Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI

[Brother Oni]

Greatswords tended to around to weigh up to around 3 kilos. Did anyone ever use a 6 kilo greatsword? Maybe, but it would have been very rare, though I believe there were ceremonial parade greatswords that weighed that much.

I believe there was a French officer/soldier during the 100 Years War around the time of Joan of Arc, that was reputed to use a oversized two handed sword of the upper 6kg size.

I remember finding it and him for a previous version of this thread, but my google-fu is failing me (I want to say La Hire, but that may be due to his depiction in the game Bladestorm).

[Martin Greywolf]

I believe there was a French officer/soldier during the 100 Years War around the time of Joan of Arc, that was reputed to use a oversized two handed sword of the upper 6kg size.

Eh, probably not. There are three main factors that give us 6 kg swords:

1) Ceremonial purposes

Parade swords are well known and documented, hell, you even have a sawfish two hander here. These aren't meant to be used, but rather to be seen. That said, not all parade swords are non-functional, for example, so-called Attila's saber (in reality being magyar sabre of 10th-12th century) is perfectly serviceable as a saber despite being blinged up like a rapper's teeth.

2) Polearms vs swords

A lot of the biggest swords are used more like polearms than swords, or like a hybrid between the two. This is by no means universal, but it does impact how the sword is designed and how it handles.

3) Period fakes

Many swords that supposedly belonged to a famous guy are fakes made after he died - two great examples are William Wallace sword and sword of Goujian. Wallace sword is especially relevant here, since it was apparently forged together from three blades and clocks in at 2.7 kg, which is a bit on the heavy side for a sword that size.

Basically, if someone wanted to make a claim to have a sword of someone famous, he may well forge it in a way that is not great for actual combat, but looks good. Telling these apart is not the easiest task, while Wallace sword is obvious fake, Goujian sword had much higher production values, so our only clue is that the type of the sword it is didn't really exist in Goujian's time.

4) Bonus point - in a pinch, style can slide

I mean, if you're in a parade and a ninja jumps you, you may as well brain him with the 6 kilo bar of sharp steel you are presently holding. If you are any good, you can even use it effectively (halfswording helps), but then and again, Jackie Chan can use a stepladder as a deadly weapon. That doesn't make the stepladder into a weapon, it just makes Jackie Chan really cool.

[Carl]

Also depends what is meant by fantasy sword, some of the oversized types are big, but not completely impractical, particularly for a very strong user or if they're supposedly made out of a light material like mithral. But go up to some of the really big stuff, (FF7 i'm looking at you here), nd in the real world it's unlikely even a worlds strongest man contestant could pick it up "properly" as apposed to a dead weight lift. And most people couldn't pick it up even dead lift.

[Mr Beer]

Seems to me that if a 3 kilo greatsword is usable by a normal warrior, then an exceptionally large and strong man might be able to use a 6 kilo greatsword. The strongest men around are something like 4 times stronger than a normal man, so a x2 weight weapon seems reasonable for someone that powerful or nearly so.

EDIT

Just occurred to me that the world class strongman playing The Mountain in Game of Thrones is filmed using a greatsword in one hand to chop up hapless condemned criminals. I don't mean to use this as evidence, just thought it was cool and on topic.

Also depends what is meant by fantasy sword, some of the oversized types are big, but not completely impractical, particularly for a very strong user or if they're supposedly made out of a light material like mithral. But go up to some of the really big stuff, (FF7 i'm looking at you here), nd in the real world it's unlikely even a worlds strongest man contestant could pick it up "properly" as apposed to a dead weight lift. And most people couldn't pick it up even dead lift.

Yeah that trope annoys the crap out of me, even at age 12 I realised it didn't make sense.

[Frozen_Feet]

You'd need to have an absurdly heavy weapon - over 30 kg - before it becomes impossible to lift up and swing for most people.

The cut-off point for useful weapons comes much earlier, because swinging heavy weights around is slow. A 6kg sword in the hands of a really big & strong guy is plausible if the sword's balanced, but a sledge hammer of similar weight tends to leave you open after each swing.

[Brother Oni]

Eh, probably not.

