A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

cycling in England



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old September 20th 14, 08:02 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jeff Liebermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,018
Default cycling in England

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

Are you suggesting skepticism at plastic hat benefits?


The mystic aura of the sacred foam hat will protect its wearer from
harm. However, medical insurance is helpful for those times when the
protective aura has been worn away by the curses, expletives, and
incantations of a more powerful sorcerer. The plastic hat works,
except when it doesn't.

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


Probably true. One of my friends has 3 sons, all of whom are involved
in a medieval battle re-enactment society, where the weapons are made
from foam. I believe a bike helmet should survive a blow from one of
these axes:
http://www.forgedfoam.com/?product_cat=axes
http://www.darkknightarmoury.com/c-83-larp-axes.aspx
https://www.google.com/search?q=foam+battle+axe&tbm=isch
However, I'm not sure it will survive this axe:
http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-make-a-duct-tape-battle-axe/
because few things are stronger than duct tape.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Ads
  #32  
Old September 20th 14, 12:03 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 606
Default cycling in England

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 06:03:26 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann considered Thu, 18 Sep 2014
18:22:56 -0700 the perfect time to write:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:30:48 +1000, Peter Howard
wrote:

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


That's understandable. If you look at period paintings and
descriptions of various battles, you might notice that knights on
horseback usually wore helmets, but those that were unhorsed, either
opened their visors, or removed the helmet.
https://www.google.com/search?q=richard+iii+at+bosworth&tbm=isch
Here's a modern version of Richard III at Bosworth:
http://www.studio88.co.uk/acatalog/Richard_III_at_the_Battle_of_Bosworth_oil_painting .html
"The original painting in its frame, next to Graham Turner's armor
which is based on the tomb effigy of Ralph Fitzherbert, c. 1483."

The problem is that on horseback, the only thing the knight could do
was attack in the forward direction because that's all he could see
through the slit or holes in the helmet. However, once unhorsed, he
had to defend himself from all directions while being somewhat
immobile due to the weight of the armor[1]. Better visibility is a
major asset for defense, so little wonder Richard III may have removed
his helmet.


[1] There is some questions as to whether the knight really was
immobile due to the weight of the armor:
http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/medieval-swords-and-armor-were-not-heavy/
Of course, everything we know is wrong:
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/hd_aams.htm


A few weeks ago I watched a documentary on TV here which examined the
subject in considerable detail, even finding a man of similar age who
has almost identical idiopathic adolescent onset scoliosis (curvature
of the spine) which is very rare nowadays, as modern treatments
(corrective surgery, braces and splints) are generally used to reduce
the severity.
The coincidence was all the more amazing, because this young man
(Dominic Smee) spends his weekends in a re-enactment society at
Bosworth.
As part of the research, he was trained by experts in the combat
skills and weaponry of the time, and had armour custom made of the
correct type for the period and designed to conform to his deformity.
They found that the 15th century armour benefited him greatly by
bracing and supporting his back, and riding tack appropriate to the
period actually supported him so that his natural asymmetry did not
affect his riding (which it did badly in modern clothing and mounted
on a modern saddle), and he was able to perform normally on horseback,
for which he displayed an amazing aptitude, tilting successfully at
the quintain with only a few hours riding experience.
However, when dismounted, the serious problem became one of stamina,
as the deformity prevents free breathing by reducing lung capacity.
He could fight perfectly well, but not for very long.
Once beaten down, he would have been completely unable to defend
himself, so his opponents would have been very likely to remove his
helmet even if he hadn't already done so for better visibility.
Firstly so that they could be sure of having identified the right
person, and secondly to kill him.

http://www.channel4.com/info/press/n...-iiis-skeleton

You may, depending on geographical copyright restrictions, be able to
watch the documentary he
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/r...w-evidence/4od
(46:01 long)


Medieval armor also was rather specialized and there were different
sets designed and made for different activities. the "Tournament"
armor made primarily for jousting was notably heavier and thicker in
areas that might have to deflect a lance as well as being made
specifically for sitting on a horse. A set made for actual warfare
would be lighter and probably allow more movement. Some suits have
been found that were somewhat customable with, for example, different
helmets and Cuirass for either tournament or war, or perhaps jousting
and the melee portions of a tournament.

It is probably a mistake to think about medieval warfare as something
"old fashioned and likely impractical. It wasn't, it was well thought
out and often extremely efficient given the men and materials
available. I believe that Richard ( the lion hearted) was known for
the speeds at which he could attack and capture medieval
fortifications.
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #33  
Old September 20th 14, 01:40 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,374
Default cycling in England

On Saturday, September 20, 2014 1:55:48 AM UTC-4, Phil W Lee wrote:
Jeff Liebermann considered Fri, 19 Sep 2014

08:30:26 -0700 the perfect time to write:



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.




It has been demonstrated that against armour prior to "proof armour"

of the 17th century, designed to protect against musket balls, bodkin

point arrows were well capable of penetrating plate armour - it was

exactly what they were designed for.

For a very long time we laboured under a false impression as to the

draw weight of the typical English longbow, apparently having

forgotten the age from which archers were required to train, how

regularly, and therefore how strong they were.

