cycling in England

On Thursday, September 18, 2014 9:22:56 PM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
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







--

Jeff Liebermann

150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com

Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com

Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

That was an extremely interesting post.

- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 21:07:19 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

That was an extremely interesting post.
- Frank Krygowski

Thanks. One of my bad habits is to reverse engineer most everything.
It's not enough to know how things work. I want to know why.

Why is it customary for a man to remove his hat when entering a room?
Because during the middle ages, it was customary to remove one's
helmet when not engaged in battle. Failure to remove the helmet meant
that he wanted to start a fight or continue a battle. The helmet
later morphed into a hat but the tradition was maintained. The
military also maintains the tradition of removing a civilian hat when
indoors, but requiring a "cover" anywhere while on duty.

While it's customary in most areas where men wear hats to remove them
on entering a room, there are some odd exceptions. Cowboy hats are
worn as if glued to the head with epoxy and are never removed. In the
tradition of the TV cowboy, he's always doing battle with someone.

Of course, cyclists do everything backwards. One would think that
wearing a helmet, bicycling or otherwise, would be a symbol of
impending aggression, as in mediaeval armor. That would make symbolic
sense, but not for bicycling, where the cycling races and battles were
most commonly fought without cycling helmets and where leisure time
riding seemed to favor helmets. Well, that's backwards. Fortunately,
the bicycle race organizers are recognizing the need for a consistent
tradition and are insisting that competitors wear cycling helmets,
just like the mediaeval knights.

The next time you instinctively remove your cycling helmet when
entering a room, remember that you're assuring everyone in the room
that you're not going to attack them. Also, it would interesting to
tabulate which riders are the most aggressive; those that wear their
bicycle helmet full time, or those that take it off.

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

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 22:52:59 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

The
military also maintains the tradition of removing a civilian hat when
indoors, but requiring a "cover" anywhere while on duty.

Oops. That's not quite correct.

MCO P1020.34G
MARINE CORPS UNIFORM REGULATIONS
CHAPTER 3: UNIFORM ITEMS AND REGULATIONS FOR THEIR WEAR
3004. CAPS/HEADGEAR
1. General
d. Headgear is normally removed indoors. Marines in a duty status
and wearing side-arms or a pistol belt will remain covered indoors
except when entering a space where a meal is in progress or
religious services are being conducted. Headgear will be worn in
Government vehicles, except when doing so would present a hazard to
safe driving. Wear of headgear in privately owned vehicles is not
required. (MARADMIN 322/05)

The "remain covered" term refers to wearing a "cover" also known as a
hat. That follows the mediaeval helmet example nicely.

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

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?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 18:22:56 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

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

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?
--
Cheers,

John B.

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.

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.

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.


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

On 9/19/2014 1:52 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

The next time you instinctively remove your cycling helmet when
entering a room...

Heh. That hardly ever happens to me!

--
- Frank Krygowski

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.

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

--
- Frank Krygowski

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!


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 12:05:10 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/19/2014 1:52 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

The next time you instinctively remove your cycling helmet when
entering a room...

Heh. That hardly ever happens to me!

So, you've switched to an invisible helmet design? Can't let anyone
see you wearing a helmet. Is it a helmet hair problem?
http://www.wheelsuckers.co.uk/photo/helmet-hair

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. 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.

Of course, there are oddities and exceptions. I occasionally attend
meetings and talks, some of which involve ecological topics. I've
noticed a fair number of bicycle riders arriving at such meetings who
continue wearing their helmets indoors, even if it blocks the view of
the people sitting behind them. When asked, they will always remove
their helmets, but I can tell by their reactions that something else
is happening. My guess(tm) is that the helmet is the current symbol
of ecological correctness indicating that they did not use a gasoline
burner to travel to the meeting. Wearing a helmet lets everyone know
that the wearer is ecologically correct. I'm guilty of not paying
enough attention as I don't recall what women riders did with helmets
at these meetings.

Full disclosu I carry my helmet after a ride when going indoors,
usually to a restaurant, post office, customer location, or friends
house. I sometimes lock the helmet to my bicycle, but not often. I
sometimes use the helmet as a shopping basket, when I forget to bring
a reusable shopping bag.


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