#31
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
cycling in England
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |