Medieval facts

Alright I have a very serious question: what about me and lefty brethren in warfare? How would we be placed in units and what would they do with us, or would they just say “f u” and force us to fight as a righty?

 

And I thought right handed scissors were bad...

 

Okay, my turn.

Let's start with the English Longbow. They were quite nice, true. But here's the thing: they also took a LOT of time to learn how to use. While the Black Prince was able to field a respectable number of them during the Hundred Years' War, the numbers of such archers were limited. This was in part due to training time (it took YEARS to teach someone how to shoot one of those effectively) and bowmaking time requirements. Honestly, if these constraints hadn't been there, the face of Europe would look a lot different. At one point, wood for longbows was so scarce that the English Crown required ships coming into English ports to pay four planks for bowstaves as part of their port fee!

But compare that to the crossbow: technically a little more annoying to make, but still NOT as time consuming as crafting an English Longbow. Quarrels could be shorter, thus easier to make, and easier to procure materials. Slower to shoot, slower to load, and while you CAN volley-fire a crossbow, it isn't easy. But the thing is, you could feasibly field units of crossbow-armed troops more easily simply because they didn't require as intensive a training regimen. The wise commander would field both, as each had their own limitations. Innocent II banned the use of crossbows "against other Christians" in 1139 at the Second Lateran Council.

Now, Zweihanders and the Romans. No, they did not exist side-by-side. But did you ever hear of a sword called the Dacian Falx? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falx There were two versions. A one-handed, and a two-handed! They were an odd, sickle-like blade that looked kind of like a reverse scimitar with the edge on the INSIDE of the curve! Because they curved down and forwards, Dacian footsoldiers could bring them in a downward arc and pierce a Roman soldier OVER the edge of his shield! Well, sometimes. They weren't the end-all be-all though, because Dacia DID get conquered and added to the Empire.

NO, not all greatswords are Zweihanders!!! Most greatswords have a single quillion or guard with a long handle below (like a Claymore or Great Scimitar). A Zweihander has a specific handle-style with a secondary quillion/guard and grip that allows for a wider range of stances and combat styles. While used in warfare, a Zweihander is really a DUELLING sword! There was a rapier-like version in India called the Mel Puttah Bemoh: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Puttah_Bemoh

Likewise, a Flamberge? TECHNICALLY that is a style of blade design, NOT a kind of sword. The one linked in the earlier picture is a Flamberge-style Zweihander meant for warfare. The term is often synonymous with that particular type of sword. The serpentine profile allowed one to break pike and halberd shafts more easily. But longswords, daggers, shortswords, even rapiers were made in the Flamberge-style at one point or another.

 

Well now, that's a good question. Depends on your status and where you lived. If you were a knight, fighting left-handed was often considered to be dishonorable. If you were a duelist, not only did nobody care if you fought left-handed, but it often gave you an advantage. If you were a peasant conscript in someone's militia force, you usually had a spear and a shield or some cheap-ish polearm or pike. Shield-and-spear required you to fight in formation, spear was usually in your right hand, so you're boned. Pike or polearm meant you were using both hands, so it wouldn't matter as much if you were right- or left-handed.

 

They'd either think you were a devil worshipper and do everything in their power to stop you from being left-handed. Especially if you go to a proper fencing school (or equivalent for your weapon). Or they wouldn't care at all. Very little middle ground there .

As for in combat, the moment you have to fight in formation you'l have to fit in with the rest. Can't have one person be left handed in a phalanx or shieldwall. It'd be a massive weakpoint. And this even goes for 2-handed weapons like a polearm as you still have a dominant hand there and would still have to fight like a right-handed person. Cuz again, if you stand the other way around you start to break formation. Outside of formation fighting though you could do whatever you want and it arguably gives you a small advantage as your opponent wouldn't be used to facing a left-hander.


Also, I have a question, I've recently been on holidays in the mountains and I started wondering. Why aren't mountainholds like the dwarfs build more of a thing historically? Or even castles where what would be the donjon would be carved into the mountain and then the courtyard would be in front of it. surrounded by the usual walls a bit more like helm's deep. There's plenty of places where it would be feasible and it'd basicly mean at least one flank would be unapproachable by an enemy army. Allowing for potentially a much greater fortification as you wouldn't need as many soldiers to defend it. So why didn't it really happen? I only know of a handfull of examples of castles carved out into the mountains, and for some reason none of those are in Europe.

