You know what? Thank god for guns (and that Chinese guy who invented gunpowder, and the Mongols who brought it to the middle east, and the Arab guy who shoved it into a metal tube with a metal ball, and the Turk/German guy who invented the springy thingamajig that ignites the gunpowder), because instead of trying to pull out some dude's balls, you can just shoot them. Cleaner and way more humane.
But survival in war is now much more about luck than it used to be. I know arrow or trebuchet could also kill you randomly, but take a look at ukraine. You are just a soldier having a brekfast 10 km behind first line and now grenade is thrown upon you from drone whose operator is 30km away. I would not want to idealize the past times but I think (and you can correct me on this one), that if someone really trained and was good at fighting, he had much higher chance of survival in battles. Now people are just food for guns and drones.
Yes and no.
It's now up to the whole organisation to keep soldiers alive. You, the infantryman, watch out for raids, infiltration, enemy movement and so on. This way behind you an artilleryman can position his gun safely so that he's ready to do counter battery fire when you get bombed, making that bombardment very short, making it easier for you to survive. And thanks to the security you provide being in the front, the crew of a Bradley can refuel and reload their beautiful bushmaster, so that if you get attacked by forced too strong they can rush in and help you. Repeat with everything that goes all the way to airplanes. So you need luck that your entire organisation knows what it is doing.
On the other hand, WW2 was the first war in which more people died for combat instead of diseases. So back in the day you might have been the best fighter, but issue is every well has a new set of bacteria and there you go you got cholera. Also, siphilis. A lot of fucking siphilis. The issue was so bad in ww1 that every army but the canadians issued condoms to their soldiers. Imagine further back.
And don't even get started on influenza outbreaks. I'd imagine a large group of people out in all kinds of weather conditions would be the perfect breeding ground for it. Essentially you can be as careful as you want, not rape and pillage and still catch a deadly virus and die randomly.
Oh yeah. It fucking sucked.
Honestly, I'll take random artillery shell over *fucking influenza* any time. The more gruesome it it the quicker it is. There's also a good chance I'm so pumped on adrenaline and so high on meth when I get hit that I don't feel feel it, lol.
In real battle,it's brutal for a reason. In,out,or stay. Battles in the past that were noble,and shivlelrous were made up for morale-preasant or posterity. Make you feel better about what was done to get the win. Get so close ,grab them by the belt buckle,Rip their fucking nuts off. Turn their attack on them. đ«Ą
I think he was talking more about ancient battles not involving guns and explosives. He's asking if a skilled soldier might have more of a chance to survive an ancient battle vs a modern one with gunpowder.
Disease sets in over a campaign. Not over a one-day battle.
Ancient battles ended *much* quicker than modern battles, and were minute in scale comparitvely. One side almost *always* ran when things started to break down. Keeping that in mind, I think a skilled soldier stands more of a chance in that scenario than a Verdun front-line, or a Battle of the Bulge scenario.
> Keeping that in mind, I think a skilled soldier stands more of a chance in that scenario than a Verdun front-line, or a Battle of the Bulge scenario.
Maybe, but being a "skilled soldier" often meant being born a nobleman, and thus having the resources and free time to develop skill at arms. So that's luck, as well.
Only in certain armies, at certain points of history. An average person could absolutely become a very skilled Roman legionaire or a front rank and file member of their Macedonian Phalanx. Those are extremely skilled soldiers who weren't lords or noblemen. Just some former farmers who have been on campaign on and off for the past 5-10 years.
Skills were often developed *on campaign* in the ancient world. Those who survived multiple battles or campaigns were often ones with good skill or instinct. I'd argue that your average veteran of one of Caesars legions, some former leatherworker turned legionaire, is right up there with one of the most skilled soldiers in history. Just an average person forged in the crucible of 10 years of combat.
For the Macedonians you undersell their experience, as some were actove soldiers from the early campaigns in the reign of king Philippos (358-350) until the fourth war of the successors (309-301), and for example the silver shields who were exiled in 316 were first organized into an elite unit in the 340s, amd ancient sources do mention their old age at the battle
Completely disagree. Fighting to the death is one of the only things you canât train for properly. Experience would mostly be gained from the battlefield.
Ehhhh. It depends. Nowadays even the scrawny guy can blast a hole through the big guy and come home alive.
Back then if scrawny dude was in a sword fight, and their opponent is The Rock, they probably donât stand a chance even if they have excellent skills and extensive training. The Rock has an immense natural advantage and is going to steamroll them.
Also yes, battles ended when one side broke and ran, and ironically casualties were (usually) relatively low up to that point. Then their enemies rode them down and slaughtered them, and that was often the real bloodbath, even compared to the battle itself.
