French by the way, so it's not some kind of English, or Swedish bias. It sounds like is a Danish language tradition on a lot of these stories which is at variance with my sources.

    I can find my old medieval history professor wrting that the top of the herring trade was around 1400, thus excluding a crash in the late 14th century.
    Right. Think about that for a moment. The top of the herring market is 'around' 1400 - where do you go from the top? Like I said IIRC the herring population started fluctuating wildly (I suspect due to overfishing) in the 1390s and the first really big crash hit in 1402 and then again in 1405, after which it did not recover for generations.

    Again this is wrong. Sorry, but it is. I respect you knowledge on the Baltic, town history etc, but here you are out of you area. The Scania market is referring to a series of markets, often many held each years. They where held annually at both Skanør, Falsterbo and even on the island of Amager at Dragør (Amager is a island of the Zealand coast). The main sites where used every year, castles where built to run the trade and gather the taxes etc, thus not moving about every year! A few smaller markets where held in other places during high periods.
    I will try to explain. The herring did not care where the castles or fishing villages were. The herring 'ran' (from what I gather, were breeding) at a different spot in the channel every year. This in turn had to do with where saltier North Sea water was mixing with 'sweeter' (less salty) Baltic Sea water. That spot, or as close to it as possible, was where the market would be, in the form of hundreds of booths, tents and temporary sheds. The reason being was as this was done basically in the Summer (July to September) you wanted the shortest possible route between where the fish were caught and where they could be processed (beheaded, gutted, and packed in salt in barrels). Because they did not have refrigeration etc., spoilage was a major issue. Once they were processed they could be stored for up to two years apparently.

    Once they were salted and in barrels, the herring were moved by small boats and coastal vessels to the markets at Skanor or later Falsterbo, then to larger Hanseatic ships typically docked at Malmo or even down in Dragor (near Copenhagen). From there they sailed back to Lubeck, Hamburg, Danzig etc., and ultimately up the Rhine, Elbe or Vistula to various ports inland.

    Really? Can you come with other examples than the one already discussed?
    Yes but I'll circle back to that. It's another deep dive.

    Here you should be careful. You are mixing very different parts of Europe (did not you warn about that sort of things a few posts back?).
    No, I'm not making a generalization here but an analogy - there is an important difference. Few Kingdoms in the late medieval period were anything close to a modern State. Certainly Denmark was not. The closest thing in the Baltic would have been the Monastic State of the Teutonic Order. There were no passports or visas, and typically no border guards between nations except in times of strife. Typically marked by a natural barrier like a river, a mountain range, a marsh or the sea - the borders between nations more accurately represented areas of the diminishing control of one polity and the increasing control of another.

    In border areas however, such as in the area were are referring to Schleswig / Holstein, Pomerania, Prussia and Southern Sweden, local entities often had feudal, military political and economic links to both (or many or all) nearby kingdoms or proto-States. Knights living near the border with Denmark for example may have sworn or inherited allegiance to the King of Denmark, to Lubeck or Hamburg, to a prominent Swedish noble family, and to the Holy Roman Emperor all simultaneously. In effect this meant, that knights (or princes, cities, free peasant clans etc.) could and did choose which side they allied with at any given moment, based on the ever shifting alliances and intrigues between the princes themselves, and what they saw as their own advantage.

    Furthermore, control in a given area such as Scania, Visby, or Stockholm (all contested between the various entities in the Baltic) was only 'real' to the extent that the polity or proto-State in question could actually enforce its wishes. I.e. make people pay taxes and follow their rules. As you note, at one point Lubeck itself was a vassal to Denmark, but it did not mind this legal nicety once it had walls and a fleet of it's own. Lubeck also routinely shrugged off demands and threats made by the Holy Roman Emperor including to "be nice' to Denmark, by the way.

    Secondly yes Sweden was sort of under danish control, but Sweden was not "part of Denmark". It was ruled with Swedish laws and a Swedish council under a common king/queen. So its like the "united kingdom". Scotland didn't become part of England, it became part of the united kingdom (though England was - and is- clearly the dominant party in the union...).
    The comparison between the Nordic Union aka Kalmar Union with the United Kingdom, while interesting, is also disingenuous in this context. Since the time of Queen Margaret I (one of the more underestimated and underrated monarchs in European history), Danish Kings considered Norway and Sweden to be part of Denmark. Margaret herself was literally and figuratively in her own lifetime Queen on Sweden and Norway as well as being Queen of Denmark. After her reign, many of the subsequent Danish monarchs being far less impressive, Norwegians and in particular Swedes frequently contested this as you are aware.

    NO, not always. After Lübeck had been founded by Henry the Lion, it served a short period as Danish royal town (early 13th century) and they continued the rights and expanded the town (then due to shifting alliances it became German again and became a free town in 1220'ies). Also Christian the second was very popular among the burghers,and one of his main advisors was the mayor of Malmö (in
    All well and good - The difference is that Danish towns were Mediatstadt, controlled and dominated by either the king or a local Lord, whereas the towns of the Hanse, at least the larger ones, were either free outright (Lubeck and Hamburg for example) or subject only to the Emperor and then only nominally.

    You often in these threads alude to Swedish peasant being well armed as a result of mercenaries defeated, that requires that there is at least a few good of examples of such defeats...
    Ok, but later - I'll have to pull down a few more books.

    Did you read the wikipedia article? Englebrekt killed off a few locally appointed nobles, not a mercenary army. Then he lost power to another Swede (a noble): Karl Knutsson. Karl became King of Sweden when Eirk gave up bieng a king to turn pirate (much more fun!).
    A few replies to your specific queries:

    1. Yes - I'm very familiar with the story and rather resent the implication that I would even have to rely on the wikipedia article - I linked it for your (and the other readers) convenience as I have yet to figure out a convenient or easy way to link my books online.
    2. Locally appointed nobles - given land and dominion over was typically how one Kingdom controlled territory within another in those times. Though of course, not all of them were actually local in origin or even native language speakers. So yes that is how rebellions were conducted - many of these Danish affiliated nobles were given extra support from foreign mercenaries hired by Denmark. These mercenaries were mostly German but also specifically included Italians, Scots and Poles.
    3. The treachery of the nobles of all nations in backstabbing one another (Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson himself was a noble) in their pursuit of the 'Game of Thrones' is the rule rather than the exception. Nevertheless, the rebellion was a success from the point of view of the Burghers, Peasants and miners because the peasants were admitted into the Riksdag and Danish authority in the region was temporarily eliminated and was in sharp decline after.


