asian polearms reinforced

[Dirty Dog]

Richmond Castle, very close to where I live is built on the highest ground, one side is a sheer cliff with the RiverSwale below. The bridges to cross the Swale are on much lower ground either side of the town, both are made from stone, both have been there since the castle was built in the 11th century. Damming the Swale would be more than tricky, building bridges would be difficult enough, the Romans when they were here didn't try, it's the fastest flowing river in the UK, with plenty of white water.
The castle hasn't been attacked in its history but if it had flooding would never have been an option.

Not terribly surprising, that's a good description of where a LOT of castles were built. For reasons that should be obvious, don't you think?

 

[Tez3]

Not terribly surprising, that's a good description of where a LOT of castles were built. For reasons that should be obvious, don't you think?

You would have thought it was obvious Y

Incidentally for all you Boy Scouts, Richmond Castle was Lord Robert Baden-Powell's army headquarters during World War One, it also housed some conscientious objectors as prisoners.

 

[jobo]

Not terribly surprising, that's a good description of where a LOT of castles were built. For reasons that should be obvious, don't you think?

would you care to qauntify a lot, there clearly wasnt a lot built in Richmond

do you mean a lot were built near water sources, yes they were, it would be stupid not to really, in the days when you had to carry it in a bucket

all the uk towns and cities short of the 19th 20th century were built next to rivers, even the ones at the seaside, it just what people did, if you building a castle in or near a town or city, which is what they tended to do, then there is also a river near by, it just happens

 

[lklawson]

In addition to what Jobo wrote, there are two other good reasons Asian pole arms are not reinforced as in European models and both have to do with metal.

1. The big, heavy, European metal shields required a reinforced pole type weapon to prevent them breaking .

2. Metal weapons were too expensive for the common people as either conscripts or civilians and, at times, prohibited.

Neither of these statements are correct.

Most European shields were not metal but were usually wood. Sometimes slatted wood, often laminated wood, and sometimes with a metal boss, edging, or reinforcements. Shields that were all metal were the exception rather than the rule for most of Medieval history.

Metal weapons were actually pretty common and only the very poorest person didn't at least have a knife. Soldiers would have metal tipped pole-arms, swords, long knives, etc. and would usually have some sort of steel or steel reinforced armor (maille or a "coat of plates" for instance). Militia would as well. "Short" swords were common and easily available, though the quality of the steel available to the average person may not have been as high as that available to nobles, it was still pretty decent even by modern standards. European wars denuded whole forests to make charcoal used in smelting and forging steel. Steel tools, such as the scythe and the pruning hook, were common and there's no reason that swords and the like wouldn't be as well. Some pole arms are suggested to be named after tree pruning instruments (the Bill) from which it is believed to have evolved. Hatchets and axes were common and there were some even designed to be thrown away (francisca).

The "Dark Ages" weren't really as "dark" and technologically backwards as the myth we've been delivered today would have us believe.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[jobo]

Neither of these statements are correct.

Most European shields were not metal but were usually wood. Sometimes slatted wood, often laminated wood, and sometimes with a metal boss, edging, or reinforcements. Shields that were all metal were the exception rather than the rule for most of Medieval history.

Metal weapons were actually pretty common and only the very poorest person didn't at least have a knife. Soldiers would have metal tipped pole-arms, swords, long knives, etc. and would usually have some sort of steel or steel reinforced armor (maille or a "coat of plates" for instance). Militia would as well. "Short" swords were common and easily available, though the quality of the steel available to the average person may not have been as high as that available to nobles, it was still pretty decent even by modern standards. European wars denuded whole forests to make charcoal used in smelting and forging steel. Steel tools, such as the scythe and the pruning hook, were common and there's no reason that swords and the like wouldn't be as well. Some pole arms are suggested to be named after tree pruning instruments (the Bill) from which it is believed to have evolved. Hatchets and axes were common and there were some even designed to be thrown away (francisca).

The "Dark Ages" weren't really as "dark" and technologically backwards as the myth we've been delivered today would have us believe.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

a miss statement of fact, we wernt necersaliy taking about the dark ages and there is some debate on if we ever had a dark age and if so when it started and finished, the term is seldom if ever used by historians only commonly by those ignorant of history

 

[lklawson]

a miss statement of fact, we wernt necersaliy taking about the dark ages and there is some debate on if we ever had a dark age and if so when it started and finished, the term is seldom if ever used by historians only commonly by those ignorant of history
it was in the virw of the man

Gads you're a jerk. You just can't avoid dragging an argument from another thread into this one.

The statements above stand on their merits.

1. Most European shields during the era when pole-weapons were common were wood, as I stated.
   
2. Steel weapons were common and easily available during the era when pole-weapons were common, as I stated.
3. The Pole-Hammer the OP embeds is a 15th-to-16th Century example. 15th Century Polearms
   
4. The "Dark Ages" are typically considered during the period of from as early the 9th or 10th century and, depending on the Historian, extending as far up as the 17th Century when "The Age of Enlightenment" is often marked as starting.
   