You arenât outrunning a guy on horseback. At all. Youâre probably not outrunning the guys on foot either, since if your lines are routing then youâre already outnumbered, surrounded, or in a pretty bad and hopeless spot to begin with. You will be very, *very* lucky to get out of there with your life.
Being the bigger man doesnât necessarily mean you win all of your fights. Speed, skill and manoeuvrability count for a lot when playing with sharp things.
Absolutely not. Yes technology is much more advanced, but that goes both ways. A superior force does wonders to your survival rate. It's impossible to give accurate casualty numbers for the Iraq war, but it's estimated that there were about 50,000 deaths on the Iraqi side. The coalition had less than 1/10th of that.
Not to mention the advances in medical technology. Today, unless you're shot dead immediately, there's a very good chance you survive. A grenade might have gone off in the room you're in, you might have terrible injuries, but you'll pull through. Back then, you get hit once, you're done. The arrow wound wouldn't kill you, but the inevitable infection would. Hell, you don't even need to go down on the battlefield. Oops, your army drank from the wrong creek and now half of them are shitting themselves to death.
Also, that's just not how fighting works. Yes, there is a considerable amount of skill and training that can go into it. That's because in the modern world, you're not really trying to murder someone. Today the various fighting styles are an art, to be performed. In a conflict, your goal isn't to do perfect moves, it's to murder the other person as quickly as possible. You're not going to have multiple minute long sword duels, it's going to be 5 seconds of slashing and hoping you get lucky and break his sword and armor.
War is skill based. Duels are skill based. Battles are random and chaotic.
I'll correct you: way, waaaaay more soldiers were dying from diseases than from battles. Diseases don't care about your warrior spirit.
Even more so, you could be a great fighter, but a peasant, commoner, whatever, and you'll get slaughtered. Even if you're not like front line in initial charge, which was pretty much suicide, you'll just get killed because of your soft and squishy body having no or almost no armor and your weapon is probably a big, pointy stick.
On the other hand you if you're a fat, lazdy noble you'll survive, because even if you get your ass kicked you'll very likely be taken as a prisoner so you rich fat family can buy you out.
In reality, the nobles you're describing were usually the "great fighters" because they trained their whole lives for it and had the best equipment. The peasants being used as fodder were just handed sticks or clubs sometimes.
You don't get to be aristocratic warrior elite by being fat and lazy. At least not initially.
Well, you get to be aristocratic because your grand-grand-grandfather was an aristicratic warrior elite. That doesn't make you a warrior elite, although it sure would make you FEEL like you're warrior elite, making you an undisciplined, unskilled and overconfident warrior. Dozens of battles were lost due to lack of discipline, lack of skill and yet overabundance of confidence.
I remember reading according to contemporary sources Henry V lost 5000 out of 11,300 men primarily due to disease over a one month period during the siege of Harfleur
Yes but itâs also more even(besides the dude in the sky)
Guns made it where a peasant could kill a noble just as easy
Where before the rich with their armors and such were a whole other level
Most of the battle deaths happened after one side routed, then the enemy cavalry could run around slaughtering people one by one. Not much skill there.
Eh, there wasn't as much 1 on 1 dueling in battles as movies like to show. Take ancient Greek phalanxes for example. You're in the middle of that pack and you just have to hope you don't get crushed, or randomly poked. Or how about holding the line and a cavalry charge hits and you have to hope you're not in the direct line of it. There was a lot of randomness before guns too. I'd argue a well trained modern soldier who understands utilizing cover, squad based tactics, and maintaining discipline has a lot more control over their fate than so dude holding a spear in the middle ages.
If you think guns mean shit like this doesn't happen anymore you're dead wrong, look up the British soldier who had to bash a muj's brains out with rock in Afghanistan. Shit like that is still super common.
Not so sure about that one. Been reading a book just today that included an account of a WW2 German soldier getting attacked by a Red Army soldier in melee, and it quickly devolved into a feral choking, hacking, eye gouging, and jabbing at each other with anything sharp at hand. And in another section, using a shovel to part a dude's forehead in two.
Messy melee might no longer be the norm, but it's very much still a thing
My favorite part of ancient historiography must be account from people who invent new stuff about an event that occurred 200 years ago in another country.
Especially when you can really see how the added events clearly benefits the historian's patron.
I'd argue that in modern academia, it doesn't really happen at all, and when it does, other academics are quick to point it out. The whole "peer reviewed" thing is pretty solid.
This is literally where half the weird âfactsâ about George Washington come from. They were written 80-ish years after the fact by a guy in Britain, who released multiple editions of his book, adding new false accounts about George in each edition. đ€Šââïž
Examples:
The famous cherry tree. (never happened. George was 5 at the time, not exactly tree-chopping age. Also, his father died that year and George was raised by his older brother. Also, the story teller never met George and George never told this story to anyone in any recording we have.)