    The medieval period have many examples (Swedish, norweigean, finish, Danish etc) peasant rebellions. They are typiccally only succsful if they gain support from either a royal pretender or the nibility (often the lower nobility), or the Hanse.
    Lol - what about the Dithmarschen? Didn't Denmark try to invade them among many other regional princes? So far as I know they won those wars all by themselves, pretty much. And they remained autonomous until the 16th Century.

    Sweden was unusual (though far from unique) by medieval standards in the considerable rights and autonomy conferred to the "Peasants". Rights which were, by the way, also extended to Finland after the Swedes annexed it, apparently more or less by accident. Swedish farmers were really not even truly peasants in the Feudal sense but more accurately just clansmen, members of their various extended families linked together by various alliances, sometimes going back many generations.

    G

  9. - Top - End - #1239
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

    Since I was forced to go get one of my books down, and this was the original subject under debate (the economic development of medieval Sweden and it's relationship with the Hanseatic League) I will transcribe some of Dollingers commentary on this matter. I think it's pretty interesting, no doubt far more interesting than the finer points of herring stocks in 1395 or 1402 anyway...

    From Dollinger:

    From the thirteenth century onwards central Sweden was essential to Hanseatic trade. The port of stockholm handled the products of the stock rearing industry and of the Norrland forests, and above all copper from Flaun and iron from the widely scattered mines. The vital artery of foreign trade was the Stockholm-Lubeck route, served by about twenty vessels in the fourteenth century and by about thirty in the fifteenth. Most of this trade was in the hands of Lubeckers. At the end of the fourteenth century not more than a quarter of it was handled by Stockholm merchants, who themselves were of German origin*. From 1368 to 1370, when exports greatly exceeded imports, nine Lubeck merchants handled 60 percent of the trade between Stockholm, Lubeck and Flanders.

    Minerals were the most valuable products exported by Sweden. Almost all the copper from Falun was dispatched to Lubeck, mostly for re-export to Flanders. In 1368 these exports were worth about 5,000 Lubeck marks, and 84 per cent of the trade was controlled by no more than fourteen of the wealthiest merchants. However a sharp drop in production at the end of the fourteenth century, due to political and administrative causes which have not yet been properly investigated, led to a severe crisis in the copper market. Fifty years later there were signs of a recovery, and by the end of the fifteenth century the amount of copper exported to Lubeck greatly exceeded the previous century.

    Iron was produced by many mines in the district of Falun, and also in central and Southern Sweden. it was referred to by two different names, yser and osmund, the latter being applied only to the Swedish product. The two varieties differed only in appearance, the result perhaps of the smelting technique used. Osmund, unlike the pig-iron produced elsewhere, had a lumpy, rubble like appearance (in formibus ruderibus osmund, as one text says). Actually more iron than copper was produced and exported. Lubeck received 1,680 schiffpfund in 1368, 3,000 in 1369, valued at 7,000 marks, and 5,000 schiffpfund in 1399. Although most of the iron was re-exported to Flanders a good deal, unlike copper, was sent to various Baltic ports. The traffic appears to have increased in the fifteenth century (6,000 shiffpfund in 1492) a new factor being the export of ever larger quantities of osmund to Danzig.

    As well as metals, Stockholm exported furs from Norrland, usually in the first two or three ships of the season, so as to get them on the Lubeck and Bruges markets before the arrival of the Russian furs. Swedish merchants had a much larger share of this trade, which in Lubeck in 1368 reached a value roughly equivalent to the copper trade (furs 2,300 marks, oxides, 1,000 marks)

    Perhaps the most surprising figure given by the Pfundzollbuch of 1368 concerns the export of Swedish butter to Lubeck. It was valued at more than 15,000 marks, and half was re-exported to Flanders. This abnormally high figure was probably due to the war, which deprived north Germany and Western Europe of Danish butter. In the following years the figure dropped by more than 50 percent, and never again, even in the 16th Century reached the heights of 168. Butter, like the cattle exported from south Sweden and Gotland, could not cope with the Danish competition.

    Hanseatic imports into Sweden consisted mainly of cloth and salt. Cloth represented more than half, sometimes two-thirds of these imports. After 1375 the quantity of salt dispatched from Lubeck decreased, owing to increasing quantities of Bourgneuf salt being imported, especially from Danzig.
    One other interesting tidbit, he mentions that 90% of the exports from Bergen in Norway was cod by 1368, to the tune of 10,000 Lubeck marks in 1370, 18,000 in 1373 and 20,000 by 1400.

    Iceland seems to have become an important source of Cod by 1475, he notes that "although Icelandic code was coarser and less highly thought of than Norwegian cod, it was less expensive, and when a method of pounding the flesh was discovered which made it tender it became increasingly popular, especially in South Germany."

    imports into Norway included rye and wheat flour, malt and hops, salt and linen. The linen came mostly from Holland.

    G

  10. - Top - End - #1240
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

    Some comparable prices in Prussian marks from Dollinger these are per "last" - a maritime unit of measurement ranging from 770- 1000 kg depending on the time and place.

    Saffron 7,040
    Ginger 1,040
    Pepper 640
    Wax 237.5
    French wine 109.5
    Rice 80
    Steel 75
    Rhenish wine 66
    Oil 60
    Honey 35
    Butter 30
    Hungarian iron 21
    Trave salt 12.5
    Herring 12
    Flemish salt 8
    Wismar beer 7.5
    Flour 7.5
    Flour 7.5
    Wheat 7
    Rte 5.75
    Barley 4.2
    Ash (woad) 4.75


    Dollinger has a lot more interesting stuff including individual ship records and so on, but no time right now to transcribe, maybe later.

    G

  11. - Top - End - #1241
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Archpaladin Zousha's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Hastings, MN
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

    Which would win in a sea fight: a galleon or a junk?
    "Reach down into your heart and you'll find many reasons to fight. Survival. Honor. Glory. But what about those who feel it's their duty to protect the innocent? There you'll find a warrior savage enough to match any dragon, and in the end, they'll retain what the others won't. Their humanity."

  12. - Top - End - #1242
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Vinyadan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

    The times described by the Iliad were remarkably different from those of classical Greece. There were kings, who looked for kleos. The decisive fighting was done by them, maybe because they were best armed, maybe because they were commanders that led by example.

    Around the time of the fall of Troy (let's say 1200 BC), this world disappears. Thukydides ascribes this to the fact that these kings had spent too many years abroad, which allowed powerful factions to form at home. When they came back, they were killed or ousted, or had to fight hard to regain their place.

    Even after the fall of the Mycenaean civilization, however, the cult of heroes keeps going. Many people claim to descend from heroes, like the Heraclides. The cities worship their ancient heroes in a way akin to gods. Sometimes, a man receives heroic cult after his death: the founders of colonies, for example, become heroes for their new cities. But this already shows a huge shift in mentality. The old heroes are great for their individual kleos, but these new heroes are great because of their relationship with their cities.