 

This was pretty much the case, and one of the reasons firearms started to replace the bow during the 15th century onwards - like crossbows, firearms like arquebuses, handguns and muskets were much easier to train to use semi-accurately, as well as being more effective at penetrating armour. However, also like crossbows, firearms took longer to reload and fire (although not as long as the old crank-handle crossbows) and unlike crossbows the majority of early firearms weren't very accurate at all at longer ranges - right up to the English Civil War musketeers were not very effective against cavalry because they were too fast-moving to hit effectively, although were better against slower-moving pikemen (English Civil War battleswere pretty much rock-paper-scissors affairs because cavalry countered musketeers, musketeers countered pikemen and pikemen countered cavalry). Indeed many peasant levies drawn into Civil War armies used their own bows rather than muskets or pistols because they had trained with them since boyhood for hunting and were more accurate with them than with firearms. It was only during the 18th Century when muskets became a lot more accurate and reliable that the trusty longbow was finally retired for good.

Falxes were pretty nasty weapons used almost exclusively by the kingdom of Dacia, and were preferred over the double-handed axes used by the Germans and double-handed swords used by the Celts, probably because they were notably smaller and lighter to wield. I imagine these could have been used to win the Dacians several early victories, but you have to remember that the Romans only defeated them and the other so-called barbarians because they were more adaptable in their tactics and devised new methods of warfare by which to beat them. Indeed in the first battle the Romans fought against the Celts, the Battle of the Allia, the Celts utterly wrecked the Romans, due to a combination of them scaring the pants off them and the Romans relying too much on their cavalry, who have throughout history shown to be completely awful, an unusual dishonour for a people with such good infantry. However it was through the development of new tactics, improved training and siege engines to overcome the Celts' hillfort defences that gave the Romans the advantage they needed to beat them. The Celts by contrast seemed to believe in less need for tactical flexibility and so the Romans could keep on defeating them in open battle with these advantages. I imagine the same occurred with the Dacians.

 

Well yeah, but Petra is ancient and techniques were significantly better in mediëval times, and that's also when most castles and such where build and it'd have the most value. That the romans and greeks found it too difficult isn't too surprising, but it doesn't appear to really have happenend until modern times with nuclear bunkers and that one big mountain military complex in America.

Also, if nothing else I would've expected there to be some cases of someone just excavating a mountainside and building against the mountain on the new excavated terrain, using the newly created cliffface to protect their back more similar to what you see in Helm's Deep. Bonus points if there's natural caves to begin with.

Also even with relativly soft stones, as long as you keep the outer layer thick it's not like it'd be a weak fortress. The only places that need to be "thin" is where you put lookouts or slits for archers and the walkways leading up to that. Which could be manually reinforced with wood, metal or more solid rock. Which should be enough to withstand a bombardament from ancient siege weaponry. And things like Arrow slits would only be up fairly high on the wall. So even if they manage to punch through this relative weakspot it'd be a hole 10 meter above the ground which would still be relativly easy to defend. At the bottom of the wall you could keep the limestone as thick as you'd want to prevent them from just ramming or tunneling through it easily (and again, reinfoce where needed, the Romans had some very solid concrete, dump a layer on the bottom half of the wall to prevent them from tunneling through and you're golden).

 

With respect to vantage it didn't matter too much as long as you could overlook the important bit. E.g. I've recently visited a castle in Schotland which on one side overlooked a loch (the important bit), but was surrounded by hills on the other sides. And those hills towered over the castle so you could barely see 2-300 meters in the direction of the hills (which had forests on them as well, further reducing visibility). But by how it overlooked the loch, and had a little harbor it could control all the trade and fisherman passing by. I'd assume there'd be plenty of similar situations where the castle would be overlooking the valley it controls, or for example overlooks a mountain pass providing entry into the area's it controls.

I guess, it still surprises me though, I would've expected there to be a decent amount of em in mountainous areas, half the work is already done for you by mother nature and the excavated rock could be used to build other things (not to mention the potential for finding precious metals). Seems like a win-win . Or even just someone having the bright idea of repurposing an old mine into a (minor) fort at some point.

Yeah, modern fortification is dissapointing and doesn't appeal to the imagination in the slightest. I do wish proper fortification was still relevant, it looks so much nicer than a chainlink fence or concrete borderwall.

 

Is Slovenia part of Europe?



This ^ is in Slovenia.

It’s like those Cliff Dwellings in Arizona...but it’s a Castle.

 

O I didn't know about that one. But yeah, this is what I would expect to be more off. It seems to increadibly rare though.

 

Predejama or Predjama Castle is the name. There is also a narrow back way in via cave passageway.

 

I know there's an underground ancient city called Derinkuyu in Turkey somewhere. But that one is underground to hide, not build into a mountainside like a fortification. So not entirely what I meant (and it's basicly the only example of its kind that I know of). It's quite cool and apparently housed upwards of 20.000 people. So it is definitly doable. And that one is ancient (pre-roman times) so even on a technological side it shouldn't be too difficult. However i don't know if they happened to sit in particularly soft stone or if they had other advantages that made it significantly easier and can explain why they're apparently the only ones to do it.