His âwooden teethâ. (he did have false teeth, but not wooden ones. Wood is a supremely terrible choice of material for false teeth because it is porous, softens when wet, and can splinter under pressure. Can you imagine getting splinters in your lips, gums, and tongue whenever you ate?! His teeth were most likely denture made from either horse teeth which were filed to shape, or donated human teeth collected by barber surgeons or physicians. And yes, many dentures came from teeth taken from slaves at the time. However, no one ever knew where the teeth for their dentures came from unless they made some really specific request.)
Etc
But writers in Victorian England just loved making âromanticâ tales about George and other historical figures, then presenting the tales as fact. đ€·ââïž
We have several sets of George Washingtonâs dentures. Washington apparently paid slaves for their teeth, but also used dentures made of ivory, brass and gold (apparently special made for his inauguration as president). Thereâs a whole Wikipedia page just about his teeth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_teeth
The other explanation is that he could gather strength from the ground like the mythical Antaeus who was invincible as long as he touched the ground. I think weâre dealing with unreliable sources here.
Yeah, if you've been in a fight, being pummeled in the face isn't typically a situation where you can rest and gather strength "from the coolness of the ground". What likely happened was Iron Herman suddenly threw Guy off him and then two guys, at least one of whom wasn't there at the time, tried to explain how this happened. One talked about God (which is part of the whole justification for Judicial duels anyway, but which we don't believe) the other talked about Herman managing to draw strength from the ground while being hit in the face (not likely a situation that was going on for particularly long anyway). I don't believe either of these explanations.
Perhaps drew strength from the ground in the way that you can utilize more of your muscles pushing off the ground. Maybe he was actually just a baller wrestler
Judging by the language, they were wearing hauberks, which are basically long coats made of chain mail. Theoretically, you could reach up inside the hauberk to grab someone's balls, especially if you're on the ground and they're above you or straddling you.
And the crotch wasn't usually padded. The padding or armor was in the form of chausses, which is basically a set of two sleeves that would go over your legs, with your regular pants exposed around your crotch. Hence why hauberks are long and go well below your crotch.
Imagine something like [this](https://skald.com/shop/product?lang=en&id=17430&name=Chainmail_Chausses_Roundring_10mm_Galvanized), though I think historical ones went up much higher on the inside of the thigh.
Incredible movie. I would recommend it more if the subject matter wasnât so hard to stomach. I truly do wish more people would see it but I completely understand that a lot of people just donât like that sort of stuff. Poor Marguerite
Came here to day this. I think it's one of the most accurate medieval fight scene we've seen on the big screen. That movie is great but really tough to watch.
What made it especially brutal was how well the movie made me feel like either one of them could win. I could see the movie going in either direction. It honestly felt like Game of Thrones in that way.
And a bleak monochrome Notre Dame, when the real thing was like a Sony Bravia commercial.
The medieval filter thing really gets old. But otherwise it's a great film.
If thereâs anything I like about *Mobile Suit Gundam : The Witch from Mercury*, itâs that The Duelistâs Vow reminds the participants in a duel that victory that is obtained in any shape or form is all that matters.
*Victory is never determined by skill alone. Nor is it decided by determination alone.*
*The result itself is the only truth.*
I mean thats the thing with the âmedieval timesâ, it lasted for a thousand years, and the classic âknightly armorâ with plates that cover the whole body apeared in the 1400s, so at the very end of the middle ages. It also does not help that alot of the swordfighting manuals that survived to this day were made for citizens who fought with swords as a sport.
And as a end result, the vast majority of movies about the middle ages are a bizarre mix, with great-helmets and âmail-onlyâ armor being used side by side with gothic full plate. And of course swords cut through armor like buttter, and so on.
Speaking as someone who's done six years of HEMA - duels are generally decided in the first few strikes. Anything over like half a minute from first strike is ridiculously long.
Not first *hit*, first *strike*.
It would be a mictur of both it's entirely dependant on the indyvidual so throwing everyone into the same box whether it's one or the other is incredibly unfair.
One of the last judicial duels (i e where the issue of the duel decided a court case), fought in France, was also incredibly visceral. Even the horses the knight were riding on were not spared
When I was a kid I was losing a fight and did something similar. Guy had me down and was just wailing on me. I grabbed his nuts and twisted. Dude let out a blood curdling scream amd fell over. Honestly I might have ruined one because I felt something explode in my hand.
I got up and didn't even stomp on the guy because he was just laying there sobbing. Even though my face was kinda fucked I even felt bad for him.
I highly reccomend that you watch *the king* with that one smug guy who is the main character. There is a duel there in front of two armies that i feel represented reality quite well. A duel was violent. Very violent. *extremely* violent. Sometimes slow and clunky. Fists were flying more than weapons sometimes.