    This shift in general informs the whole of classical Greece. The difference between free citizen and slave of a king was very strongly felt. Sparta had kings, but their powers were limited by the law. And the great legislators are never kings (Drakon, Solon, Cleisthenes, Lykurgos). The citizen body is what matters.

    This also leads to a conflict between family code of conduct and city laws. We see it in Athens with the juridical handling of "honour killings", and in the theatre with the Eumenides and the Antigone.

    Athens also imposes laws that aim to equalise the looks, size, and richness of tombs. Athens was unusual in its democracy, but it's interesting to note that the heroon, where the hero was worshipped, generally started out as his tomb. So it becomes impossible for families to start out their own hero cult of a fallen family member without the city's consent.

    Anyway, a full citizen was supposed to feel first and foremost a part of his citizenry. By serving the interests of the citizenry, he served his own.
    Quote Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien, 1955
    I thought Tom Bombadil dreadful — but worse still was the announcer's preliminary remarks that Goldberry was his daughter (!), and that Willowman was an ally of Mordor (!!).

  13. - Top - End - #1243
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

    With the rise of the city, kleos was replaced for the most part by arete as a driving goal for the citizen who wanted to make a name for themselves. Arete is "excellence" and you can show that in many fields, not just combat. Kleos undermines the cohesion and community of the phalanx, which is a collective endeavour of all the important citizens.

    It wasn't just the Greeks who changed their opinion of personal glory - the Romans had a similar shift when they adopted the phalanx. The prescribed punishment for leaving the phalanx to seek individual combat was as harsh as that if you fled.

    That's not to say people didn't read Homer and dream of glory through conquest - Alexander the "Great" was channelling his inner Achilles most of the time, and before he thought he was a god, he thought he was a hero from the epics.
    Wushu Open Reloaded
    Actual Play: The Shadow of the Sun (Acrozatarim's WFRP campaign) as Pawel Hals and Mass: the Effecting - Transcendence as Russell Ortiz.
    Now running: Tyche's Favourites, a historical ACKS campaign set around Massalia 300BC.
    In Sanity We Trust Productions - our podcasting site where you can hear our dulcet tones, updated almost every week.

  14. - Top - End - #1244
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    May 2018

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl View Post
    I specifically avoided bows or shields to avoid stepping on Apollo, Artemis, or Athena, (who within the context of the events of Aphrodite and Hades wedding was a child at the time, (the fully formed bit of her conception has been dropped)), and also because as far cavalry and bows go it was Apollo and Artemis and Dionysus that transformed them to a well regarded weapon. But Apollo and Artemis won't be born for a while after the events of the wedding and the lead up to it.(This is to keep them out of the way of the events of the lead up. The negetive way the rest barring her parents treats Aphrodite just prior to her and Hades becoming a thing would undoubtedly elicit utter fury from her younger siblings as it did her parents, but when it's just her parents (however powerful they may be), vs the rest of mount Olympus its a reaction that's not going to be overtly challenged, indeed Hades pulling "reason you suck speech" is a big part of what drew him and Aphrodite together. He appreciated her for who she was, not the potential for power or lust they saw in her.)

    So 'm a little hesitant to bring bows in. Shields certainly wouldn't be an issue however. As a notation whilst all of the gods are capable of fighting, until Athena and Ares came along none where considered individual warriors as a core part of their identities. They could all fight and as Lord of Olympus first Zeus and th later Hades where expected to lead the armies thereof, but they weren't seen as doing so because they where amazing warriors but because a good ruler was expected to lead the troops into battle.
    An elegant solution may be to focus on the whole panoply. You have a lot to play with: the shape and color of the plate, including engraving or geometric shapes, the shield and his many symbolic options, add matching weapons and you have an epic warrior. You could mix something like the homeric depiction of armors with a more classical style easily.

    In time of war the king but not exactly a king stand out. In peace you could have the panoply around the throne but not a throne, like the shield where his arm rest, a spear leaning on the back of the seat and so on. If you don’t go all Saint Seiya it should be fine.

    After all Achilles was given a full set of armor by Thetis.
    Last edited by Epimethee; 2018-06-16 at 01:06 AM.

  15. - Top - End - #1245
    Orc in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2012

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

    We are getting very deep into the weeds here, and I can tell that this touches a nationalistic nerve with you.
    wow. Low shot! I take offense to that. I acknowledge all the defeats Denmark had against the Hanseatic, I acknowledge that Sweden was the stornge rpower from the 17th century onwards, and that there also was danish defeats before this (but that Demark had the upper hand during the medieval is not contested by Swedish or Danish scholars, not perticular nationalistic).

    I believe we have a clear disagreement on some points of this history, but some of it is a matter of interpretation of history which is far slipperier and can vary widely for the same events between countries. Most of my sources on the Skania market, disputes between Hanse towns and Denmark and the herring fishery derive ultimately from Hanseatic records in the (Low) German language, though some from Polish (Jan Dlugosz) also some from Stockholm and Visby or the Teutonic Knights. Others are Swedish. I admit I have not used any Danish sources, mainly because they haven't been as accessible.
    Well the Swedish sources is in agreement with "my" interpretation, and that of my history professor...

    Late 14th / early 15th - my understanding is that it was actually a series of bad fish catch "harvests" which started in the 1390s and finally collapsed around 1405. There are various theories as to why, some say the herring migrated into the North Sea, others say that overfishing caused a population crash. Cod and Herring fisheries also became much more developed around Holland and in the North Sea.
    A collapse? Really. Taxes kept comming in so its not a collapse. It is way too dramatic a term!


    The Skanian herring trade was on a far larger scale. The fish were caught on the shores of the southern Sound from July to September....[] The yield was unpredictable, as the shoals, although usually enormous, varied considerably in size from year to year. The fisheries were already very prosperous in the thirteenth century and [B]seem to have reached their peak towards the end of the fourteenth century, after which they declined
    Decline is very different from collapse, I would say. Do you agree? Again the source:

    Dollinger estimates a peak of 300,000 barrels of herring in the 14th Century. Hanseatic records indicate that 65,000 barrels went to Lubeck alone in 1400 (officially, there were probably more than that off-books).
    So Dollinger uses 1400 as the peak year, just as my sources. Why do he do this if there was a "collapse" in the late 14th century?

    Declined doesn't mean nobody caught any herring there, it just means it became far less economically important.
    Right, true. If you have a development some point in time will always be "peak". Yes the importance wore off, especially perhaps for the German towns(?). But no Collapse, it was still an importent revinue (though graduelly the Oresund due got more importent, it wa sintroduced in 1460'ies or so).