I don't disagree with any of your points - La Hire using a very heavy sword may just have been propaganda or something that's been exaggerated over time.

I do disagree that it was impossible, just very rare.


As a bit of fun trivia, the largest ceremonial sword I know of is the Norimitsu Odachi at 377cm long and 14.5 kg.

Freud would have had a field day.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

Just occurred to me that the world class strongman playing The Mountain in Game of Thrones is filmed using a greatsword in one hand to chop up hapless condemned criminals. I don't mean to use this as evidence, just thought it was cool and on topic.

On that note, there's also Ned Stark using Ice to execute the Watch deserter in the first episode (and compare against Theon Greyjoy executing someone later on with a much smaller and lighter blade), so I guess there's that kind of ceremonial use for larger, heavier blades - executions, possibly ritual combat and so on, as opposed to something that's essentially for display and intimidation, and would be incredibly unwieldy in actual combat.

[Beleriphon]

First, I'm not just talking about Cathedrals, I'm talking about city halls, churches, old towns of more than 200 or more small cities (most under 30,000 people)

Spoiler: Medieval town squares

Show

Krakow


Prague

Second, I don't think it's relative in terms of scale or elastic as in, you compare a city of 20,000 people then to one of 10 million today, because they built this huge thing. Could a town that size finance that today?

I have no doubt a similarly sized town today could finance anything they want. Its not that hard to actually do, the issue isn't if it could by why would they? Most large construction between say 1CE and say 1800CE would take years longer to build than it does now, which allows the financing to be spread out over a longer period of time. A town hall might not have taken 182 years to finish like Notre Dame, but they were probably built in major trade hubs which means substantially more taxes. As I recall Bruges is on the coast and sits right in the crossroads of the north end of Hanseatic League, so it was a trade town and it could afford a beautiful town hall, never mind the fact that it was a fairly large city for the time. If one wants to compare you need to look at equally large trade hubs now that have just as high a tax revenues, that means looking at cities with hundreds of thousands, or millions of residents.

A town with only 20,000 people now in North America is a low population, and is probably spread out over and area twenty times what one would find in northern Europe. I live in a city of 48,000 people, near by there's a township with 2500 residents. That's a farming community, in the same way surrounding farms would feed a large city in medieval Europe, and those communities weren't very big in comparison to the cities they fed.

And in fairness, the ancient world built bigger stuff faster than the medieval architects. The Pyramid of Khufu was finished in what 20 years? It weighs something like 6.5 million tons, which is about the mass of concrete in Hoover dam, just to compare. Incidentally the dam only took five years to finish.

Yes of course they brought people in from many other towns, but again, I don't think it could be accomplished today. and as nice as the DC Cathedral is, I'm sorry it's not even in the ballpark to me.


G

That's interesting because the DC Cathedral is intentionally built to combine both Gothic and Renaissance architecture. As for architecture, the city hall in my home is a similar style to Bruges, not quite as large because I live in Canada and we haven't had 600 years to expand the thing. I think you're also vastly underselling how much technical skill and cost goes into modern construction that governments pay for. LA city hall might not have the Gothic grandeur of very old European architecture, but it was just as expensive and stylistically pretty much exactly what was in fashion as the time (its a great example of art deco design BTW).

And of course the major reason massive building projects like cathedrals tend to take so long, its because of finances. They aren't usually directly funded by governments, so they have to solicit donations from the community to get the building done. Notre Dame is a bit of an exception on that front since it was so large and technically advanced at the time. I mean flying buttresses were state-of-the-art architecture in 1163.

So again I think it comes down to priorities, rather than abilities to fund projects. Cities of 20,000 aren't worried about making fancy buildings to marvel their neighbours or traveling merchants, they're worried about keeping the parks maintained, roads clean and garbage collected. A city of 1 million can worry about impressing the neighbours and making travelers feel amazed.

[Galloglaich]

There.
That is what you said.

It raided constantly, primarily through the autonomous Barbary States, but never posed any real threat of invasion to Spain or France, or Italy.

