cycling in England

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 12:13:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/19/2014 11:30 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 19:02:45 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

I thought that both Richard III and his brother were partial to having
the knights fight on foot. Something about the commonality being a bit
more enthusiastic about fighting if they thought that the mounted
Gentry couldn't run away if things got a bit sticky?

That's certainly one reason. Dismounting knights was also a useful
mechanism for preventing a premature charge on horseback, a serious
problem as the nobility of the day was not accustom to following
orders.

I'm currently reading Ken Follet's _World Without End_, set in 14th
century England and a bit of France.

As Follet tells it, the French problem of the English longbows at Crecy
might have been overcome, if not for the fact that thousands of French
knights felt compelled to charge on horseback, completely without
organization, hoping for individual glory.

Not glory. They wanted booty. The first noble person to grab the
booty gets to keep it because it was generally considered unacceptable
for the victors to fight each other over the booty. So, there was
always a rush to attack lest some lower class foot soldier gain access
to the supply train or supporting village before the knights could do
the traditional pillaging and looting.

Most armies of the day did not travel light. Besides the usual camp
followers, they brought along just about anything that would travel as
they didn't trust their relatives and vassals that they left behind in
the home country. The booty was substantial and well worth risking a
premature attack.

The result was, of course, slaughter and defeat by a weak and
outnumbered English army.

Yep. The English were outnumbered about 2:1 so they decided correctly
that they would need to fight a defensive battle. That's why Edward
III decided to dismount his nights. Of course, the knights grumbled
and complained, having to decide whether it was more important to be
first to the booty, or to survive the battle. Since the situation
looked hopeless for the English, it was not difficult to convince them
that dismounting for a defensive battle was best. In later battles,
where the situation was more evenly matched, the knights often refused
to dismount.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

AVAST THE JIB

The Royals, getting on in years, decided to unearth Richard.

I hear those who would know where Richard was or is did know.

The official story is Richard stood with 2-3 men as their front line collapsed.

R's circle was penetrated by 2-3 men one asked R if he was the King.

R said 'I am the King'

and a man swinging a halbard from the rear side hit R's head, killing him.

R was fallen upon and stabbed.

The monks who R treated well, came out immediately after the battle, found R and buried him under a Morris Minor

On 20/09/2014 2:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/19/2014 8:02 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:30:48 +1000, Peter Howard
wrote:

On 18/09/2014 10:22 PM, AMuzi wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...g-cyclist.html



Silly cop. But refreshing to listen to a civil exchange between cop and
citizen. Very English.
While idly glancing at the other links on that Telegraph news site I
found this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/1...in-battle.html

or:
http://tinyurl.com/mr755m2
Which suggests that Richard III wasn't wearing a helmet while being
hacked to death on Bosworth Field. So there, you anti helmet zealots.
PH


Err... do you suppose that Richard III wore a plastic hat? Selected,
as one poster specified, for lightness and ventilation?

Are you suggesting skepticism at plastic hat benefits?

I'm sure that there are those who believe bike helmets prevent up to 85%
of battle axe wounds!



"...bike helmets prevent up to 85% of battle axe wounds!"
That bit is absolutely correct. Because of our universal helmet law, I
wear a helmet at all times while riding and I have never sustained a
single battle axe wound.
PH

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 12:15:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/19/2014 8:02 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:30:48 +1000, Peter Howard
wrote:

On 18/09/2014 10:22 PM, AMuzi wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...g-cyclist.html


Silly cop. But refreshing to listen to a civil exchange between cop and
citizen. Very English.
While idly glancing at the other links on that Telegraph news site I
found this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/1...in-battle.html
or:
http://tinyurl.com/mr755m2
Which suggests that Richard III wasn't wearing a helmet while being
hacked to death on Bosworth Field. So there, you anti helmet zealots.
PH


Err... do you suppose that Richard III wore a plastic hat? Selected,
as one poster specified, for lightness and ventilation?

Are you suggesting skepticism at plastic hat benefits?

I'm sure that there are those who believe bike helmets prevent up to 85%
of battle axe wounds!

I'm sure that there is a catch there somewhere. Perhaps "up to 85%
of battle axe wounds inflected with a Styrofoam axe".