    Dollinger is French by the way, so it's not some kind of English, or Swedish bias. It sounds like is a Danish language tradition on a lot of these stories which is at variance with my sources.
    Uhmm, no. Dollinger have the same peak at 1400 that my history books. Compare:
    reached their peak towards the end of the fourteenth century
    , to your

    herring market actually crashed for the first time in the end of the 14th Century
    So perhaps it is
    it is a matter of interpretation of history
    And I might add an interpretation of what Dollinger say, where I get something different than you...

    Yes, I think Dollinger put greater stress on the decline during the 15th century(!), than my sources. Anyway Dollinger also states that the catch
    varied considerably in size from year to year
    This is indeed true from 13th century onwards: the catch varied! It is not the same as a crash or collapse. The herring declined through the 15th century, yes, not as much as some sources might suggest, but decline from the peak (by 1450 it was as large as perhaps 1300 etc). The real herring "collapse" is in the 16th century. That is why I said you where conflating things. You make an up and down thing during the 13th-15th century (high point in 1400ish) with a collapse in the 16th century into a collapse in the 14th century. Perhaps it lost importance for the Hanse as they lost control of the market in 1385? And that is where you get the collapse thing?

    I will try to explain. The herring did not care where the castles or fishing villages were. The herring 'ran' (from what I gather, were breeding) at a different spot in the channel every year. This in turn had to do with where saltier North Sea water was mixing with 'sweeter' (less salty) Baltic Sea water. That spot, or as close to it as possible, was where the market would be, in the form of hundreds of booths, tents and temporary sheds. The reason being was as this was done basically in the Summer (July to September) you wanted the shortest possible route between where the fish were caught and where they could be processed (beheaded, gutted, and packed in salt in barrels). Because they did not have refrigeration etc., spoilage was a major issue. Once they were processed they could be stored for up to two years apparently.

    Once they were salted and in barrels, the herring were moved by small boats and coastal vessels to the markets at Skanor or later Falsterbo, then to larger Hanseatic ships typically docked at Malmo or even down in Dragor (near Copenhagen). From there they sailed back to Lubeck, Hamburg, Danzig etc., and ultimately up the Rhine, Elbe or Vistula to various ports inland.
    uhhmm. Again flat out no. Since you keep claiming it I looked deeper into the sources and why they make their respective claims. THIS is how the herring trade whent on:

    The different traders, merchant etc, had to buy the rights for a booth/land area (sort of rent), these where located are specific areas (Skanör, Falsterbo, AND dragør, and a few more places!). It was at these places the processing of the fish (salting) went on! Everything was highly regulated (size of fishing nets etc), and theDanish king would never allow large scale salting process happening at random places. Any way your original claim was that the "market" moved about yearly, which is even more wrong, as the market is where the trade was (and that was at the castles). There was tight control of the fishing AND the packing of herring. There was a death penalty on packing the herring wrongly! Thus the king needed to be able to control this.

    Also you asked earlier (with some disbelief i might add) about English and Dutch traders at the markets, and guess who ALSO bought "booth"-space. Right Dutch towns and English traders... Not as many as the German towns (especially Lübeck was big, but also Danzig and Rostock and others). The process is well described from both Skanör and Dragør, and there is no doubt that the processing and salting happened at the sites! Also it is clear that it was a very complex system, with different people doing different parts (some women gutted the fish, others packed them, some men boiled the leftovers for "oil" etc). We also know that around 1420 some of booths (the buildings) became more permanent structures standing from year to year (again a change but not pointing to a collapse...).

    No, I'm not making a generalization here but an analogy - there is an important difference.
    Yes it is an important difference. You wrote
    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.
    . That is a statement that include the mentioned areas. And for Scania it is wrong. Analogy, statement, claim whatever, it is wrong. Would you argue that Kent was English during the medieval period? East Anglia?

    Few Kingdoms in the late medieval period were anything close to a modern State. Certainly Denmark was not.
    I did not claim that Denmark was a modern state. I claimed that Scania was NOT a contested area and was part of the "heartland" of the Danmark (as opposed to the german possesions etc). It is as Danish as Zealland, Funen, Jutland etc. And that Denmark was a relatively fixed entity, and not a more floating one like Germany.

    The closest thing in the Baltic would have been the Monastic State of the Teutonic Order. There were no passports or visas, and typically no border guards between nations except in times of strife. Typically marked by a natural barrier like a river, a mountain range, a marsh or the sea - the borders between nations more accurately represented areas of the diminishing control of one polity and the increasing control of another.
    You tell me this as if I do not know this, which I find a bit annoying, comparing what sort of discussions we have had in the past. You make (correct) statements in order to support wrong assertions (that there existed no passports does not influence whether or not Scania was contested or not...).
    In border areas however, such as in the area were are referring to Schleswig / Holstein, Pomerania, Prussia and Southern Sweden, local entities often had feudal, military political and economic links to both (or many or all) nearby kingdoms or proto-States.
    I am aware, and I mentioned Slesvig and Holstein for that very reason. The poitn is Scania was not such a border zone. Smaaland might have been (but frankly the area was very thinly populated and the strife about that area really first took of in the 16th century, with only minor incidents in the medieval period)

    Knights living near the border with Denmark for example may have sworn or inherited allegiance to the King of Denmark, to Lubeck or Hamburg, to a prominent Swedish noble family, and to the Holy Roman Emperor all simultaneously.
    Yes, to some degree. But a noble in Scania COULD NOT sit in the Swedish Rigsdag, nor could a Swedish one be part of the Danehofftet. And this sort of thing was not really that much of an issue between Denmark and Sweden (as have so very recently been discussed Sweden wasn't really that Feudal...). I came with some examples such as the Selsvig/Holstein case.

    Furthermore, control in a given area such as Scania, Visby, or Stockholm (all contested between the various entities in the Baltic) was only 'real' to the extent that the polity or proto-State in question could actually enforce its wishes. I.e. make people pay taxes and follow their rules.
    That is also true today, a state is only really functioning if it can enforce its rule (see various conflict zones of today). The point I am making is that Scania was not such a conflict zone! There was sometimes disagreement (and even low scale wars) between the archbishop and the King, but they never was about whether or not Scania was danish or not, but on how Denmark should be rules.