Ok #1) Spain France or Italy are not "Europe". The Ottoman Empire was steadily invading and annexing Europe, in spite of the vigorous efforts of dozens of European polities (including the HRE) from the 14th Century onward.

And actually, they invaded Italy in the 1480's. 20,000 Turks captured the city of Otranto and performed mass-executions and other atrocities once they captured it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoma...ion_of_Otranto

The Ottomans were considered an existential threat, the more so the further East you were, but certainly by the HRE, and the only reason they were kept mostly in the Balkans and Hungary was due to the energetic efforts of polities like the Holy Roman Empire, Venice, Castille, the Hospitalers of Rhodes, John Hunyadi and etc. and so on.

The Emperors of the HRE in the 14th and 15th Centuries (1316-1493) were all very concerned about the Ottomans, one was a King of Bohemia, the next a King of Hungary, and the one after that King of Austria, so yeah they felt the threat. Others felt sufficiently threatened to constantly send troops and pay for mercenaries for the Hungarian Black Army and so on.

You can keep claiming to be right even when you are wrong over and over and over again, it doesn't change the past, which is what we are talking about.

G

[Max_Killjoy]

As I recall, the Ottoman Empire laid siege to Vienna, yes?






I'm not sure how someone could look at those maps and not consider the Ottoman Empire a dire threat to Europe.

[Blackhawk748]

They did siege Vienna, then the Winged Hussars showed up and kicked their teeth in, which kind of put a really big damper on conquering Europe.

[Max_Killjoy]

They did siege Vienna, then the Winged Hussars showed up and kicked their teeth in, which kind of put a really big damper on conquering Europe.

(My comment was somewhat rhetorical. )

[cobaltstarfire]

In modern times if we build stuff with elaborate decorations, it'd get turned into a "look at all the tax dollars that got wasted on this thing". Or "We paid a famous architect to build a cool thing, and everyone hates it, lets never do this again."

Most of what me make now is meant to go up fast, be utilitarian, and with as little time and money used as possible. A lot of places in the US also aren't that interested in preservation of buildings or works that are in some way significant if those things are in a place that a large company wants to build something.


I'm not sure that large cathedrals are something we can't afford to do, so much as society has changed both in terms of what it values, and the aesthetics that it enjoys. Mega Churchs these days aren't as tall as something like the Bruges Cathedral, but they can cover far more ground, and have more usable space in them. They also don't usually have any emphasis placed on aesthetics.

[Galloglaich]

(My comment was somewhat rhetorical. )

Yes they sieged Vienna twice but that was technically post-medieval, the first one in 1529 and the one y'all were talking about when the Polish hussar charge did them in in 1683. He was arguing that they weren't a threat until they were actually at the gates (even though that first siege is right on the end of the Medieval period)- I was saying that the Europeans were already plenty worried about the Ottomans and for good reason as early as the 1370's. They were downright freaked out after the Ottomans captured Constantinople in 1453. And with good reason!

Not fun to get defeated by Ottomans





Once the impaling settled down you started having to give them a 'tax' of your little boys

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dev%C5%9Firme

G

[Max_Killjoy]

Yes they sieged Vienna twice but that was technically post-medieval, the first one in 1529 and the one y'all were talking about when the Polish hussar charge did them in in 1683. He was arguing that they weren't a threat until they were actually at the gates (even though that first siege is right on the end of the Medieval period)- I was saying that the Europeans were already plenty worried about the Ottomans and for good reason as early as the 1370's. They were downright freaked out after the Ottomans captured Constantinople in 1453. And with good reason!

Not fun to get defeated by Ottomans





Once the impaling settled down you started having to give them a 'tax' of your little boys

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dev%C5%9Firme

G

For the record, I'm just offering up a counter-point to the idea that the OE was never a threat to Europe -- it takes very narrow definitions of "Europe", "threat", and "never" to think otherwise.

[Galloglaich]

For the record, I'm just offering up a counter-point to the idea that the OE was never a threat to Europe -- it takes very narrow definitions of "Europe", "threat", and "never" to think otherwise.

yes of course, I agree 100%

[Galloglaich]

In modern times if we build stuff with elaborate decorations, it'd get turned into a "look at all the tax dollars that got wasted on this thing". Or "We paid a famous architect to build a cool thing, and everyone hates it, lets never do this again."