But an aside. How can one feel brave and intrepid (and hopefully the
apple of the girl's eyes) if one does not go booted and spurred
astride a suitable steed?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 08:30:26 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 19:02:45 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

I thought that both Richard III and his brother were partial to having
the knights fight on foot. Something about the commonality being a bit
more enthusiastic about fighting if they thought that the mounted
Gentry couldn't run away if things got a bit sticky?

That's certainly one reason. Dismounting knights was also a useful
mechanism for preventing a premature charge on horseback, a serious
problem as the nobility of the day was not accustom to following
orders.

In general, one attacks on horseback, but defends dismounted. For
example, in order to use defensive breastworks, one has to be on foot.

The English used hordes of archers to compensate for any lack of
mounted knights. That worked well because the storm of arrows
targeted the opposing horses, not the knights. The result was most of
the mounted knights never made it to the battle line or were seriously
out of formation without a horse.

While I'm not a student of history, what I've read about English
battle tactics during the 100 years war it was pretty much a matter of
finances, as well as earlier experiences with the Scots, that dictated
the use of massed archers. I don't have the figures to hand but if I
remember correctly at Cercy and Avencourt (spelling?)the English had
rather limited numbers of mounted knights and hoards of common
soldiers, both archers and men at arms.

Another point, of course, is that the common soldier was very likely
much easier to command than a landed knight.

Somewhat later, there was the dragoon, who is mounted infantry. These
would use a horse to get to the battle line quickly, but fight
dismounted. This was useful when using cart and plow horses that were
not accustomed to battle or carrying the weight of an armored knight.

There were also new defensive weapons, the poleaxe and halberd, which
were probably what ended the superiority of the mounted knight. These
were basically a can opener on a stick, which worked well against the
armor of the day, but had to be used on foot.

Actually, the Greek hoplite (spelling?) probably proved the
superiority of long spears and a disciplined formation :-)

To be fair, there is far too much controversy as to the manner of
death to be certain if he was or was not wearing a helmet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bosworth_Field#Engagement
"The Burgundian chronicler Jean Molinet says that a Welshman
struck the death-blow with a halberd while Richard's horse was
stuck in the marshy ground. It was said that the blows were
so violent that the king's helmet was driven into his skull."

which suggests that he was wearing a helmet. However:

"The identification in 2013 of King Richard's body shows that
the skeleton had 10 wounds, eight of them to the head, clearly
inflicted in battle and suggesting he had lost his helmet."

Whether he lost his helmet or intentionally removed it is not easily
determined.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Friday, September 19, 2014 3:05:27 AM UTC+1, Ralph Barone wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

What an asshole this Peter Howard is. No wonder he's known as "little

Howie" on account of being insignificant.



Andre Jute

Peter's post appeared to be perfectly civil and entertaining, unlike your

unprovoked spew of bile.

What do you mean "unprovoked", Barone? Are you so old that your memory is going? This asshole Howard started riding me when I

On Friday, September 19, 2014 5:50:50 PM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Next time you visit a restaurant after a group ride, or maybe an LBS,

check how many cyclists are carrying their helmets versus how many are

wearing them indoors. As I vaguely recall from the late 1980's, most

men carried their helmets indoors.

Generally I arrive at restaurants with a driver who holds the door for me. It does wonders for the service.

But in the bank, and other places where they have a notice reading "For security purposes remove your helmet", I always wear it because it serves security "purposes" (whatever those may be in English) more efficiently on my head than under my arm. Nobody except raw new members of staff are ever foolish enough to mention it to me, so I don't get much opportunity to ask what these "purposes" are, and, crucially, whether they expect bank robbers to obey their idiotic signs, or, more generally, whether they think that I could do more damage to a junior "executive" with a helmet swung in my hand or used on my head to nut them, with the visor catching them just above the eyebrows.

I'm not sure how to count those

that wear painters hats under their helmets in winter. I have no idea

what you will find and I expect regional differences, but it might be

an interesting study.

I bought a runner's cap to wear under my helmet and wish I could find more, or better tailored ones, because I've become so attached to it that it leaves my head only when it being washed, like Linus's security blanket. It's just common polyester, and cut so that it tries to sit square on my head, whereas something with tapered quadrants, like a cricket cap without the bill, would fit better. But you already had that discussion only a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps I'll get something run up in canvas now that I've taken up paint again.

Andre Jute

On 20/09/2014 10:48 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, September 19, 2014 3:05:27 AM UTC+1, Ralph Barone wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

What an asshole this Peter Howard is. No wonder he's known as "little

Howie" on account of being insignificant.