    The comparison between the Nordic Union aka Kalmar Union with the United Kingdom, while interesting, is also disingenuous in this context. Since the time of Queen Margaret I (one of the more underestimated and underrated monarchs in European history), Danish Kings considered Norway and Sweden to be part of Denmark. Margaret herself was literally and figuratively in her own lifetime Queen on Sweden and Norway as well as being Queen of Denmark.
    Uhhmm yes, and I am pretty sure Elizabeth II considers herself queen of BOTH Scotland and England (and Wales and Northern Ireland?). Note that Margaret was not Queen of Denmark, but of Denmark, Noway and Sweden... They where separate titles ruled by separate laws and with separate assemblies of estates etc. The the analogy to the united Kingdom is a good one (especially the early part of the united kingdom). Post the Swedish exit Norway gradually became ruled more directly by Denmark, especially after the introduction of absolutism in the 17th century.

    But I agree that Margaret I is one of the coolest rulers Denmark have had, she is every bit as interesting as Elizabeth I of England, but is much less known (outside Scandinavia at least).

    Yes - I'm very familiar with the story and rather resent the implication that I would even have to rely on the wikipedia article - I linked it for your (and the other readers) convenience as I have yet to figure out a convenient or easy way to link my books online.
    Right, but as mentioned I had already mentioned the underlying reasons for the rebellion in my previous post, so I find it recenting that you then send me a wiki-link on the same conflict and say "ohh but what about this rebellion", when I already mention

    Locally appointed nobles - given land and dominion over was typically how one Kingdom controlled territory within another in those times
    .

    Yes, it was.

    Though of course, not all of them were actually local in origin or even native language speakers.
    Quite so, but there was no large influx of Danish nobles in Sewden. The Swedish nobles was still rulers of their areas. Also it was still Swedish nobles who where appointed to offcies (as Albrekt had also been).
    So yes that is how rebellions were conducted - many of these Danish affiliated nobles were given extra support from foreign mercenaries hired by Denmark. These mercenaries were mostly German but also specifically included Italians, Scots and Poles.
    It is not "danish affiliated nobles" but Swedish nobles loyal to the Swedish ELECTED king, who also happened to be king of Denmark and Norway.

    Lol - what about the Dithmarschen? Didn't Denmark try to invade them among many other regional princes? So far as I know they won those wars all by themselves, pretty much. And they remained autonomous until the 16th Century.
    True I didnt mention all areas with rebellions. My sources indicates there was as many nobles in Ditthmarchen as in Sweden. That is a class of "low" nobility, who where close to the major non-noble peasant families (and how it had been in Denmark until at least the 13th century).

    Sweden was unusual (though far from unique) by medieval standards in the considerable rights and autonomy conferred to the "Peasants". Rights which were, by the way, also extended to Finland after the Swedes annexed it, apparently more or less by accident. Swedish farmers were really not even truly peasants in the Feudal sense but more accurately just clansmen, members of their various extended families linked together by various alliances, sometimes going back many generations.
    True, though this seem actually also to ably to danish peasant far up in time, and it is by German influence in the 13th and 14th century that it changes. Though there where still areas of mainly "yeoman" farmers (mostly in the royal fiefs, while the church and the noble fiefs had more tennants). As I mentioned the Danish peasant had a strong influence through the "things" (assembleges) prior to the 14th century, and later got admitted into the estates assemblages in the 15th century.
    Last edited by Tobtor; 2018-06-16 at 02:34 AM.

  16. - Top - End - #1246
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

    Quote Originally Posted by Tobtor View Post
    wow. Low shot! I take offense to that. I acknowledge all the defeats Denmark had against the Hanseatic, I acknowledge that Sweden was the stornge rpower from the 17th century onwards, and that there also was danish defeats before this (but that Demark had the upper hand during the medieval is not contested by Swedish or Danish scholars, not perticular nationalistic).
    Look, I apologize if I offended you - clearly we are getting on each others nerves here and there but I don't think we are really that far apart and it is a matter of interpretation. I think we are also so far in the weeds here that we have lost everyone else in the thread so maybe it's time to wrap this up.

    I respect your knowledge of Bronze Age Scandinavian history you are clearly an expert, not a word I use lightly. I think - I know from experience- there are just different interpretations from different national 'traditions' you might say, of many of these matters. It's always a kind of Rashomon effect.

    When I first released my medieval Baltic book I got a politely worded but very emotional letter from a Lithuanian fellow who noted through gritted teeth as it were that everything I wrote related to his country was Polish propaganda. I found this odd since I had been relying up to that point mainly on German sources and had come to rather admire the Lithuanians from their history. It took me a while to understand what he was getting at and I still don't fully get, but I recognize that it's part of the regional history that there are some very strong feelings particularly between neighbors.

    Dollinger calls the Herring situation at the end of the 14th Century and beginning of the 15th a 'decline'; I used the word 'crash' - which I got from other historians (I didn't invent it). The sudden drop off of herring fisheries in that area is something which as I'm sure you know, has happened several times, then recovered, and this has been studied a great deal. My understanding of the Skania situation is that a series of bad fish harvests starting in 1395 ended by 1405 with a massive drop off. By Dollingers numbers it's about an 85% decline which didn't recover for several generations. I call that a crash, but you could also call it a steep decline or something else.

    To say Skania was the heart of Denmark and insist that it was not contested when you already acknowledged that the Hanseatic towns seized it for 15 years seems a bit odd to me. Whether or not the booths were set up on the beach at the site of the herring run from year to year maybe we should just agree to disagree. That is what my sources say. I described to you what my understanding was - yes there were permanent castles (they are mentioned in the Hanse letter I posted) but the 'market' moved from year to year.

    I also contend that the Hanse and other foreign merchants had at least, a considerable amount of control in that area. This can be the case even with a strong centralized Kingdom. England had to tolerate a Hanseatic quarter in London, the Steelyard, which even controlled one of the London Gates (the bishopsgate) and this went on until the reign of Queen Elizabeth.

    One of the confusing aspects of medieval history is that it was so kaleidoscopic in terms of perspectives. The princely estates (including monarchs) and the towns lived in two almost mutually exclusive worlds, (except that they frequently rubbed elbows). The princely families engaged in the multi-generational power struggle that the Germans called hausmacht or hausmachtpolitik, basically the real world version of the "Game of Thrones".

    I'm sure you know what it means I'm posting a link here (English translation of German wiki, original German wiki here) for others reading the thread. Each family vied for power in an ultimate struggle for political and military dominance across many lifetimes. The French version of this dream was to recreate the reign of Charlemagne, something they achieved after 900 years in the reign of Louis XIV (but at a cost). There were various other regional variations, but the basic idea was "if only MY family can just take over, then we can fix everything and create order in this chaotic world. And then everyone will prosper and be happy." And in order for that best possible outcome to happen, the Ends Justify the Means and anything is permissible.