Most of what me make now is meant to go up fast, be utilitarian, and with as little time and money used as possible. A lot of places in the US also aren't that interested in preservation of buildings or works that are in some way significant if those things are in a place that a large company wants to build something.


I'm not sure that large cathedrals are something we can't afford to do, so much as society has changed both in terms of what it values, and the aesthetics that it enjoys. Mega Churchs these days aren't as tall as something like the Bruges Cathedral, but they can cover far more ground, and have more usable space in them. They also don't usually have any emphasis placed on aesthetics.

This keeps going back to Cathedrals, but one of the reasons I brought up the Bruges tower is that it wasn't a Cathedral, it was the bell tower on the town hall. This was a lookout tower for the town, and where they rang bells for the different work hours and so on. Many prosperous towns had very high towers, especially if they didn't already have a huge Cathedral or a large church, because it was so useful as defense and as an observation point.

But I concede, Bruges was a fairly large town by medieval standards.

So lets try to switch tacks again for a second because I want to exorcise another myth. Cathedrals and their equivalent giant churches, did not always take centuries to build. Some famous ones did, for a couple of different reasons, but the most common reason was because a lot of the famous ones were built at the end of the medieval period they simply stopped work on them when they converted to Protestantism, since Cathedrals (especially with all their embellishments as you put it) kind of went against the Protestant philosophy. Usually they couldn't bear to actually tear them down but many of the large Cathedrals in Europe were left unfinished in the 16th century and then not completed until a resurgence of interest in them in the 19th.

The other most common reason is that they built a church, then after 100 years or something they built another major addition to the church. That however isn't the same as saying it actually took them 100 years. It also gets conflated with churches (or other public buildings) that got built, then were destroyed by a fire or something and were rebuilt a second or even a third time, across the span of 3 or 4 centuries. That doesn't mean they spent that whole time working on it.

By the Late Medieval period they could build large buildings quite quickly.

As an example, Krakow. Though quite small compared to Bruges (10-20 thousand people depending on how you count the population and which municipalities you include), they built several very impressive structures in a fairly short time.

For example, earlier I posted pictures of their famous 'Cathedral', St Mary's Basilica. The church that we see today was built in three short periods, initially in 1290-1300. Then they added several side buildings and elongated the towers from 1355-1365. Then art of it collapsed in 1422 (possibly due to an earthquake), and they fixed that and added several new sections from 1425-1440. After that it was finished, except for a few additions to the top of the tower in the later 15th and 16th Century, and the addition of various adornments internally like a new organ and altar.

This for something that lasts 5 centuries, draws in tourist (and pilgrim) revenue all that time, and looks like this:

Spoiler: One church in one little town

Show

This timeline compares fairly well with a major modern construction project like the Big Dig in Boston. More on that in a second.

Krakow also has one of those big town-hall observation / bell towers. They built it in the 13th Century. Around the same time that they built their walls that repelled the Mongols.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_H...r,_Krak%C3%B3w

This tower has been standing 700 years. It now leans 55 centimers due to a storm in the 18th Century. The top also got burned away by a lightning strike in the 17th century but was repaired over the course of 3 years.



Around the same time they built that tower, they got permission from a Polish Duke they had done a big favor for to build town walls. Parts of those are still standing too.



This is St. Florians gate, one of the old towns main gates, built, owned and operated by the Furriers guild, which repelled the Mongols one year after the walls were built, during the third Mongol invasion of Poland in 1287. During the first Mongol invasion the citizens of Krakow had to flee and hide in the woods. In the second one they hid in their citadel as the town was looted and burned. This time they stood and fought at their new town gates.

This is another surviving part of the gates, the Barbican

Spoiler: Krakow Barbican

Show

That third Mongol invasion was, incidentally, the last significant Mongol invasion of Poland proper (they did continue to raid what are now Ukraine and Belarus which later became part of Poland after they and the Lithuanians had captured them from the Golden Horde).