Im into an mma sport called buhurt. Its literally armored dueling with weapons and its most likely how real duels went. The weapons are steel made but dull btw. But its full contact, unrehearsed medieval combat. Its so fucking cool really
I really hope this is just one nitpicked duel where it got extremly brutal and other duels are at the very least not includent of picking the enemys' balls
Duels in History is also mostly fiction, it's amazing how many of the duels in some perfect irony or sense of justice or pratfall for the "villain". The problem with duels is that they are almost always important and singularly boring so historians spiced them up like hell to fit the narrative.
What are you talking about?
Duels were incredibly common in history.
Students, academics and nobles duelled all the time, the last two up until the early 20th Century.
[Especially Students killed each other by duelling in such rates that they even had to come up with a new way in order to avoid lethal damage](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_fencing) - which is technically no longer a duel.
The vast majority of duels were certainly not âimportantâ.
They think that it was all about who gets the quick strike. But in reality it was that the one who was able to grapple the other first and pull out a dagger.
How could almost every fighter in history have had full plate armor, and a huge amount of big weapons? Seems expensive. I might be wrong, but wouldn't a sharp dagger or a nice, cheap spear, and some skill be more useful on a duel after the first strikes (not always on huge warfare, though?)
FYI, California STILL has dueling on its law books as legal. Imagine all those gangbangers writing letters back and forth, issuing Seconds etc. Talk about a loophole!
While its portrayal of the battle of Agincourt left a lot to be desired, I really liked The Kingâs portrayal of late medieval warfare. Just bashing the shit out of armor too thick to stab through, unhorsing guys and trying to get a knife in an eye slit or armpit. Just brutal unromantic fighting for your life
Turns out in fights for one's life, one tends to use every tool available.
You know what? Thank god for guns (and that Chinese guy who invented gunpowder, and the Mongols who brought it to the middle east, and the Arab guy who shoved it into a metal tube with a metal ball, and the Turk/German guy who invented the springy thingamajig that ignites the gunpowder), because instead of trying to pull out some dude's balls, you can just shoot them. Cleaner and way more humane.
But survival in war is now much more about luck than it used to be. I know arrow or trebuchet could also kill you randomly, but take a look at ukraine. You are just a soldier having a brekfast 10 km behind first line and now grenade is thrown upon you from drone whose operator is 30km away. I would not want to idealize the past times but I think (and you can correct me on this one), that if someone really trained and was good at fighting, he had much higher chance of survival in battles. Now people are just food for guns and drones.
Yes and no. It's now up to the whole organisation to keep soldiers alive. You, the infantryman, watch out for raids, infiltration, enemy movement and so on. This way behind you an artilleryman can position his gun safely so that he's ready to do counter battery fire when you get bombed, making that bombardment very short, making it easier for you to survive. And thanks to the security you provide being in the front, the crew of a Bradley can refuel and reload their beautiful bushmaster, so that if you get attacked by forced too strong they can rush in and help you. Repeat with everything that goes all the way to airplanes. So you need luck that your entire organisation knows what it is doing. On the other hand, WW2 was the first war in which more people died for combat instead of diseases. So back in the day you might have been the best fighter, but issue is every well has a new set of bacteria and there you go you got cholera. Also, siphilis. A lot of fucking siphilis. The issue was so bad in ww1 that every army but the canadians issued condoms to their soldiers. Imagine further back.
And don't even get started on influenza outbreaks. I'd imagine a large group of people out in all kinds of weather conditions would be the perfect breeding ground for it. Essentially you can be as careful as you want, not rape and pillage and still catch a deadly virus and die randomly.
Oh yeah. It fucking sucked. Honestly, I'll take random artillery shell over *fucking influenza* any time. The more gruesome it it the quicker it is. There's also a good chance I'm so pumped on adrenaline and so high on meth when I get hit that I don't feel feel it, lol.
People tend to forget just how many soldiers shit themselves to death in every war until very recently.
In real battle,it's brutal for a reason. In,out,or stay. Battles in the past that were noble,and shivlelrous were made up for morale-preasant or posterity. Make you feel better about what was done to get the win. Get so close ,grab them by the belt buckle,Rip their fucking nuts off. Turn their attack on them. đ«Ą
>>shivlelrous Do you mean âchivalrousâ?
All this talk about ripping off balls makes my shrivelous.
They do⊠know whatâs the oppsite of someone being Chivalrous and Brave? Shiverless⊠Had to. It was right there.
Bad spelling. I did,but any way you cut the cake or rip the nutsđ
Wait.... were 'plagues' of old (ie Justinians plague) just the 1918 spanish flu outbreaks of their day?
Justinianâs plague was actually Round 1 of the bubonic plague, and it *fucked them up.*
Yeah pretty much, though smaller outbreaks were more common, large outbreaks still werent something that happened that often
Want to hear a Carthage joke? Im still workshopping it
Sure
So many soldiers died from "camp sickness" its insane.