    The Central European towns did also engage in Hausmacht, with elected city councils crafting multi-generational policies in a manner somewhat analogous to princely families (and with less disruption generation to generation), but in a much more limited fashion. They did not want to conquer the world, or even necessary the province, and they tried hard to avoid getting too involved in the death struggle for control. Their agenda was very different: to develop their towns as a communal project into beautiful cultural and economic centers, including manufacturing, and trade. For the Hanse cities the emphasis was on the latter especially. They kept the trade arteries open, by force if necessary, and thereby supplied the things that everyone - princes, knights, peasants, clergy and burghers alike, needed to survive and to enjoy life. Beyond that, they tended to check out of the endless power struggles. As long as nobody robbed their caravans or ships, they tried to stay neutral. If trade was disrupted then they went to war.

    In the HRE, you also had various distinct elements of the Church each living in their own worlds, you had the peasant clans like in the Dithmarschen or Lithuania or Switzerland, you had the Universities who gave the towns as much trouble as the towns themselves gave the princes. You had mercenary captains, robber knights, pirates and heretic bands. It was a chaotic world of many different centers. What patched this mess together into a semi-functional society was the German concept of Rezeß. Roughly translated it means 'backing down' - in a nutshell, it meant that each polity or faction pushed the others until pushing started to result in bad results for everyone, i.e. pyrrhic victory and so on. The Rezeß meant that neither the Emperor, nor the Church, nor the princes, nor the towns or the knights ever achieved true control, but that a complex compromise usually existed in which it was possible to do business.

    Software translation of the term:

    https://translate.google.com/transla...ss&prev=search

    German wiki

    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rezess

    This, incidentally, is also the main difference between the German (and Flemish, and Bohemian etc.) towns and the Italian City States - the latter played Hausmacht to the hilt and did not "back off" from a conflict so readily.


    Denmark adopted a policy in the middle ages which could be perceived as either retrograde or forward looking. They started out very similar to Sweden but then adopted a certain subset of German or 'Continental' policy - embracing Hausmacht and attempting to establish a strong Feudal Monarchy. You could say either that they were stuck in sort of an 11th -12th Century Feudal model or that they were looking forward to something more like the Absolute Monarchies of the 17th Century.

    Either way that meant a clear hierarchy from top to bottom which required the suppression of autonomous agents within the polity. This translated into a more rural, more agrarian, less dynamic or culturally influential economy but also one more in the direct control of the Monarch. It's basically the same tradeoff the French and the English embraced. And as with France and England, this put Denmark in conflict with the various free agents.

    G

  17. - Top - End - #1247
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    gkathellar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Beyond the Ninth Wave
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

    In mythology, the stringing of a bow as a test of worthiness, kingship, and/or adulthood pops up now and again - Odysseus is of course the obvious example, and it's worth remembering that he has to stop his son Telemachus from stringing his bow and implicitly challenging his authority. Offhand there's also the bow of Shiva in the Ramayana: Rama strings it and is very nearly killed by Parashurama, who takes this as an insult to Shiva's authority (also Parashurama just likes to murder Kshatriyas, but that's besides the point).

    I wonder if this has an Indo-European root, or something of that sort? Can anyone shed light on that?
    Last edited by gkathellar; 2018-06-16 at 12:11 PM.

  18. - Top - End - #1248
    Troll in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2014

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

    Quote Originally Posted by Archpaladin Zousha View Post
    Which would win in a sea fight: a galleon or a junk?
    Well, "junk" is a pretty broad term, encompassing a wide range of tonnages, but to my limited understanding of Chinese shipbuilding, they were not built with the same goal of "make cannons occupy as much of the ship's outer surface as possible" as galleons and later European ships of the line. Others can expound upon the subject more, but I believe Chinese cannon were also usually smaller and less powerful than most Western cannons. Consequently, in a straight-up gun duel, I'd be inclined to favor galleons by virtue of sheer firepower in a match of roughly equal tonnage.

  19. - Top - End - #1249
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Archpaladin Zousha's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Hastings, MN
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

    I see! Thank you!
    "Reach down into your heart and you'll find many reasons to fight. Survival. Honor. Glory. But what about those who feel it's their duty to protect the innocent? There you'll find a warrior savage enough to match any dragon, and in the end, they'll retain what the others won't. Their humanity."

  20. - Top - End - #1250
    Orc in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2012

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

    Dollinger calls the Herring situation at the end of the 14th Century and beginning of the 15th a 'decline'; I used the word 'crash' - which I got from other historians (I didn't invent it). The sudden drop off of herring fisheries in that area is something which as I'm sure you know, has happened several times, then recovered, and this has been studied a great deal. My understanding of the Skania situation is that a series of bad fish harvests starting in 1395 ended by 1405 with a massive drop off. By Dollingers numbers it's about an 85% decline which didn't recover for several generations. I call that a crash, but you could also call it a steep decline or something else.
    Look he uses 1400 as the peak year, which indicate there wasnt a crash in the 14th century, or at least not one that was permanent. I can tell you that the (foreign) towns continued to pay taxes to get booths, and that there was continued strong as solid expansion of the Skania towns (and tDragør) in questions long into the 15th century. Perhaps the issue is that when the Hanse lost control in 1385 and that Denmark might have promoted a more diverse group of traders (Dutch and English, as well as Danish and German). Thus a small decline became big for the German towns? Thus scewing German sources?

    The 85% drop (I doubt it was that big), is not in the late 14th century, but something that happened between 1400 and the late 15th century (according to Dollinger).

    To say Skania was the heart of Denmark and insist that it was not contested when you already acknowledged that the Hanseatic towns seized it for 15 years seems a bit odd to me.
    Any historian working with the area would agree that Scania was a part of the heartland (I didnt say "the hearth", but that it was as much as Zealand etc). Since the the 10th century it was part of the political organisation of Denmark. It was one of the main sites for royal power from the 11th century. It was Canute the greats minting place in Denmark (he also had in England of course). It continued to be a central part, and it was where the Danish Archbishop was placed. by the 12th century Scandinavia was divided into three archbishopries which corresponded to the political boundaries of Denmark (Lund), Norway (Nidaros/Trondheim), and Sweden (Uppsala). In many respect there was not many really contested parts of Scandinavia. Sure there where some of the inland areas between Norway and Sweden, and they also argued who should tax the Sami etc. And there was a bit of an issue between Denmark and Seden on the area between Scania and Sweden.