Speaking of big Dig, inside the city limits of Krakow is another rather remarkable feat of medieval engineering, the Wieliczka Salt mine. It's kind of a real-life Moria which goes on for 250 miles underground, and is full of strange artwork, little chapels, statues, underground lakes, all kinds of mysteries. It continued in operation as a mine until 1996.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wieliczka_Salt_Mine

Spoiler: The real life Moria

Show

Only downside is all those stairs...

To me, for a community of 10 or 20,000 people, these are pretty impressive accomplishments. And I'm really only scratching the surface of what was accomplished by that one small town.



At the very least it's certainly a much better RPG setting than any one invented today! ;)

G

[Tiktakkat]

Ok #1) Spain France or Italy are not "Europe". The Ottoman Empire was steadily invading and annexing Europe, in spite of the vigorous efforts of dozens of European polities (including the HRE) from the 14th Century onward.

Spain, France, or Italy are not Europe?
What are they - Asia? Australia?

And actually, they invaded Italy in the 1480's. 20,000 Turks captured the city of Otranto and performed mass-executions and other atrocities once they captured it.

They invaded once.
Captured once city.
Were besieged.
And defeated.
Yeah, major threat.

The Ottomans were considered an existential threat, the more so the further East you were, but certainly by the HRE, and the only reason they were kept mostly in the Balkans and Hungary was due to the energetic efforts of polities like the Holy Roman Empire, Venice, Castille, the Hospitalers of Rhodes, John Hunyadi and etc. and so on.

To the Balkans.
Eventually to the Hapsburg Monarchy.
That's right, the Hapsburg Monarchy, not the HRE.
You made a big stink about distinguishing them from the HRE. Now you want it to be synonymous.
But:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoma...3Habsburg_wars

"The Ottoman–Habsburg wars were fought from the 16th through the 18th centuries between the Ottoman Empire and the Habsburg (later Austrian) Empire, which was at times supported by the Holy Roman Empire, Kingdom of Hungary and Habsburg Spain. The wars were dominated by land campaigns in Hungary (including Transylvania and Vojvodina), Croatia and Central Serbia."

It looks like the easily checked facts completely disagree with you.

You can keep claiming to be right even when you are wrong over and over and over again, it doesn't change the past, which is what we are talking about.

G

The only one trying to change the past here is you.

As I recall, the Ottoman Empire laid siege to Vienna, yes?

I'm not sure how someone could look at those maps and not consider the Ottoman Empire a dire threat to Europe.

There is "threat" and there is "existential threat".
Galloglaich clearly doesn't want to have to deal with the difference.
There is also "during the medieval period" and "for about 50 years during the Renaissance".
Again, Galloglaich doesn't want to have to acknowledge the difference.

As for those maps, how long did the Ottoman Empire hold those territories?
How much control did they have over all of those territories?
How many other enemies did they have?
How many other wars did they fight?

If you look at the overall history, you have Suleiman the Magnificent ruling for 46 years, during which time they reached that high water mark, followed by a swift decline under a series of incompetent rulers. A bit over 150 years later the second Siege of Vienna occurred, and the Ottomans were on their way out.

For the record, I'm just offering up a counter-point to the idea that the OE was never a threat to Europe -- it takes very narrow definitions of "Europe", "threat", and "never" to think otherwise.

Compare it to a statement like:
"The Angevin Empire was an existential threat to Europe during the middle ages."

Is that a reasonable assessment?
How long did the Angevin Empire exist?
How stable was it?
How much territory did it control for how long?
How much of Europe was actually under threat?

Certainly France almost lost the Hundred Years' War.
And certainly Angevin-Norman offshoots established holdings as large as kingdoms from Spain to Jerusalem.

But an existential threat? For the entire middle ages?

So . . . yeah . . . "counter-point".

[Galloglaich]

Dude, you just ain't on the level bruh.

[Max_Killjoy]

If one considers Constantinople part of Europe, then the Ottomans are some level of threat to Europe from 1300 until World War 1.

If one considers the Ottomans the direct inheritors of the Seljuks, then there's a case to be made for going back as far as the Byzantine defeat at Manzikert.