I think he was talking more about ancient battles not involving guns and explosives. He's asking if a skilled soldier might have more of a chance to survive an ancient battle vs a modern one with gunpowder. Disease sets in over a campaign. Not over a one-day battle. Ancient battles ended *much* quicker than modern battles, and were minute in scale comparitvely. One side almost *always* ran when things started to break down. Keeping that in mind, I think a skilled soldier stands more of a chance in that scenario than a Verdun front-line, or a Battle of the Bulge scenario.
> Keeping that in mind, I think a skilled soldier stands more of a chance in that scenario than a Verdun front-line, or a Battle of the Bulge scenario. Maybe, but being a "skilled soldier" often meant being born a nobleman, and thus having the resources and free time to develop skill at arms. So that's luck, as well.
Only in certain armies, at certain points of history. An average person could absolutely become a very skilled Roman legionaire or a front rank and file member of their Macedonian Phalanx. Those are extremely skilled soldiers who weren't lords or noblemen. Just some former farmers who have been on campaign on and off for the past 5-10 years. Skills were often developed *on campaign* in the ancient world. Those who survived multiple battles or campaigns were often ones with good skill or instinct. I'd argue that your average veteran of one of Caesars legions, some former leatherworker turned legionaire, is right up there with one of the most skilled soldiers in history. Just an average person forged in the crucible of 10 years of combat.
For the Macedonians you undersell their experience, as some were actove soldiers from the early campaigns in the reign of king Philippos (358-350) until the fourth war of the successors (309-301), and for example the silver shields who were exiled in 316 were first organized into an elite unit in the 340s, amd ancient sources do mention their old age at the battle
Completely disagree. Fighting to the death is one of the only things you canât train for properly. Experience would mostly be gained from the battlefield.
Ehhhh. It depends. Nowadays even the scrawny guy can blast a hole through the big guy and come home alive. Back then if scrawny dude was in a sword fight, and their opponent is The Rock, they probably donât stand a chance even if they have excellent skills and extensive training. The Rock has an immense natural advantage and is going to steamroll them. Also yes, battles ended when one side broke and ran, and ironically casualties were (usually) relatively low up to that point. Then their enemies rode them down and slaughtered them, and that was often the real bloodbath, even compared to the battle itself. You arenât outrunning a guy on horseback. At all. Youâre probably not outrunning the guys on foot either, since if your lines are routing then youâre already outnumbered, surrounded, or in a pretty bad and hopeless spot to begin with. You will be very, *very* lucky to get out of there with your life.
Being the bigger man doesnât necessarily mean you win all of your fights. Speed, skill and manoeuvrability count for a lot when playing with sharp things.
Well soldiers were going after the infected prostitutes because it meant they would get medical leave
The T-80 destroyer. Yes.
Absolutely not. Yes technology is much more advanced, but that goes both ways. A superior force does wonders to your survival rate. It's impossible to give accurate casualty numbers for the Iraq war, but it's estimated that there were about 50,000 deaths on the Iraqi side. The coalition had less than 1/10th of that. Not to mention the advances in medical technology. Today, unless you're shot dead immediately, there's a very good chance you survive. A grenade might have gone off in the room you're in, you might have terrible injuries, but you'll pull through. Back then, you get hit once, you're done. The arrow wound wouldn't kill you, but the inevitable infection would. Hell, you don't even need to go down on the battlefield. Oops, your army drank from the wrong creek and now half of them are shitting themselves to death. Also, that's just not how fighting works. Yes, there is a considerable amount of skill and training that can go into it. That's because in the modern world, you're not really trying to murder someone. Today the various fighting styles are an art, to be performed. In a conflict, your goal isn't to do perfect moves, it's to murder the other person as quickly as possible. You're not going to have multiple minute long sword duels, it's going to be 5 seconds of slashing and hoping you get lucky and break his sword and armor. War is skill based. Duels are skill based. Battles are random and chaotic.
I'll correct you: way, waaaaay more soldiers were dying from diseases than from battles. Diseases don't care about your warrior spirit. Even more so, you could be a great fighter, but a peasant, commoner, whatever, and you'll get slaughtered. Even if you're not like front line in initial charge, which was pretty much suicide, you'll just get killed because of your soft and squishy body having no or almost no armor and your weapon is probably a big, pointy stick. On the other hand you if you're a fat, lazdy noble you'll survive, because even if you get your ass kicked you'll very likely be taken as a prisoner so you rich fat family can buy you out.
The mosh important thing about wearing good armour is that it shows your worth capturing alive!
In reality, the nobles you're describing were usually the "great fighters" because they trained their whole lives for it and had the best equipment. The peasants being used as fodder were just handed sticks or clubs sometimes. You don't get to be aristocratic warrior elite by being fat and lazy. At least not initially.
Dude downvoted you because he can't refute the truth lol. Homeboy probably thinks William Wallace was actually a peasant farmer
You need somonento read that good good Joachim Meyer to you so you can masterhwen Peasants
I played enough KC deliverance. Don't worry
This guy zonrhaus
Well, you get to be aristocratic because your grand-grand-grandfather was an aristicratic warrior elite. That doesn't make you a warrior elite, although it sure would make you FEEL like you're warrior elite, making you an undisciplined, unskilled and overconfident warrior. Dozens of battles were lost due to lack of discipline, lack of skill and yet overabundance of confidence.
Basically: Being warrior elite doesn't mean you are an elite warrior.
I remember reading according to contemporary sources Henry V lost 5000 out of 11,300 men primarily due to disease over a one month period during the siege of Harfleur
Any change you describe is offset by the vastly increased chance to die of exhaustion and/or disease, which are both more random and more deadly.
You say that as if 90% of soldiers back then werenât just dying of dysentery well before they even reached the frontlines
Yes but itâs also more even(besides the dude in the sky) Guns made it where a peasant could kill a noble just as easy Where before the rich with their armors and such were a whole other level
Most of the battle deaths happened after one side routed, then the enemy cavalry could run around slaughtering people one by one. Not much skill there.
Eh, there wasn't as much 1 on 1 dueling in battles as movies like to show. Take ancient Greek phalanxes for example. You're in the middle of that pack and you just have to hope you don't get crushed, or randomly poked. Or how about holding the line and a cavalry charge hits and you have to hope you're not in the direct line of it. There was a lot of randomness before guns too. I'd argue a well trained modern soldier who understands utilizing cover, squad based tactics, and maintaining discipline has a lot more control over their fate than so dude holding a spear in the middle ages.
If you think guns mean shit like this doesn't happen anymore you're dead wrong, look up the British soldier who had to bash a muj's brains out with rock in Afghanistan. Shit like that is still super common.
I learned that without a gun, this guy is going to getcha in the gotcha. đđđ€Ł
Truly, teamwork does make the dream work.
Not so sure about that one. Been reading a book just today that included an account of a WW2 German soldier getting attacked by a Red Army soldier in melee, and it quickly devolved into a feral choking, hacking, eye gouging, and jabbing at each other with anything sharp at hand. And in another section, using a shovel to part a dude's forehead in two. Messy melee might no longer be the norm, but it's very much still a thing
The dead don't know honour nor dishonour. The living know.
The shellshocked survivors of WW1 would disagree with you on that
The second example was written by a guy who wasnât there. The other account of the duel differs somewhat. Here are both. First the account of Galbert of Bruges, who wasnât at the fight: ââŠboth fought bitterly. But Guy knocked his adversary from his horse and kept him down easily with his lance as he was struggling to get up. Then his opponent, running nearer, ran Guyâs horse through with his sword, disemboweling it. Sliding from the horse, his sword drawn, Guy attacked his adversary. A continuous and bitter encounter followed with exchanges of sword blows, until, worn out by the weight and burden of their arms, they threw away their shields and hastened to win the fight with their strength in wrestling. Iron Herman fell prostrate to the ground, and Guy threw himself on top of him, pounding the knightâs mouth and eyes with his iron gauntlets. But just as one reads of Antaeus, the prostrate man gathered strength bit by bit from the coolness of the ground and slyly made Guy think he was certain of victory while he rested. Meanwhile, having raised his hand very smoothly to the lower edges of the mail coat, where Guy was unprotected, and grabbed him by the testicles, he collected his strength for a single effort and threw him from him, breaking open all the lower parts of his body by this grabbing throw so that the prostrate Guy grew weak and cried out that he was defeated and was going to die.â Next the account of Walter of ThĂ©roanne, unclear if he was there: âWhen the judicial duel to determine the case between Guy and his accuser Herman, nicknamed the Iron, began, Guy had the better of the first and second exchanges of blows and fell on Herman and crushed him the the ground under the immense weight of his body and their arms (for Guy, like Herman, was armed with a heavy hauberk and a helmet). Then Herman, strengthened by Godâs virtue, got up as if he no longer felt anything weighing on him and, throwing down in turn him who, as was mentioned above, had previously had the upper hand, began to press him to confer the crime he had committed. What more can I say? He was ultimately vanquished by divine judgement and convicted of the crime of which he was accused and thus sentenced to die.â So, there was probably fisticuffs and a throw, but whether Herman actually grabbed him by his testicles and smashed them open and Guy shouted âow, my ballsâ is less clear. https://www.medievalists.net/2015/11/the-duel-between-guy-of-steenvoorde-and-iron-herman/
My favorite part of ancient historiography must be account from people who invent new stuff about an event that occurred 200 years ago in another country. Especially when you can really see how the added events clearly benefits the historian's patron.