    But as said: Scania was Danish as much as Zealand. Denmark consisted of three parts Jutland, Zeland and the islands, and Scania including Bornholm. As I said the whole administration was based on peasants, nobles and bishops from each destrict etc. Apart from the German "holdings" (and the baltic ones) the national character was very homogeneus, that is the language was Danish (yes I know towns had foreigners). Was there periods of enemy control over parts of Denmark? Yes (before Valdemar III most of the country was pawned to various foreigners), but generally the idea of Denmark, Norway and Sweden was much stronger and more fixed that lets say Germany or France. Thus Denmark is much more comparable to England. A English island with clear English afinity, and then some French contested provinces (Normandy, Aquitaine etc). Denmark (Jutland, Zealland and Scania) was stable, but the German holdings where contested (such as Holstein, Rügen, for a short period Mecklenburg etc).

    This is importent to understand when working with the period: the very fluid borders and intermixed "spot" states of Germany didnt extend to Scandinavia

    Whether or not the booths were set up on the beach at the site of the herring run from year to year maybe we should just agree to disagree. That is what my sources say. I described to you what my understanding was - yes there were permanent castles (they are mentioned in the Hanse letter I posted) but the 'market' moved from year to year.
    Yes we have to disagree. It is VERY clear from all sources that the permit to do trade and salt fish allways was located at specific places (Skanør), and that it didn't move about. Again in neither Swerdish or danish or any other literature I can find this is contested or a controversial point.

    I also contend that the Hanse and other foreign merchants had at least, a considerable amount of control in that area. This can be the case even with a strong centralized Kingdom. England had to tolerate a Hanseatic quarter in London, the Steelyard, which even controlled one of the London Gates (the bishopsgate) and this went on until the reign of Queen Elizabeth.
    Yes they had some influence, of course.
    They where the major trade partners. Just like USA have a lot of influence on its neighbourghs today. Every area with amercian influence is not contested areas between USA. Especially in the 15 years already discussed (but it was from the start a short period and a way to pay war-reparation from Denmark). HOWEVER, as I mention the burghers of for instance Malmö often supported the kings against alliances of Hanse and noble allainces. But Denmark is as centralised as England in the 15th century. Denmark of course also had influence in Germany (like Mecklenburg holdings), but I would never argue that these areas where really Danish. But the Hanse didn't have any more influence in Scania than they did in other parts of Denmark, apart from a specific period of 15 years.

    Denmark adopted a policy in the middle ages which could be perceived as either retrograde or forward looking. They started out very similar to Sweden but then adopted a certain subset of German or 'Continental' policy - embracing Hausmacht and attempting to establish a strong Feudal Monarchy. You could say either that they were stuck in sort of an 11th -12th Century Feudal model or that they were looking forward to something more like the Absolute Monarchies of the 17th Century.
    Yes and they succeeded at some point to create rather centralised understanding of "Denmark", there where clearly civil-war periods and periods of turmoil, but both during the late 12-13th century during Valdemar I-VAldemar II timeframe and again after Valdemar III and Margaret (and their successors) the country was a strongly centralised realm (by medieval standards, not by modern, but there was a very clear cut adminitrative division which was also a matter of fact, though of course with political issues like who had to pay what taxes etc).
    Last edited by Tobtor; 2018-06-17 at 12:25 AM.

  21. - Top - End - #1251
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

    Quote Originally Posted by Tobtor View Post
    Yes they had some influence, of course.
    They where the major trade partners. Just like USA have a lot of influence on its neighbourghs today. Every area with amercian influence is not contested areas between USA.
    I think the analogy is the 'trade partners' the US has traditionally had in the Middle East. If Syria, Iraq, Libya and so on, suddenly lost 85% of their oil, I suspect they would experience a lot less trouble with the US, England and France.

    G

  22. - Top - End - #1252
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    May 2018

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

    Quote Originally Posted by gkathellar View Post
    In mythology, the stringing of a bow as a test of worthiness, kingship, and/or adulthood pops up now and again - Odysseus is of course the obvious example, and it's worth remembering that he has to stop his son Telemachus from stringing his bow and implicitly challenging his authority. Offhand there's also the bow of Shiva in the Ramayana: Rama strings it and is very nearly killed by Parashurama, who takes this as an insult to Shiva's authority (also Parashurama just likes to murder Kshatriyas, but that's besides the point).

    I wonder if this has an Indo-European root, or something of that sort? Can anyone shed light on that?
    It may require a longer answer than you wished for... and that i expected. Mainly for the celts, germans and greek it was a weapon for non military purpose. In India and Iran, it was the weapon of the full warrior. Then you have a set of differences along the line of young/old, male /female, warrior/non warrior, hunt/war civilised / barbarian and so on.
    I have still a few things to read about that but in Greece you have as archers the gods of initiation, like Artémis or Apollo and the barbarians Kings like Paris. Even Herakles or Odysseus are in the process of initiation when they use bows. The fact that centaurs use bows, and centaurs were close to the savage world and often initiator, point to a symbolic use for the under (as the uninitiated) or over( gods and half gods) warriors but not for the warriors.
    Also it was linked to the hunt.
    (And of course as lighter forces were actually used the bow was better considered.)

    In India, you have gods and warriors actually using the bow in fight.
    I’m less familiar with that part of the world so i will read a bit more but i have some comments on the subject of bows by the great hellenist Vidal Naquet and the anthropologist B.Sergent.

    Interestingly, some of those distinctions seem to carry on till medieval time and Le Goff wrote something about it. It’s a bit old, 20-30 years, but it may give you something.

    So that’s A short preview. I will come back with a lot more as i’m currently learning a few things myself!

  23. - Top - End - #1253
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Vinyadan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

    For fun: a portrait of Cleomenes III, a Spartan king that lived in Hellenistic times, wore a diadem, and minted silver coins with his face on them. How unspartan of his!



    @Epimethee: there also is Apollo. I also don't think that the Greeks found it a weapon not meant for war; more like a weapon not meant for Greeks, and something advantageous, but unworthy of praise. It might have been different in the times of the Iliad, or even when Homer lived; I can't right now remember how many use the bow, but Apollo's terrifying revenge on the Greeks is done with his bow (the pestilence), and there also is the fact that duels in the Iliad tend to be dealt with at a distance, and the spear is normally used for throwing.
    Quote Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien, 1955
    I thought Tom Bombadil dreadful — but worse still was the announcer's preliminary remarks that Goldberry was his daughter (!), and that Willowman was an ally of Mordor (!!).

  24. - Top - End - #1254
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

    Quote Originally Posted by Galloglaich View Post
    Some comparable prices in Prussian marks from Dollinger these are per "last" - a maritime unit of measurement ranging from 770- 1000 kg depending on the time and place.
    I notice saffron is worth roughly 1000x its weight in beer. I like the beer economy notion for price comparisons so I found this unreasonably pleasing.
    Re: 100 Things to Beware of that Every DM Should Know

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay R View Post
    93. No matter what the character sheet say, there are only 3 PC alignments: Lawful Snotty, Neutral Greedy, and Chaotic Backstabbing.