The large number of bows recovered from the Marie Rose allowed

archaeologists to re-create bows of the same dimensions and test them,

and they found that the power would have averaged over 50% higher than

had previously been thought, and in some cases (presumably the

medieval equivalent to our modern sniper rifles) were more than

double. There are very few people these days who are actually capable

of drawing a longbow of medieval strength - we simply don't train for

it from a sufficiently early age.

The result was most of


the mounted knights never made it to the battle line or were seriously


out of formation without a horse.




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.




I'd understood that the principle advantage of the dragoon was that he

was faster around the battlefield than anything else (not having the

60Kg handicap of the knight's armour).

Thus he could be deployed rapidly to exploit weaknesses on the other

side, or shore them up on one's own.



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.




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:




Not anymore.

Forensic pathology is a well advanced science, and once they have the

remains to work with, they can quite easily ascertain the cause of

most violent death, as occurs in battle.



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."




But now they've examined his skull, which shows no sign of that.



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.




Yes, there is no way of knowing if he took it off himself to aid

visibility in the foot battle, or it was removed by his enemies once

they had overwhelmed him.

Once overwhelmed, his helmet would have been removed even if they had

managed to find a way through his armour (which would undoubtedly have

been of the best quality available, and with few if any

vulnerabilities) and killed him in some other fashion - however none

of the non-head wounds apparent on the bones are in places which would

be even slightly vulnerable with armour still in place.

They would have done that to ensure identification even if not

necessary to actually kill him.

However, several of the head wounds would have been fatal even

individually, never mind in combination, so it is unlikely that they

were insults to the corpse - they would have wanted to ensure he could

still be recognised so that they could display him to prove their

victory.

While it is theoretically possible that a fatal wound could be

inflicted which left no damage to the bones, it is regarded by the

experts as vanishingly unlikely through good quality armour of the

time.

So it is highly likely that he was alive when his helmet was removed,

although, of course, we have no way of knowing if he was still

conscious.


ffffffffffffffff

While it is theoretically possible that a fatal wound could be
inflicted which left no damage to the bones, it is regarded by the
experts as vanishingly unlikely through good quality armour of the
time.
So it is highly likely that he was alive when his helmet was removed,
although, of course, we have no way of knowing if he was still
conscious.

not for trial....

a common Bell helmet does not prevent fatal blunt impacts

so highly likely....when his helmet was removed ?

WHAT HELMET ?

Richard, was alive because he was wearing a helmet ?

Richard was dead because he was not wearing a helmet

Now for the Perth news....

Sic cyclists. including Richard 3, were run down by a city bus this morning, all walked away from the incident wearing helmets....
















  #34  
Old September 20th 14, 06:57 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,374
Default cycling in England

here's Elvis...count the helmets

http://goo.gl/SDLmr8

there are several excellent Wiki's on tactics, weapons, horse cavalry.

Fatal cranial injuries often start with bruising the fluid filled envelope the brain sits in, caused by no more than a differences in decelerations of body head and brain.

  #35  
Old September 20th 14, 07:55 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default cycling in England

So as not to ruin a thread decent posters are enjoying, I've answered the wretched little scumbag Peter Howard in a separate thread, "The case of poor Peter Howard" at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...ch/fnc4xTz9iH4

Enjoy!

Andre Jute
Do your duty by humanity. Put down a congenital crimimal like Peter Howard before he can breed.

On Saturday, September 20, 2014 3:52:59 AM UTC+1, Peter Howard wrote:
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

  #36  
Old September 20th 14, 11:15 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default cycling in England

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

Peter's post appeared to be perfectly civil and entertaining, unlike your
unprovoked spew of bile.


Okay, having used that half-sentence to lure the ****ant peasant Peter Howard into damaging admissions, we can now return to Ralphie's stinking hypocrisy.

What's your excuse for being hypocritical scum, Ralph Barone? In the ten or twelve years that poor jerk Peter Howard has been trying ineffectually to bully me, we didn't once see you object. But the moment I take a turn and demonstrate how a pro handles an ankle-nipper, there you are screeching in defense of poor Little Howie.

Do tell us the excuse Diane thinks up for your hypocrisy, Ralphie.

Andre Jute
I wriggle my fingers, and the puppets dance
  #37  
Old September 21st 14, 12:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 606
Default cycling in England

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 16:49:59 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. Slocomb considered Sat, 20 Sep 2014
18:03:47 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 06:03:26 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann considered Thu, 18 Sep 2014
18:22:56 -0700 the perfect time to write:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 23:30:48 +1000, Peter Howard
wrote:

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

That's understandable. If you look at period paintings and
descriptions of various battles, you might notice that knights on
horseback usually wore helmets, but those that were unhorsed, either
opened their visors, or removed the helmet.
https://www.google.com/search?q=richard+iii+at+bosworth&tbm=isch
Here's a modern version of Richard III at Bosworth:
http://www.studio88.co.uk/acatalog/Richard_III_at_the_Battle_of_Bosworth_oil_painting .html
"The original painting in its frame, next to Graham Turner's armor
which is based on the tomb effigy of Ralph Fitzherbert, c. 1483."