As starting points.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territ...Ottoman_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzant...93Ottoman_Wars

[Max_Killjoy]

Spain, France, or Italy are not Europe?
What are they - Asia? Australia?

I thought it was pretty clear that his point was that Spain, France, and/or Italy are not the whole of Europe.

As for those maps, how long did the Ottoman Empire hold those territories?

A good deal of it they held for nearly 500 years.

Compare it to a statement like:
"The Angevin Empire was an existential threat to Europe during the middle ages."

Is that a reasonable assessment?
How long did the Angevin Empire exist?
How stable was it?
How much territory did it control for how long?
How much of Europe was actually under threat?

Certainly France almost lost the Hundred Years' War.
And certainly Angevin-Norman offshoots established holdings as large as kingdoms from Spain to Jerusalem.

But an existential threat? For the entire middle ages?

In what way would the victory of the "Angevin Empire" have shredded the cultural and religious fabric of Europe?

[Tiktakkat]

If one considers Constantinople part of Europe, then the Ottomans are some level of threat to Europe from 1300 until World War 1.

"Some"
"Existential"

Hmmm . . .

I thought it was pretty clear that his point was that Spain, France, and/or Italy are not the whole of Europe.

So it should be pretty clear that the Balkans, Hungary, and Austria are not the whole of Europe either.

A good deal of it they held for nearly 500 years.

But not the parts that threatened Austria proper. (As opposed to the Austrian Empire.)

In what way would the victory of the "Angevin Empire" have shredded the cultural and religious fabric of Europe?

1. The Angevins had abandoned the Salic Law.
2. The Angevins had embraced the concept of Common Law.
3. The Angevins had a North Germanic-Celtic cultural base as opposed to a West Germanic-Roman cultural base.
4. The Angevins had access to a heterodox religious interpretation.

Despite having originated in France, the Angevins had transformed into a Brittano-Viking invasion of Europe after they replaced the Normans in England.
Tweak a bit of history and the Black Prince is Henry VIII 150 years early, with no Hapsburgs to stop him after he disposes of the Valois.

Dude, you just ain't on the level bruh.

The level of confusing an existential threat with a general threat?
Nah bruh, I ain't on that level with you dude.

[Max_Killjoy]

"Some"
"Existential"

Hmmm . . .

So to have ever have been an existential threat, they had to have been an existential threat for that entire time?

And they weren't even an existential threat while knocking on the gates of Vienna and holding a large swath of the European landmass under their rule?

So it should be pretty clear that the Balkans, Hungary, and Austria are not the whole of Europe either.

Yes, that's clear, and also something of the reverse of the entire point here.

But not the parts that threatened Austria proper. (As opposed to the Austrian Empire.)

So in order to be a threat to Europe, they have to be on the doorstep of "Austria proper"... I see. But isn't this in opposition to the claim that when they were knocking on the door of Austria they still weren't a threat?

1. The Angevins had abandoned the Salic Law.
2. The Angevins had embraced the concept of Common Law.
3. The Angevins had a North Germanic-Celtic cultural base as opposed to a West Germanic-Roman cultural base.
4. The Angevins had access to a heterodox religious interpretation.

Um... OK... but that really doesn't represent the sort of threat to Europe as a political and cultural entity that a Turkish/Arab Islamic takeover would have.

Despite what certain historians have been wont to claim, European/Western culture has quite a bit in the way of ties back to Celtic culture -- they were in close continuous contact with the Greek, Latin, and Germanic "forefathers" of western culture for their entire existence.

The level of confusing an existential threat with a general threat?
Nah bruh, I ain't on that level with you dude.

I think he means that your standard appears to keep swinging back and forth between strict specificity and broad generality depending on what will make the evidence fit your opinion.

See the post I'm responding to here as an example of where you appear to do that.

[Mr Beer]

On that note, there's also Ned Stark using Ice to execute the Watch deserter in the first episode (and compare against Theon Greyjoy executing someone later on with a much smaller and lighter blade), so I guess there's that kind of ceremonial use for larger, heavier blades - executions, possibly ritual combat and so on, as opposed to something that's essentially for display and intimidation, and would be incredibly unwieldy in actual combat.

