History, Mythology, Art and RPGs

[Galloglaich]

Yes, indeed, exactly this. We very often only see what we want to see, and only hear what we want to hear. Despite being reasonably well informed on the subject of medieval and ancient arms and armour, I find myself easily lapsing into inaccuracies and generalisations once I get some distance between myself and a specific area of investigation. Indeed, part of the appeal of some "revisionist" areas of history is that it tends to accord more strongly with my youthful preconceptions than the Monty Python-esque portrayals of the recent past, depictions that I feel arose partly in opposition to the glorification of brutality and violence.

It's a good point, though I think we have been through a long run, maybe 150 years? of leaning too far in the "Medieval people were stupid and everything they did sucked" direction. And ironically one of the Pythons themselves, Terry Jones, has written some excellent revisionist popular history in the last few years, has been a humorous voice for critical thinking about many of our worst preconceptions and cliches about history (including some of the ones Monty Python invented).

But you raise an excellent point. We often trade one cliche for another and I do find myself falling into this trap still over and over. I think 20% of my brain has accepted that History is completely open ended. That 20% is very happpy and grows a little stronger every day (it was probably just 5% a few years ago) because we live in a period of very rich data and new surprising revelations are constantly emerging. But the other 80% of me keeps over and over again makig alliances with this or that theory, or idea, or (worst of all) ancient group of people who seem cool, and then is thrown over and disappointed every time I read a new book and find out it wasn't so cut and dry.

Jacob Burckhardt, the famous historian of Renaissance Italy, (and Niestches reluctant History teacher) criticized the tendancy of having any grand theories of history at all, and recommended accepting the fact that history was complex and does not fit any pattern. I try to keep this in mind as I continue to learn. And that 20% grows a little more happy, because it knows it will always be entertained and can watch the patterns of reality endlessly come into focus and only make 'alliances' to what appears to be true, without being offended when the root of the tree twists in another direction; (only delighted to visit a new unexpected region). Reading history (in the form of primary sources and current archeology) has become for me, getting hooked on the ultimate fantasy or sci fi series that never ends and never 'jumps the shark'.

Ha! Turns out the comment I made in the Giant in the Playground thread would have been more appropriate here, given the preceding discussion...

"Next the guy has to build a 1:6 scale crossbow and shoot him with it!"

yeah but how do we make all those teeny tiny rivets so the mail will work properly?

G.

 

[Galloglaich]

Another really good resource if you are doing research on Armor: Charles Ffoulkes The Armourer and his craft, in an online scan:

Ffoulkes, C - The Armourer and His Craft (Read in "Fullscreen")

G.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Reading history (in the form of primary sources and current archeology) has become for me, getting hooked on the ultimate fantasy or sci fi series that never ends and never 'jumps the shark'.

I accept your shark jumping challenge! I don't suppose you know where to find the sources/archeology to confirm the info in those links? Either way, I finally have the inspiration I need for the wedding adventure I always wanted to write!

On a more serious note, have ever considered making an actual "blog" blog instead of using a forum to display all of your info? I honestly think that using a blogging site/program/thing would be a benefit to you.

 

[Galloglaich]

Ha! I'm afraid weddings history is well out of my purview, that is pretty far out Maybe one day I'll encompass that among my interests. Weddings and relations between the sexes are actually kind of interesting in a Viking or Celtic context for example.

But yeah fair enough... history is fun but there are plenty of places you can get bogged down!

As for a blog, I've thought about that for a long time, it's a bit of a buy-in for me to take the plunge into "doing it right". I like this thread because other people chime in on it, one day I'll probably start a real blog or two though (I have widely divergent interests which don't really overlap in terms of who is interested in them.) But for now I like this place I've had a good time with this thread.

Anyway, back to the thread, speaking of Vikings here is something I ran across I thought was pretty cool, fire starting Viking style

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIQK7aHAmVk"]YouTube - Medieval Scandinavian Firelighting[/ame]

...and boiling water in a "field expedient" Viking technique:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEawdGbv0xg"]YouTube - Hot Rock Water Boiling[/ame]

G.

 

[Matthew_]

It's a good point, though I think we have been through a long run, maybe 150 years? of leaning too far in the "Medieval people were stupid and everything they did sucked" direction. And ironically one of the Pythons themselves, Terry Jones, has written some excellent revisionist popular history in the last few years, has been a humorous voice for critical thinking about many of our worst preconceptions and cliches about history (including some of the ones Monty Python invented).

Yes, indeed, and though I have severe reservations about the work of Terry Jones, it certainly is the case that in the last couple of decades the popular perception of medieval society has begun to shift.

But you raise an excellent point. We often trade one cliche for another and I do find myself falling into this trap still over and over. I think 20% of my brain has accepted that History is completely open ended. That 20% is very happy and grows a little stronger every day (it was probably just 5% a few years ago) because we live in a period of very rich data and new surprising revelations are constantly emerging. But the other 80% of me keeps over and over again making alliances with this or that theory, or idea, or (worst of all) ancient group of people who seem cool, and then is thrown over and disappointed every time I read a new book and find out it wasn't so cut and dry.

I can certainly sympathise with that.

Jacob Burckhardt, the famous historian of Renaissance Italy, (and Niestches reluctant History teacher) criticized the tendency of having any grand theories of history at all, and recommended accepting the fact that history was complex and does not fit any pattern. I try to keep this in mind as I continue to learn. And that 20% grows a little more happy, because it knows it will always be entertained and can watch the patterns of reality endlessly come into focus and only make 'alliances' to what appears to be true, without being offended when the root of the tree twists in another direction; (only delighted to visit a new unexpected region). Reading history (in the form of primary sources and current archaeology) has become for me, getting hooked on the ultimate fantasy or sci fi series that never ends and never 'jumps the shark'.

Exactly so, perhaps the most difficult aspect to come to terms with is that although the events and reality of history are static and done, our understanding of them is always in motion and will always be incomplete. The temptation to say "this is how it was" is always greatest when somebody resuscitates an outdated theory, and I often notice in such exchanges how fragile new ideas can be, and how robust deeply entrenched received wisdom is by contrast.

Another really good resource if you are doing research on Armor: Charles Ffoulkes The Armourer and his craft, in an online scan:

Ffoulkes, C - The Armourer and His Craft (Read in "Fullscreen")

That is a very good scan, and nice to see it at Scribd in a non-downloadable format. Hard to imagine that it was first published almost 100 years ago, but interesting to imagine how it might have helped inform RPG designer in the 70s, 80s and 90s. I know Gygax had a copy of a shorter work by the same author published in 1909 when he was working on the DMG, and that this later volume is cited as a source in the second edition Arms & Equipment Guide.

 

[Galloglaich]

For the Neal Stephenson fans and anybody who has an I-pad (I don't):

Neal Stephenson to launch interactive novel for the iPad | Geek Gestalt - CNET News


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxp3zEIk_KY"]YouTube - Historical Scope[/ame]

G.

 

[Galloglaich]

Interesting test with a 15th Century hussite style handgonne, looks like penetration at about 5 or 10', then it bounced off at about 20'

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdXy0IfsWsE"]YouTube - handgonne vs breastplate[/ame]

That is a .75 cal handgonne or hand-culverin, it has roughly equivalent muzzle energy of a .357 magnum with a 158 grain bullet

 

[Galloglaich]

Who says primitive 15th Century firearms can't be fun? I gotta get me an arquebus

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkbSTyT1COE&feature=fvw]YouTube - Boom with Slayer[/ame]

 

[Galloglaich]

Introducing the Balestrino

So one of the tropes of fantasy films, computer games and RPG's is the Pistol Crossbow. A nifty device to be sure. The question is, did these weapons actually have any basis in fact?

The internet is flooded with modern toys like this

and completely useless fake "antiques" like this

...which look sort of cool the (first time you see one) in a steampunk kind of way but are not based on anything remotely real.

But perhaps surprisingly, there actually does exist a small pistol sized crossbow which showed up during the Renaissance in Europe, mostly in Italy, and can still be found today on some auction sites now and again.