The problem is that on horseback, the only thing the knight could do
was attack in the forward direction because that's all he could see
through the slit or holes in the helmet. However, once unhorsed, he
had to defend himself from all directions while being somewhat
immobile due to the weight of the armor[1]. Better visibility is a
major asset for defense, so little wonder Richard III may have removed
his helmet.


[1] There is some questions as to whether the knight really was
immobile due to the weight of the armor:
http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/medieval-swords-and-armor-were-not-heavy/
Of course, everything we know is wrong:
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/hd_aams.htm

A few weeks ago I watched a documentary on TV here which examined the
subject in considerable detail, even finding a man of similar age who
has almost identical idiopathic adolescent onset scoliosis (curvature
of the spine) which is very rare nowadays, as modern treatments
(corrective surgery, braces and splints) are generally used to reduce
the severity.
The coincidence was all the more amazing, because this young man
(Dominic Smee) spends his weekends in a re-enactment society at
Bosworth.
As part of the research, he was trained by experts in the combat
skills and weaponry of the time, and had armour custom made of the
correct type for the period and designed to conform to his deformity.
They found that the 15th century armour benefited him greatly by
bracing and supporting his back, and riding tack appropriate to the
period actually supported him so that his natural asymmetry did not
affect his riding (which it did badly in modern clothing and mounted
on a modern saddle), and he was able to perform normally on horseback,
for which he displayed an amazing aptitude, tilting successfully at
the quintain with only a few hours riding experience.
However, when dismounted, the serious problem became one of stamina,
as the deformity prevents free breathing by reducing lung capacity.
He could fight perfectly well, but not for very long.
Once beaten down, he would have been completely unable to defend
himself, so his opponents would have been very likely to remove his
helmet even if he hadn't already done so for better visibility.
Firstly so that they could be sure of having identified the right
person, and secondly to kill him.

http://www.channel4.com/info/press/n...-iiis-skeleton

You may, depending on geographical copyright restrictions, be able to
watch the documentary he
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/r...w-evidence/4od
(46:01 long)


Medieval armor also was rather specialized and there were different
sets designed and made for different activities. the "Tournament"
armor made primarily for jousting was notably heavier and thicker in
areas that might have to deflect a lance as well as being made
specifically for sitting on a horse. A set made for actual warfare
would be lighter and probably allow more movement. Some suits have
been found that were somewhat customable with, for example, different
helmets and Cuirass for either tournament or war, or perhaps jousting
and the melee portions of a tournament.

It is probably a mistake to think about medieval warfare as something
"old fashioned and likely impractical. It wasn't, it was well thought
out and often extremely efficient given the men and materials
available. I believe that Richard ( the lion hearted) was known for
the speeds at which he could attack and capture medieval
fortifications.


Undoubtedly the introduction of firearms, industrial manufacturing
and, later, armoured vehicles, led to a dismissal of everything which
came before as being primitive,

It is largely through the efforts of experimental archaeologists that
we are only now re-discovering just how effective and efficient most
of the older weaponry and tactics were.
We'd also forgotten just how fit and well trained they were, with
constant tournaments keeping armed forces in fighting fit condition
and readiness, and keeping the individual craftsmen who made the
armour and weaponry well trained and incentivised. A good armourer or
(particularly) swordsmith was well above the skill level of a common
blacksmith, and would have been rewarded accordingly.
Modern techniques are also revealing just how complex some of the
manufacturing methods were - for example, a good sword was
considerably more than just a simple blade forged from one piece of
iron - the constant forging together of separate elements took several
weeks, and at least half of the metal was lost in the process,
although such high quality weapons were undoubtedly far too expensive
for any but the landed knights with good incomes to support their
outlay on arms, both for themselves and their men-at-arms.
Indeed, that was fundamentally what they were granted the lands for.

So many apparently minor details were aimed at keeping a fighting
force in readiness, such as the traditional planting of yew trees in
churchyards - a constant supply of good yew was required for the
bowyers, yet it could not be grown where livestock could reach it, as
it is poisonous. Efficient rotation farming meant that even arable
lands were utilised for livestock during the fallow phase, so
churchyards were the only places where it was safe to grow such a
large quantity of a very slow-growing yet essential material.


They might have planted yew trees in grave yards but the majority of
yew used in English bows was imported. To the extent that there were
regulations about returning ships having to carry so many staves.
Eventually it became almost impossibly;e to import sufficient lumber
to meet requirements as European trees had been largely cut down.

see http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/...englongbow.htm
for example.
--
Cheers,

John B.
  #38  
Old September 21st 14, 02:10 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,374
Default cycling in England

helmet's from Bananana Republick...



http://goo.gl/OwjNSG
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cycling England to go JMS UK 3 September 30th 10 07:56 PM
Cycling England review Tom Crispin UK 2 April 14th 10 01:20 PM
Cycling in North of England Klaus Steinkamp UK 13 November 17th 08 03:27 PM
Cycling England Tom Crispin UK 2 April 13th 07 11:03 PM
Cycling your way to an England managership. Richard UK 1 May 5th 06 09:52 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.