I don't know historical examples but it completely makes sense to me that special execution weapons could be made heavier than a battle-weapon, in the same way that an axe used for chopping wood is generally going to be heavier than a fighting axe.

[Mr Beer]

Also, as a disinterested observer, the case has been much more strongly made for the Ottoman Empire reasonably being considered an existential threat to Europe from the 14th century onwards than otherwise.

[Spiryt]

As far as medieval engineering goes, one has to mention that lots of the stuff in Wieliczka salt mine is indeed post medieval, usually very post medieval, though.

For some examples:


This chamber is from 1896:

Spoiler

Show

Sculptures were getting made since that date throughout 70 years.

This chapel is from 1859:

Spoiler

Show

In general, most of the lower, bigger chambers date from 1700-onwards.

[PersonMan]

My two cents on the Ottomans - Europe thing: I think one of the kernels the argument boils down to is just how great a threat needs to be before one considers it 'existential'. It'd be fairly easy to argue that, well, the Ottomans never threatened Scandinavia, the British Isles, the now-BeNeLux region, the Baltic region; so therefore it wasn't existential, if one wanted to.

Anyways, after the last round of helpful answers, I have another question somewhat related to the first. Namely, if someone is supernaturally fast (not in general, more as a 'top speed' kind of thing - like some athletes can sprint amazingly fast for 10 seconds, they can move at superhuman speeds mentally and physically for a while, without being 'stuck' in that state) and they receive training in martial arts*, how much will they benefit? A lot of martial training seems intended to minimize the conscious thought and delays involved in fighting, so would it help someone who can just "brute force" things with insane speed?

*The ones with more martial than art in them; both unarmed and armed versions of not-dying and making the other guy die.

[Tiktakkat]

So to have ever have been an existential threat, they had to have been an existential threat for that entire time?

See your comment below: the standard he is using changes based on my response, including my specific citation of his claim.

And they weren't even an existential threat while knocking on the gates of Vienna and holding a large swath of the European landmass under their rule?

Maybe.
I have no doubt they were perceived as one by the people directly fighting them.
It is equally clear that they were not perceived as such by the people directly fighting those people, such that they actively allied with the Ottomans.
So . . . who do we believe:
Charles V: "Ermagerd! They're at the gates of Vienna! Paris is next, and London next week!"
or;
Francis I: "Sucks to be you mon amis! Hey Suleiman, want to sack Nice together?"

And look!
Charles V wound up winning, and Austria later annexed a third? of the European Ottoman territories, stopped from acquiring more only because of those miserable Romanovs in Russia and the continued interference of those darned Bourbons in Paris.

Yes, that's clear, and also something of the reverse of the entire point here.

It is precisely the point:
If the part is not the whole for me, then clearly the part is not the whole for him.

So in order to be a threat to Europe, they have to be on the doorstep of "Austria proper"... I see. But isn't this in opposition to the claim that when they were knocking on the door of Austria they still weren't a threat?

No.
In order to be a threat to Austria, they have to be a threat to Austria - not Hungary; not Transylvania; not Bulgaria - Austria.
To be a threat to Europe, they have to actually threaten all of Europe, and not merely a portion of Europe.

Um... OK... but that really doesn't represent the sort of threat to Europe as a political and cultural entity that a Turkish/Arab Islamic takeover would have.

Really?
Is that why the French didn't keep fighting for over 100 years?
Is that why the Hapsburgs didn't try getting a crusade proclaimed against all of England, and send the Spanish Armada?
Is that why the line between Common Law and Roman Law is drawn at the border of England?
Is that why the French fought another round of wars for another 100 years to prevent England from dominating the world?

Despite what certain historians have been wont to claim, European/Western culture has quite a bit in the way of ties back to Celtic culture -- they were in close continuous contact with the Greek, Latin, and Germanic "forefathers" of western culture for their entire existence.

Yes and no.
There are certainly traces of Celtic presence throughout Europe and into Asia Minor.
That is significantly different from full-on Celtic culture, which was pretty marginal even in England by the time in question, except for the lingering/perpetual influence of Celtic Christianity.