  25. - Top - End - #1255
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Clistenes's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Beer View Post
    I notice saffron is worth roughly 1000x its weight in beer. I like the beer economy notion for price comparisons so I found this unreasonably pleasing.
    I like to use the price of wheat/flour/bread as a point of reference when measuring wages and prices...

  26. - Top - End - #1256
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Vinyadan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

    That makes it sound like saffron was cheaper back then. I see it sold for between 4,500 € and 120,000 € / kg nowadays at the market.
    Quote Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien, 1955
    I thought Tom Bombadil dreadful — but worse still was the announcer's preliminary remarks that Goldberry was his daughter (!), and that Willowman was an ally of Mordor (!!).

  27. - Top - End - #1257
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

    Quote Originally Posted by Vinyadan View Post
    That makes it sound like saffron was cheaper back then. I see it sold for between 4,500 € and 120,000 € / kg nowadays at the market.
    That's because most of the world's saffron grows in Iran, and so is subject to trade restrictions.
    Wushu Open Reloaded
    Actual Play: The Shadow of the Sun (Acrozatarim's WFRP campaign) as Pawel Hals and Mass: the Effecting - Transcendence as Russell Ortiz.
    Now running: Tyche's Favourites, a historical ACKS campaign set around Massalia 300BC.
    In Sanity We Trust Productions - our podcasting site where you can hear our dulcet tones, updated almost every week.

  28. - Top - End - #1258
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    May 2018

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

    Quote Originally Posted by Vinyadan View Post
    @Epimethee: there also is Apollo. I also don't think that the Greeks found it a weapon not meant for war; more like a weapon not meant for Greeks, and something advantageous, but unworthy of praise. It might have been different in the times of the Iliad, or even when Homer lived; I can't right now remember how many use the bow, but Apollo's terrifying revenge on the Greeks is done with his bow (the pestilence), and there also is the fact that duels in the Iliad tend to be dealt with at a distance, and the spear is normally used for throwing.
    I speak mainly here of the symbolic use of the bow. But yeah, it may be better to say not for the greek, as even in hunting it was not well regarded. In any case, it was a shortand: the Greek is the Warrior, his weapons are the spear and the sword. So the bow is not a weapon of war, aliens, who don’t know better, may use it, but no true warrior... We say basically the same thing i think.

    But you’ll notice that greeks don’t use bows in the Iliad, Pâris does and he is clearly an Alien. We will go back to Apollo, as he show the ambiguities of the representations around the weapon but bear in mind he was a god of the initiation like his sister.
    Of course such exploration may not be an accurate representation of the war and the everyday life. For example we have few representations of bows in mycenian age and allways in the context of hunting. We have nevertheless some accounting that show storage of huge quantities of arrows in Knossos and the requisition of bronze from the temples to make arrowheads in Pylos. And also a group of bowmen in the armies of Pylos.
    The mythical constellations are not the real life but may inform us about mentalities.

    So i will share some myths. I will mainly follow here an article from Sergent, you can find it for free here:
    https://www.persee.fr/doc/metis_1105...91_num_6_1_970

    it’s in french but i won’t copy every source here so you may find some references to classical texts inside.)

    In mythical texts, some specifics peoples use bows.
    - The woman, from Artemis to Atalante and the Amazons. Notice that Athena, an armed godess, use a spear. According to Plutarque, Spartan found the bow effeminate.
    -The aliens, Scythians, Amazons again, or Pâris and Sarpedon.
    -The youngs, like the gods of initiation Artemis and Apollon, or the uninitiated heroes, Philoktetes, Parthenopaios or Herakles.
    -The traitors, like Pandaros and the bastards like Teukros.
    Then you have the armies of the inferior greeks people like Locrians or Crete. Also the scythians slave in Athens.

    In Euripides, the king Lukos criticize Herakles because he wear a bow. Dion said of the Philoktetes of Eschyles that he could not have been very clever because he used a bow.

    Interestingly, the representation of bow in mundane hunting context on vases is so rare it is meaningless to mention it. Only mythological scenes and representations of scythians show his use.

    There is a change of mind around 424, the year Sparta enlisted bowmen in the army. It is quite interesting to find a dispute in Herakles from Euripides around the valor of an hoplite and an archer. The dispute may be read as a lecture on the martial valor of the hunt. It was written in 424.

    So you have a weapon that was not so well regarded. But you have also a kind of super-bow, used by the best warriors, like Herakles or Philoktetes, (but notice btw never Theseus or Perseus ) like Odysseus to prove his sovereignity.
    In this case the bow is really lethal, as shown by Apollo and the Achaians, Artemis and the Niobides, Odysseus, Herakles and Nessos, Latinus, Geryon...
    The bow of sovereignity, the use of a bow to prove one kingship is really a one off in Greece.

    I will go deeper in the subject of bow and the education in Greece, and on other ancient culture but if you agree i will take a few steps.
    So spoiler: next time i will write about poison...

  29. - Top - End - #1259
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

    Plenty of poor Greeks used the bow, as well as the sling and javelin, but they weren't part of the warrior-aristocracy who scorned the bow. They'd feature amongst the rarely-mentioned psiloi supporting the heavy infantry and cavalry.

    Furthermore, the Kretans were famous proponents of the bow, likely due to their predilections for internecine strife, banditry and piracy. A bow is a very good weapon for a raider.

    The Athenians usually got their archer-marines from the Skythians and steppe peoples, though.
    Wushu Open Reloaded
    Actual Play: The Shadow of the Sun (Acrozatarim's WFRP campaign) as Pawel Hals and Mass: the Effecting - Transcendence as Russell Ortiz.
    Now running: Tyche's Favourites, a historical ACKS campaign set around Massalia 300BC.
    In Sanity We Trust Productions - our podcasting site where you can hear our dulcet tones, updated almost every week.

  30. - Top - End - #1260
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Beer View Post
    I notice saffron is worth roughly 1000x its weight in beer. I like the beer economy notion for price comparisons so I found this unreasonably pleasing.
    Yeah Saffron is one of those amazing things which is, has been, and perhaps always will be incredibly valuable... I don't know why, is it hard to grow? Ginger and pepper by comparison finally got cheap. But you can see on that chart exactly why the Silk Road was so important compared to all other trade routes.

    (Though I gather they also produced some Saffron in Southern Europe so it's even more confusing...)
    Last edited by Galloglaich; 2018-06-18 at 07:06 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •