[Dalaran1991]

(09-25-2015 12:58 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

I'm not really hanging around this site at the moment, but thought I'd come back on this one.

1) This probably needs a better definition of terms, because again it's a very, very wide period and a very, very wide category you're discussing. I suspect by the word "weapon" you mean "swords." As it is, there are a large category of things in the medieval period that can be classed as weapons, and peasants were not banned from owning them. The main reason peasants didn't have swords -- was because they couldn't afford them.

Let's be clear about something: in the High Middle Ages your average knight's sword, the longswords probably best represented by Type XII and Type XIII in the Oakeshott typology were not just sharpened bits of metal. They were precision instruments, typically no heavier than maybe 2.5 kg or so, expertly crafted in such a way that the very balance of the weapon changed as you swung it - what we call dynamic balance. John Clements from ARMA has done probably the most exhaustive attempts at reconstructing medieval swordsmanship technique -- read his books Medieval Swordsmanship or Renaissance Swordsmanship -- and from all the literature we have available to us, longswords were optimised as killing devices, carefully put together with metal folded over again and again and balanced so the centre of gravity fell right where you gripped it. They were marvels of engineering and blacksmithing for their times.

But as a result, they were prohibitively expensive to make and held their value very well. We have records of swords being used as collateral for loans. A man with a good suit of armour and a longsword in our tim would be a man with a late-model Ferrari and a mansion overlooking the French Riviera. The average peasant had nowhere near that kind of money.

As said, peasants were not banned from owning weapons. That would have required them to hand over most of the instruments they could use for their jobs: axes, homemade spears, staves, pitchforks, etc. Just about anything with a cutting edge, a long shaft, or a heavy head could be used as a weapon. As an outlier, James Michener in his moving book Poland describes one Polish peasant who, when called up for war, goes out into the woods near his home. He finds a thin tree -- one he's been growing since he was a young man, at his father's direction, one into which he has inserted bits of obsidian and rock as the tree grows, such that by the time he visits the tree again, the tree has grown around the pieces and grips them in place hard. He cuts the tree down, removes the branches, and has his weapon. Peasants would often bring their own improvised weapons when brought into battle.

On top of that there is the fact the nobility didn't need to ban peasants from owning weapons. For example, longbows were very popular across many strata of English society -- Englishmen were required to practice daily with them -- but the nobility never seemed that worried about a Grey Goose shaft whistling into their backs. That was a result of reasonably fair treatment for the time and probably the brutal penalties that applied if you assaulted someone in the nobility -- it being almost a religious crime, since societal structure was gummed up with religious belief to an extent. Even a mob of peasants was not really a serious threat to the nobility; a nobleman need only call up his own levies to meet a disorganised infantry force, and the rebellion would be over. Remember, knights trained from early childhood, and peasants simply didn't have the time or inclination to train for military strategy and combat on a battlefield. Mounted knights were really not outclassed on the battlefield until organised groups of pikemen started to evolve, and when ranged weaponry started to get more effective - Agincourt being the most notable example of that.

2) I can't say I've ever heard of the Roman underuse of archers being because the bows were not usable in wet climates. It rather seems to have been a combination of (a) under-reporting of Roman auxiliaries to the legions, who used bows a lot, and (b) the fact the Romans already had an effective ranged weapon they used in battle a lot: the pilum. The Romans were still using javelins until 300 AD if not later on, and for their style of combat -- heavy infantry, little engagement by mounted skirmishing, as the Huns and many Eastern nations were good at -- pilum throws worked better. Added to that, the Eastern nations they fought -- Scythians, Persians -- were simply ahead on bow technology; they came up with compound and recurve bows first.

They should have just fire the guys running History Channel and Discovery and make Paracelsus and Quintus directors.

Nice to see somebody as passionate about medieval history as myself, only much much more knowledgeable

So instead of being productive at work Im watching youtube videos and swordmanship

Lucky that Im in Paris and they have the best medieval military museum here. I think you will enjoy the collection of photos I took:

http://s1158.photobucket.com/user/Dalara...t=3&page=1

As you can see there are a lot of swords that were actually used and swords who are more decorative. I do wonder though if the shiny fancy swords shown (they are all original items) could actually be used for combat?





Despite being a kenjutsu practioner, I have to concede that technology wise the longsword is a superior weapon (contrary to popular belief that katana can slice through armor) Though Jap swordsmith did their best with the shitty iron they had at the time.


Regarding weapons, yeap most of the time its simply because weapons were not affordable for the peasants. But you can see from the collection above the billhook, used to deadly effects by infantry against armored knights. I wonder if peasants are allowed to use these or only man at arms?

In theory a lot of peasantry weaponry could be used against knight in armor. The voulge and pitchfork are easily anti-cav weapons, but most peasants would shit their pants and pass out when they see a freaking steel man atop a destrier riding at them full speed. I think this is the reason cavalry was so effective: its terror warfare.

At the battle of Tours where Charles Martel successfully fended off the Caliphate and preserve Europe (not like the traitorous SJW goverment of France now...) Frankish infantry with heavy armor, good training and discipline resisted wave after wave of Arab heavy cavalry with lances and stirup, so I think its not about cavalry being superior in itself. Its the moral effect on otherwise poorly trained infantry.

Also crossbow were banned by the Pope because it allows untrained peasants to kill knights in armor. Or, because it was "too brutal be used against fellow Christians". Which one is correct?