I think he means that your standard appears to keep swinging back and forth between strict specificity and broad generality depending on what will make the evidence fit your opinion.

See the post I'm responding to here as an example of where you appear to do that.

That is because he does:
First he relies on a general statement.
Then he switches to specific incidents.
Then he returns to the big picture.
Then he cites specific incidents again.
Each time flipping when I demonstrate why the particular citations he is using do not support his interpretation.
I make a general rebuttal, he demands I explain specific incidents.
I make specific rebuttals, he demands a big picture overview.
You have actually addressed my rebuttals, for which I thank you.
He simply flips his argument to yet another angle.

And again, let me state my original objection to his claim:
How can you call the HRE a "failed state" while citing the Ottomans, as well as the Romans and Byzantines, as exemplars of strong states?
To avoid answering that he has wandered every which way, evaded any questioning of the depth of his knowledge of those empires, fudged the time period he is referring to, parsed technicalities and random events, and generally not been able to come up with anything even vaguely resembling a direct answer.
Mind you, I will accept responsibility for letting him change the subject like that, but do let us recognize that he is the one who has changed the subject so much.

If you want me to answer on specifics, pick one and let's stick with it. I'm fine with that.
If you want me to answer on the generalities of 500-1,000 years of history, accept that it is going to skip around a LOT. I'm fine with that too.

[Mr Beer]

Namely, if someone is supernaturally fast (not in general, more as a 'top speed' kind of thing - like some athletes can sprint amazingly fast for 10 seconds, they can move at superhuman speeds mentally and physically for a while, without being 'stuck' in that state) and they receive training in martial arts*, how much will they benefit? A lot of martial training seems intended to minimize the conscious thought and delays involved in fighting, so would it help someone who can just "brute force" things with insane speed?

It depends on the level of superhuman speed they have and if we're talking about melee fighting vs. humans. If it's Flash level speed, it doesn't really matter vs. humans, as they are a trivial threat anyway. If they are say measurably over human max but not by a couple of orders of magnitude, the answer is 'a lot', because now they can move amazingly fast and also fight efficiently. They are taking opponents out faster, take longer to get tired, defend more effectively, have better tactical awareness...this all adds up to reducing their chances of getting dog-piled or getting shot, which are presumably the major threats they face.

vs. each other, of course it will help to the extent that martial arts training helps humans fight other humans.

[Galloglaich]

See your comment below: the standard he is using changes based on my response, including my specific citation of his claim.

Tiktakkat, you are being totally dishonest in this thread. Your strategy is an old, really boring and tedious one. Deny deny deny, whenever you are wrong, combined with changing or shifting the subject at every opportunity. Never concede a point no matter what. That way as the signal to noise ratio diminishes down down down, everyone else who argues with you looks bad due to the old adage about arguing with people on the internet. Most people stop reading and those who do skim it mostly see just "you are wrong because bla bla bla / no you are wrong because bla bla bla"

There is no way to win an argument like that, you just look like a jerk because of the sourness of the whole thing and the utter lack of clarity in the discussion, since one person isn't being honest. If you keep arguing, you look ridiculous, if you stop arguing, the individual pursuing said strategy claims victory very loudly, not that he's fooling anyone, but it all comes out with a stink on it.

You have made a series of totally absurd factually incorrect statements in the thread over and over again, the Hapsburgs ran the HRE during the whole middle ages, Bohemia was never part of the HRE, Northern Italy wasn't part of the HRE, (but then later you said it was), the HRE wasn't concerned about the Ottomans, the Ottomans weren't a threat (existential or otherwise) to Europe, etc. etc.

You keep shifting from era to era (usually away from the medieval whenever the discussion turns there) and from generality to specificity and back, then you accuse everyone else of doing it.



Repeating nonsense over and over doesn't make it true, or make you look good. I feel a little bit foolish for previously assuming you knew what you were talking about regarding ancient Rome, I wouldn't take anything you posted at face value. You've completely lost any credibility with me on any subject.

G