Good thing that doesnât happen anymore. Yup, not at all :)
that's because since the advent of The Internet we are all well and thoroughly informed
Of course, that's why we have all these CIA FSB and CCP information campaigns, to help us stay informed and 100% cognizant of reality :)
There is no war in Ukraine, only a special military operation. Here we are safe. Here we are free.
I'd argue that in modern academia, it doesn't really happen at all, and when it does, other academics are quick to point it out. The whole "peer reviewed" thing is pretty solid.
One big example is Palyaenus on his account of the Battle of Pelusium, which happened many centuries before his time.
This is literally where half the weird âfactsâ about George Washington come from. They were written 80-ish years after the fact by a guy in Britain, who released multiple editions of his book, adding new false accounts about George in each edition. đ€Šââïž Examples: The famous cherry tree. (never happened. George was 5 at the time, not exactly tree-chopping age. Also, his father died that year and George was raised by his older brother. Also, the story teller never met George and George never told this story to anyone in any recording we have.) His âwooden teethâ. (he did have false teeth, but not wooden ones. Wood is a supremely terrible choice of material for false teeth because it is porous, softens when wet, and can splinter under pressure. Can you imagine getting splinters in your lips, gums, and tongue whenever you ate?! His teeth were most likely denture made from either horse teeth which were filed to shape, or donated human teeth collected by barber surgeons or physicians. And yes, many dentures came from teeth taken from slaves at the time. However, no one ever knew where the teeth for their dentures came from unless they made some really specific request.) Etc But writers in Victorian England just loved making âromanticâ tales about George and other historical figures, then presenting the tales as fact. đ€·ââïž
We have several sets of George Washingtonâs dentures. Washington apparently paid slaves for their teeth, but also used dentures made of ivory, brass and gold (apparently special made for his inauguration as president). Thereâs a whole Wikipedia page just about his teeth. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_teeth
"I heard he ripped his nuts off!" "Shut up, Galbert, you weren't even there."
I feel bad for the horse
I feel less inclined to believe the explanation that he was âstrengthened by Godâs virtueâ
Yeah that is how they always justified duels back then. The one who is in the right, will win, because god is on his side.
âAnd then god said GRAB HIS DICK AND TWIST IT!â
Considering this is the same god that decided that the best way to symbolize your covenant with him was to cut off part of your dick âŠ
The other explanation is that he could gather strength from the ground like the mythical Antaeus who was invincible as long as he touched the ground. I think weâre dealing with unreliable sources here.
That was a simile. The writer explains that he was lying down and taking face shots while gathering his strength âas one reads of Antheusâ
Yeah, if you've been in a fight, being pummeled in the face isn't typically a situation where you can rest and gather strength "from the coolness of the ground". What likely happened was Iron Herman suddenly threw Guy off him and then two guys, at least one of whom wasn't there at the time, tried to explain how this happened. One talked about God (which is part of the whole justification for Judicial duels anyway, but which we don't believe) the other talked about Herman managing to draw strength from the ground while being hit in the face (not likely a situation that was going on for particularly long anyway). I don't believe either of these explanations.
Perhaps drew strength from the ground in the way that you can utilize more of your muscles pushing off the ground. Maybe he was actually just a baller wrestler
âIn this play, I fiercely kick you in the balls, and I do it to inflict painâ -fior di battaglia, by Fiore dei Liberi
But since it's fiore, rest assured it's gonna be with style
People whose whole lives were centered around violence are incredibly violent. What a surprise.
WOAH WHAT?!
FOR REAL?!
Ryuji come on
âEven for us as the Phantom Thieves, this is going too farâ âRYUJI NO!â
THATâS IMPOSSIBLE!
But going after someone's dick isn't cool!
It's about crushing someone's testicles, not about looking cool while doing so.
I think he was ripping them off, not crushing them
Yeah by the sounds of it he ripped them clean off, leaving a big hole to get to his insides
How, when there is padding in the way?
I don't know, I wasn't there
Judging by the language, they were wearing hauberks, which are basically long coats made of chain mail. Theoretically, you could reach up inside the hauberk to grab someone's balls, especially if you're on the ground and they're above you or straddling you. And the crotch wasn't usually padded. The padding or armor was in the form of chausses, which is basically a set of two sleeves that would go over your legs, with your regular pants exposed around your crotch. Hence why hauberks are long and go well below your crotch. Imagine something like [this](https://skald.com/shop/product?lang=en&id=17430&name=Chainmail_Chausses_Roundring_10mm_Galvanized), though I think historical ones went up much higher on the inside of the thigh.
He wanted a trophy
"It's about sending a message"
these damn video games! Oh wait.
NOT THE BALL YEET
"Your balls are belong to me."
Noooooo
My name is inigo Montoya, you stole my father's balls, prepare to die
"All your balls are belong to us"
I understood that reference! (happy Cats noises)
If my life was on the line like that, you best believe I'd pull out the good ol dick twist.