5. You are an argumentative douche who needs to find something better to do with his time.

But, no doubt, you simply can not resist arguing some more. Maybe you'll dredge up Petrarch or something and talk about how he gives a different time frame. Whatever.

 

[jobo]

Gads you're a jerk. You just can't avoid dragging an argument from another thread into this one.

The statements above stand on their merits.

1. Most European shields during the era when pole-weapons were common were wood, as I stated.
   
2. Steel weapons were common and easily available during the era when pole-weapons were common, as I stated.
3. The Pole-Hammer the OP embeds is a 15th-to-16th Century example. 15th Century Polearms
   
4. The "Dark Ages" are typically considered during the period of from as early the 9th or 10th century and, depending on the Historian, extending as far up as the 17th Century when "The Age of Enlightenment" is often marked as starting.
   
5. You are an argumentative douche who needs to find something better to do with his time.

But, no doubt, you simply can not resist arguing some more. Maybe you'll dredge up Petrarch or something and talk about how he gives a different time frame. Whatever.

the dark ages arnt typicaly considered to have happen at all, with the term early middle age used as more acurate, it , when it was a thing was consided to be some where between 3/400ad to a thousand ad,

there is some contention that some of those years didnt happened at all or if they just miscounted, when trying to get the bible to agree with the calender, which would if true explain the,shortage of writen records from that period,

nobody ut seens was bothering to count the passage of years for several hundred years and then unilateraly decided it was ad 1000 and tried to make everything else fit

 

[Deleted member 39746]

The "Dark Ages" are typically considered during the period of from as early the 9th or 10th century and, depending on the Historian, extending as far up as the 17th Century when "The Age of Enlightenment" is often marked as starting.

Oh god i know that one, there is like a 200 year peroid for when the medievil peroid ends, pending who you ask and what criteria you use. It goes from th 13-1400's if i recall correctly, might be 1500's. (i think 1500's is too late) Id cosndier at least from the 1300's the trasnitional years to the next era.


The Dark ages generally denotes a peroid of time within in the middle ages, i thought medievil did, but the only refrence i found to that was late medievil, turns out mdievil is synonomous with the middle ages. Its some old fashioned term for a peroid of time after Rome fell.

 

[Tez3]

would you care to qauntify a lot, there clearly wasnt a lot built in Richmond

do you mean a lot were built near water sources, yes they were, it would be stupid not to really, in the days when you had to carry it in a bucket

all the uk towns and cities short of the 19th 20th century were built next to rivers, even the ones at the seaside, it just what people did, if you building a castle in or near a town or city, which is what they tended to do, then there is also a river near by, it just happens

Actually Richmond was and is a quite substantial town, it's in North Yorkshire and is the original Richmond.

The Dark Ages are named as such because there's less known about them than successive years. In the UK the ages tend to be labelled according to what monarch or wars were going on at that time or ......and this is quite revolutionary I know ......by the actual year! Imagine that.

 

[jobo]

Actually Richmond was and is a quite substantial town, it's in North Yorkshire and is the original Richmond.

The Dark Ages are named as such because there's less known about them than successive years. In the UK the ages tend to be labelled according to what monarch or wars were going on at that time or ......and this is quite revolutionary I know ......by the actual year! Imagine that.

richmond nether then nor now is a " substantial" town

bolton is a substantial town, with a pop of 300 and odd thousand, richmond has ( according to the last census) a population of 9,000, that a small town, its really a large village

admitedly in the context of the wilds of north yorkshire that may seem substanial, in the context of the rest of the uk, its tiny

 

[jobo]

Oh god i know that one, there is like a 200 year peroid for when the medievil peroid ends, pending who you ask and what criteria you use. It goes from th 13-1400's if i recall correctly, might be 1500's. (i think 1500's is too late) Id cosndier at least from the 1300's the trasnitional years to the next era.


The Dark ages generally denotes a peroid of time within in the middle ages, i thought medievil did, but the only refrence i found to that was late medievil, turns out mdievil is synonomous with the middle ages. Its some old fashioned term for a peroid of time after Rome fell.

yes medieval is synonymous with the middle ages, largly because medieval means middle ages in latin

its time period is a bit vague, it runs from the fall of the roman empire to the renaissance, but no body knows exactly when( or even if) the roman empire fell or can agree when the renassance started

its very approximately a thousand year period from circa 500 ad to circa 1500 ad,

as i said above its even more aproximate as they had no standard system for recording the date, between the fall of rome and a 100ad, when they decided to use the birth of christ as a start point, but no body knew when that actually was to a few hundred years

 

[jobo]

yes medieval is synonymous with the middle ages, largly because medieval means middle ages in latin

its time period is a bit vague, it runs from the fall of the roman empire to the renaissance, but no body knows exactly when( or even if) the roman empire fell or can agree when the renassance started

its very approximately a thousand year period from circa 500 ad to circa 1500 ad,

as i said above its even more aproximate as they had no standard system for recording the date, between the fall of rome and a 100ad, when they decided to use the birth of christ as a start point, but no body knew when that actually was to a few hundred years

nb that ad 1000, not 100

 