Andre Jute

Peter's post appeared to be perfectly civil and entertaining, unlike your

unprovoked spew of bile.

What do you mean "unprovoked", Barone? Are you so old that your memory is going? This asshole Howard started riding me when I
began to find it impossible to keep my lies either consistent or
believable due to advancing senility and alcohol abuse.

Did that help?

BTW, I'm not known as anything that you suggest, whereas you are well
known to be a liar, fraud and fabulist.
PH

I

wear a helmet at all times while riding and I have never sustained a

single battle axe wound.

00000000000000

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._of_Lutzen.jpg

CLICK FOR ENLARGEMENT...NO AR,OR...HELMETS WITH LEATHER CLOTHING...SWORDS/PISTOLS/HORSE CONTROL...ARTILLERY HAS THE HORSE ASIDE THE kING...MAN SHOOTING RIFLE IN BACKGROUND.

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 18:10:31 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote:

Generally I arrive at restaurants with a driver who holds the door
for me. It does wonders for the service.

Yep. Having the door fall off would be a bad thing. You might
consider getting the door repaired so that your driver need not hold
it in place.

But in the bank, and other places where they have a notice reading
"For security purposes remove your helmet", I always wear it because
it serves security "purposes" (whatever those may be in English)
more efficiently on my head than under my arm.

Huh? Why would the bank care if you wore a bicycle helmet in the
bank? Are they so interested in getting your portrait that the
bicycle helmet might spoil the cameras view?

My bank is technically inept on such matters. Someone sold them a
security camera system with 24 cameras behind the counter, which has
only 7 bank teller positions. No joke. There are 24 cameras hanging
from a low ceiling, which are quite ugly. However, they area all
really awful cameras, with limited resolution, and grossly inferior
optics (no auto-focus, no auto-iris, excessive field of view, lousy
depth of field, back lighting, etc). I managed to see one of the
monitors, which showed a totally useless for identification picture.
My guess is the reason they don't ask me to remove my various hats
inside the bank is that they know it won't make any difference in the
final photo.

Nobody except raw new members of staff are ever foolish enough
to mention it to me, so I don't get much opportunity to ask what
these "purposes" are, and, crucially, whether they expect bank
robbers to obey their idiotic signs,

Don't forget to remove your fake beard, sunglasses, makeup, and wig.
My bank has had a few robberies, none of which followed any
anticipated or traditional methods.

or, more generally, whether they think that I could do more damage
to a junior "executive" with a helmet swung in my hand or used
on my head to nut them, with the visor catching them just above
the eyebrows.

They may have seen the Goldfinger movie featuring Oddjob and his razor
edge Homburg.

I bought a runner's cap to wear under my helmet and wish I could
find more, or better tailored ones, because I've become so attached
to it that it leaves my head only when it being washed, like Linus's
security blanket.

I know the problem. I've been wearing various Greek fishermen hats
since the 1960's. My first one's were 100% wool. The current variety
are a "wool blend" which means a little wool, and the rest from
shredded carpet scraps. The original kept my head warm without
sweating. The current variety just makes me sweat. I do some sewing,
so I tried making my own from a purchased pattern. Something like
this:
http://www.amazon.com/1813-1855-Mens-Caps-Pattern/dp/B002F850QE
After 3 tries, it still did not look very good, but was functional and
warm. However, the real problem was dirt. I'm partial to black hats.
When I wash them, I discovered that most of the black color was from
dirt and filth. Sometimes the hat would disintegrate in the wash,
where the dirt was the only thing holding the hat together.

Anyway, try making your own runners hat. It doesn't seem too
complicated. If that's too much, buy one a size too large, and alter
it down to fit. As long as it doesn't have a liner, that's easy to
do.

It's just common polyester, and cut so that it tries to sit square
on my head, whereas something with tapered quadrants, like a cricket
cap without the bill, would fit better. But you already had that
discussion only a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps I'll get something
run up in canvas now that I've taken up paint again.

Yep. We've been here before. The square hat sounds more like a
painters hat or maybe a Catholic cardinals hat:
http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2012/2/18/2012218112521246734_20.jpg
However, if you just want something that fits to put under your
bicycle helmet, there's no better fit than a kippah or yamulke:
https://www.google.com/search?q=kippah&tbm=isch
Conversion to Judaism optional.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558