History questions not worth their own thread III

madviking said:

What is Fernand Braudel's reputation within the history community?

Click to expand...

That's rather like asking about Karl Marx's (alternatively, Marc Bloch's) reputation in the "history community"; it doesn't speak with one voice, and you'll find several opinions on him.

madviking said:

What is Fernand Braudel's reputation within the history community?

Click to expand...

I recently read his 'A History of Civilizations'. I was slightly concerned by his take on the areas I know more about, which made me suspicious of what he wrote about areas that were new to me.

Plus there's a comedy chapter arguing that ancient China and ancient India were pretty much the same ????

Why did heavy infantry in Europe and the Near East (Daylamis excluded) largely discard the javelin by the early Middle Ages? The pilum and angon seemed pretty effective, and the Almogavars were outrageously good with their assegais.

Phrossack said:

Why did heavy infantry in Europe and the Near East (Daylamis excluded) largely discard the javelin by the early Middle Ages? The pilum and angon seemed pretty effective, and the Almogavars were outrageously good with their assegais.

Click to expand...

It probably had to do with the increasing use of lighter cavalry which were not susceptible to Javelins.

General Pilates said:

It probably had to do with the increasing use of lighter cavalry which were not susceptible to Javelins.

Click to expand...

Cavalry didn't get lighter in the Middle Ages. It got, on average, heavier. And there were plenty of cavalry to go around before, what with Gauls, Numidians, Parthians, Goths, etc. Besides, javelins can be used to thrust (even pila, apparently, which strikes me as odd, due to their bending shafts).

Bending shafts are pretty normal for East Asian spears. It makes it difficult to follow the point.

Can someone point me to some good sources (preferably available online via springerlink or elsevier etc.) for European economy and geography of the middle ages? Maps are very useful as well.

I'm interested at the extent of forests and deforestation from 750-1600, primary food for various regions (like, which animals were primarily domesticated etc.), city sizes, which trade goods were produced where, and sources of iron ore and valuable metals.

It's because I'm working on a (rather large) Civ4 map for medieval Europe (including North Africa and Mesopotamia, i.e. the map ends directly before the Caspian Sea in the east), and I'd like it to be as accurate as possible.

Thanks in advance!

ParkCungHee said:

Bending shafts are pretty normal for East Asian spears. It makes it difficult to follow the point.

Click to expand...

What?

The shaft bends, this creates a slight delay between where the point is, and where the shaft is. If you follow the point, you'll be misled because it will eventually line up with the shaft.

ParkCungHee said:

The shaft bends, this creates a slight delay between where the point is, and where the shaft is. If you follow the point, you'll be misled because it will eventually line up with the shaft.

Click to expand...

Huh. I'd have to see it to understand it. I was referring to how the shank of the pilum and angon would bend upon impact to prevent reuse or extraction by the enemy.

It seems we're talking about a very different concept of bending.
Did these spears not bend back when they bent?

I've heard it repeated many times that the upright spears/pikes of those in a phalanx/pikeblock who are unengaged can block some arrows/projectiles when held upright and offer some protection. Is this true at all, and if so, to what extent?

Phrossack said:

Why did heavy infantry in Europe and the Near East (Daylamis excluded) largely discard the javelin by the early Middle Ages? The pilum and angon seemed pretty effective, and the Almogavars were outrageously good with their assegais.

Click to expand...

I was under the impression it was a decline in the level of training required to use both weapons effectively. As heavy cavalry developed in the early middle ages (especialy after the introduction of the stirrup) heavy infantry was relegated to either a) dismounted cavalry or b)a block of infantry to serve as a rally point for cavalry. Heavy infantry in the assault would not need javelins as they were supported by light infantry and cavalry.

I may be completely wrong, but when in doubt, chalk it up to changes in military tactics.

Ajidica said:

As heavy cavalry developed in the early middle ages (especialy after the introduction of the stirrup)

Click to expand...

I saw this, went aaargh and refused to read the rest of the post

Dachs said:

I saw this, went aaargh and refused to read the rest of the post

Click to expand...

Care to elaborate? Is that not when the stirrup was developed?

Dachs said:

I saw this, went aaargh and refused to read the rest of the post

Click to expand...

Please, do inform me of what historical fallacy I am engaging in when I state that the ability to easily remain on the horse would be related to the increased utility of cavalry.

I mean, it wasn't like I said:
"Byzantine Cataphracts roflpwnd the unorganized Arabs."

Eran of Arcadia said:

Care to elaborate? Is that not when the stirrup was developed?

Click to expand...

That is more or less when the stirrup was introduced to Europe, yes, however

Ajidica said:

Please, do inform me of what historical fallacy I am engaging in when I state that the ability to easily remain on the horse would be related to the increased utility of cavalry.

I mean, it wasn't like I said:
"Byzantine Cataphracts roflpwnd the unorganized Arabs."

Click to expand...

the introduction of the stirrup had no clear effect on states' willingness or ability to raise units of effective armored or missile cavalry. In most of Europe, no polity had the ability to raise large forces of such cavalry anyway for several centuries after the introduction of the stirrup, making it moot. The one European polity that could, the Byzantine Empire, had already begun to introduce large formations of armored cavalry well over a century before the stirrup was employed in the West (so large even that one recent historian of their use has argued that the Byzantine army of the era of Ioustinianos was wholly mounted, which is going a bit far - but not by that much). The Sasanian army, which experienced the stirrup probably earlier than did the Byzantines, had possessed formations of massive armored horse centuries before that - the Iranian tradition of the dehkan warrior-gentry provided much of the foundation for the Sasano-Parthian confederacy back in the third century. Simply put, there is no actual link between the introduction of the stirrup and any sort of tactical revolution in cavalry; usually historians tend to require a more formal causal link than "that's the sort of thing that totally should've happened".

The fascination with the stirrup is another facet of the pernicious impact of various sorts of technological determinism, which usually goes hand in hand with Whiggery (which is prima facie bad). This particular circumstance is due primarily to the enthusiastic advocacy of Lynn Swann, who several decades ago claimed that the stirrup not only revolutionized European tactics (harrumph) but that it spawned feudal society de novo (committing the grievous error of locating "feudalism" before the tenth century but that is incidental to the point).

Indeed, stirrups have no effect on keeping your seat during a charge, nor does all the kinetic energy of both man and horse get transferred to the point.
http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/shock.php

In short, the author says, from extensive personal experience, that it's your thighs that keep you mounted (having some experience in riding myself, I agree), that proper saddles were more effective at this task, and that, as a jouster, he fears a big man on a small horse more than a small man on a big horse. Mount and rider aren't one physical unit, so it's the man's mass that counts.

Dachs said:

Ioustinianos

Click to expand...

Would it be better to write his name as a Greek transliteration rather than a Latin one? He was the last Roman Emperor to speak Latin as a first language, so it would seem more appropriate to be Iustianus.

Anyway, I still go with the view that the stirrup was adopted because it was relatively easy to adopt and made things at least marginally better (if not making the rider more effective, it at least made the lesser skilled rider's job easier). I don't think there needs to be any more complex than that once you jettison all the baggage of it being revolutionary.

Louis XXIV said:

Would it be better to write his name as a Greek transliteration rather than a Latin one? He was the last Roman Emperor to speak Latin as a first language, so it would seem more appropriate to be Iustianus.

Click to expand...

The Latin would be Iustinianus, actually.

I prefer Greek from Arkadios/Arcadius onward, because the instances of actual Greek names rapidly increase (e.g. Leon I/II, Zenon) and because the final split between ERE and WRE is far more convenient than 565.