They are called by different names but most commonly something like "Balestrino", possibly named after a town in Italy where they may have been made or used. Here are some examples of antiques:

And here is a modern good quality reproduction from Todds Stuff in the UK

Balestrino Crossbow | Tod's Stuff

So the question is, what are these? Well first of all they do have one feature that differentiates from modern 'safety-last' toys and non functional steampunk replicas. Like most Renaissance or medieval crossbows, these Balestrino had a much heavier draw weight than their modern equivalent. That is because with a short bow and a narrow spanning distance, you need a lot of power to make a projectile move at a useful speed. So to span these, you have to turn a screw, which you will notice as something like a butterfly wingnut on the two antiques above. This allowed you to gradually span the weapon without having to exert the two or three hundred pounds of pressure required to pull the string back (something most men could not easily do then as now).

There are rumors in the historical record that these were used as assassination weapons, which is a rather titilating idea. In spite of the more powerful prods however, most people today who know about such things consider the Balestrino a mere toy. The argument is, why would a real assassin use such a relatively weak, and expensive (since most surviving Balestrino bows are made with rare materials and workmanship) weapon instead of something cheaper and more effective. Like say, a knife or a pistol since these crossbows appeared contemporaneously with firearms.

A reasonable argument to be sure.

But I'm going to kind of go against the grain on this one, I don't want to say definitively because I have never handled let alone shot an antique, but I think these things were possibly used for assassinations.


You have to keep in mind a couple of things. The first is about Renaissance Italy. Assassinations were not just the vocation of the kind of low level professional criminals we think of today who would pull a hit on somebody, but the hobby of high ranking aristocrats, patrician burghers and even members of the College of Cardinals all of whom assassinated one another fairly routinely in the 15th, 16th, and 17th Centuries.

Hence we have very nice rings and broaches from the Renaissance which were made with compartments for poison or drugs, beautifully wrought stilettos galore, and perhaps these little 'toys' as well.

Second, like some other folks in this thread I've played around a bit with modern toy crossbows. A cheap 80 lb draw "pistol" crossbow probably qualifies as a lethal weapon only against maybe rats, or possibly small birds. It just isn't powerful enough to hurt a grown man unless you were extremely lucky. In other words definitely a toy. A rather dangerous (to the user) 180 lb draw pistol crossbow that I had for a while on the other hand would shoot these crappy aluminum bolts halfway through a two inch thick oak door I had in my yard from about 20' away (and always ruin the bolts). I think that would indeed be enough to kill someone, or cause a serious life threatening injury, if you used needle like steel bolts and hit them say in the neck or the face. I would think a toy could be more like in the 80 lb range that you can easily span with your hands, rather than the 200-300 lb range you need a miniature jack to span.

It's still not nearly as powerful as a longbow or a pistol but, neither were these Chinese repeating crossbows...

...and they were used for a couple of thousand years as weapons (incidentally, with poison)

I have also read (admittedly, in modern historical analysis) that these small crossbows and pistols both created a minor outrage and a mini-legal crisis when they first appeared, due to the danger of assassinations. Pistols are much more effective but, they were also very loud and created a telltale plume of smoke, instantly marking the assailant. A crossbow like this could be concealed within the clothing, then used with some hope of effectiveness, concealed again briefly, and discarded at the first opportunity if necessary, all without drawing any undue attention.

Think of it as a silenced .22 Baretta 70 S. A lot of people think of a .22 as a toy. It's certainly not nearly as effective at killing as an Ak-47 or a Mac-10, but it was, incidentally, the preferred weapon of the Mossad for about 40 years.

Just my $.02.

G.

 

[Votan]

...and they were used for a couple of thousand years as weapons (incidentally, with poison)

Even before I hit this part of the discussion, I saw the poison angle coming. With a strong poison on the tip, a hand crossbow is a good way to deliver a poisoned dart at range. In addition, I wonder if it might be less susceptible to misfires and/or require less time to set off than a pistol. Ten feet of range makes it a lot harder for bodyguards to get in the way.

Which, as a complete tangent, makes their appearance in AD&D as drow weapons (coated with poison no less) even more interesting as renaissance Italy is one of the few good examples of a historical society even remotely like that of the drow.