[lklawson]

the dark ages arnt typicaly considered to have happen at all, with the term early middle age used as more acurate, it , when it was a thing was consided to be some where between 3/400ad to a thousand ad,

there is some contention that some of those years didnt happened at all or if they just miscounted, when trying to get the bible to agree with the calender, which would if true explain the,shortage of writen records from that period,

nobody ut seens was bothering to count the passage of years for several hundred years and then unilateraly decided it was ad 1000 and tried to make everything else fit

Good grief, you're insufferable. The point is that, regardless of what you what to call the period between the fall of Rome and the beginning of the Enlightenment, that modern people have vast misconceptions about. It doesn't matter what you call it, post-Rome, pre-Enlightenment, Dark Ages, Middle Ages, Medieval, or betwixt crowne and toes and trying to argue about that instead of paying attention to the actual point is beyond pedantic.

To reiterate:

• Most European shields during the era when pole-weapons were common were wood, as I stated.
  
• Steel weapons were common and easily available during the era when pole-weapons were common, as I stated.

I half expect you to now start blathering about how there is no bright-line delineation about the Enlightenment and that it's all just an ever-changing continuum. Whatever.

 

[jobo]

Good grief, you're insufferable. The point is that, regardless of what you what to call the period between the fall of Rome and the beginning of the Enlightenment, that modern people have vast misconceptions about. It doesn't matter what you call it, post-Rome, pre-Enlightenment, Dark Ages, Middle Ages, Medieval, or betwixt crowne and toes and trying to argue about that instead of paying attention to the actual point is beyond pedantic.

To reiterate:

• Most European shields during the era when pole-weapons were common were wood, as I stated.
  
• Steel weapons were common and easily available during the era when pole-weapons were common, as I stated.

I half expect you to now start blathering about how there is no bright-line delineation about the Enlightenment and that it's all just an ever-changing continuum. Whatever.

miss statement if facts

the middle ages are from the fall of rome to the renassance, which happened well before the age of enlightenment.

the dark ages are a smaller % of that, some where around 4 hundrd years at the begining, as they didnt really exist as an actual age,, no one has defined them more accuratly than that

 

[lklawson]

miss statement if facts

the middle ages are from the fall of rome to the renassance, which happened well before the age of enlightenment.

the dark ages are a small % of that, some where around 4 hundrd years at the begining, as they didnt really exist as an actual age,, no one has defined them more accuratly than that

I must be a prophet.

 

[Tez3]

richmond nether then nor now is a " substantial" town

bolton is a substantial town, with a pop of 300 and odd thousand, richmond has ( according to the last census) a population of 9,000, that a small town, its really a large village

admitedly in the context of the wilds of north yorkshire that may seem substanial, in the context of the rest of the uk, its tiny

I think you forgot the 15,000 military and their families. Bolton is a conglomeration of villages etc swallowed up to be one place. Richmond isn't. Hey I'm a southerner from London so I'm from the biggest place of all, makes no difference to me what northerners think.

At the time the castle was built in the 11century CE, the town was one of the largest in the North of England. Before that it was a a Roman garrison.

 

[jobo]

I think you forgot the 15,000 military and their families. Bolton is a conglomeration of villages etc swallowed up to be one place. Richmond isn't. Hey I'm a southerner from London so I'm from the biggest place of all, makes no difference to me what northerners think.

At the time the castle was built in the 11century CE, the town was one of the largest in the North of England. Before that it was a a Roman garrison.

id consider the fact that the 15000 people are not on the census as living in richmond would mean they dont live in richmond, a brief research period concluded thats because they dont, they live in Catterick which is a town in its own right.

the same reserch period revealed that the 10th most populass town in the 11 century only had 3000 people , and that richmond isnt iin the top ten, so how many folk were living in richmond i wonder

 

[Tez3]

id consider the fact that the 15000 people are not on the census as living in richmond would mean they dont live in richmond, a brief research period concluded thats because they dont, they live in Catterick which is a town in its own right.

the same reserch period revealed that the 10th most populass town in the 11 century only had 3000 people , and that richmond isnt iin the top ten, so how many folk were living in richmond i wonder

Populous and substantial don't mean the same thing, you seem to think that having lots of people makes a town substantial ah well I suppose while you were tying yourself in knots trying to prove me wrong you were leaving some other poor sod alone

 

[jobo]

Populous and substantial don't mean the same thing, you seem to think that having lots of people makes a town substantial ah well I suppose while you were tying yourself in knots trying to prove me wrong you were leaving some other poor sod alone

so wbat makes a town substanial if not the population size, and therefore the number of buildings that constitute the town, the substance in substantial with regard to towns is the number of buildings or the population and both are closely conected

 

[JowGaWolf]

If not now When?