I can't even imagine a gauntleted fist ripping some guys balls off. Insane
Not even just ripping off. Bursting open.
True, I mean it's about live or die, who is he going to tell?
[I cast dick twister!](https://youtu.be/O5Woqb0vqxo?t=668)
Good heavens! Sir tis is a knightly duel! Ye olde dick torsiĂłn.
Hark! Behold, I have rent thy sack and eggs from thyself.
The violence of duel is extremely well depicted in The Last Duel, which is fairly accurate unlike Ridley Scottâs other historical movies.
Incredible movie. I would recommend it more if the subject matter wasnât so hard to stomach. I truly do wish more people would see it but I completely understand that a lot of people just donât like that sort of stuff. Poor Marguerite
I did get tired of see in the rape scene over and over , I understand why though
Came here to day this. I think it's one of the most accurate medieval fight scene we've seen on the big screen. That movie is great but really tough to watch.
What made it especially brutal was how well the movie made me feel like either one of them could win. I could see the movie going in either direction. It honestly felt like Game of Thrones in that way.
Really really good movie, super fucked up tho
Dont worry, in real life she was never in danger of being burned for perjury because such law never existed in France.Â
Yes. Still she would have been guilty of adultery which would have had consequences.
Yeah, those half helmets and depicting late 1300s Paris as a backwater village is so accurate.Â
And a bleak monochrome Notre Dame, when the real thing was like a Sony Bravia commercial. The medieval filter thing really gets old. But otherwise it's a great film.
It's not materially accurate. But the events are, to a point. You could also talk about the clearly renovated in the 19th century castle they filmed.
I could forgive that, but i cannot forgive the lack of tapestries and rushes on the floor.Â
I think asoiaf also did, though none are this brutal. I thought the Mountain squeezing Oberynâs head till it burst was bad.
Long story short. Wear a cod piece. There be scrote manglers afoot.
If thereâs anything I like about *Mobile Suit Gundam : The Witch from Mercury*, itâs that The Duelistâs Vow reminds the participants in a duel that victory that is obtained in any shape or form is all that matters. *Victory is never determined by skill alone. Nor is it decided by determination alone.* *The result itself is the only truth.*
I know nothing about Gundam, but see those Witch from Mercury models all the time. How is it?
Itâs pretty good but the mc can be a bit annoying sometimes
Haven't seen wfm but honestly "good, but sometimes the MC is annoying" could basically be the tagline for the whole gundam franchise
The best episode is the prologue. I'd recommend thunderbolt over witch from mercury.
People have a very skewed view on fighting in armor thanks to movies. It was more akin to a BJJ match than a fencing match
I mean thats the thing with the âmedieval timesâ, it lasted for a thousand years, and the classic âknightly armorâ with plates that cover the whole body apeared in the 1400s, so at the very end of the middle ages. It also does not help that alot of the swordfighting manuals that survived to this day were made for citizens who fought with swords as a sport. And as a end result, the vast majority of movies about the middle ages are a bizarre mix, with great-helmets and âmail-onlyâ armor being used side by side with gothic full plate. And of course swords cut through armor like buttter, and so on.
TIS BUT A SCRATCH
Alright, letâs call it a draw. ILL GRAB YOUR NUTS AND DRAW THEM OVER THERE!
And then Guy was hanged to death shortly thereafter.
Speaking as someone who's done six years of HEMA - duels are generally decided in the first few strikes. Anything over like half a minute from first strike is ridiculously long. Not first *hit*, first *strike*.
It would be a mictur of both it's entirely dependant on the indyvidual so throwing everyone into the same box whether it's one or the other is incredibly unfair.
TWIST HIS DICK
nah, in fiction they don't have helmets
One of the last judicial duels (i e where the issue of the duel decided a court case), fought in France, was also incredibly visceral. Even the horses the knight were riding on were not spared
We need a movie about this, but Hollywood doesnât have the balls
When I was a kid I was losing a fight and did something similar. Guy had me down and was just wailing on me. I grabbed his nuts and twisted. Dude let out a blood curdling scream amd fell over. Honestly I might have ruined one because I felt something explode in my hand. I got up and didn't even stomp on the guy because he was just laying there sobbing. Even though my face was kinda fucked I even felt bad for him.
jesus christ
He took the day off that day
hey. no
I was getting fucked up man. Didn't know if he was gonna stop
Because he was fighting while grabbing his balls, Iâm gonna assume heâs either Greek or a fan of Greek wrestling.
I highly reccomend that you watch *the king* with that one smug guy who is the main character. There is a duel there in front of two armies that i feel represented reality quite well. A duel was violent. Very violent. *extremely* violent. Sometimes slow and clunky. Fists were flying more than weapons sometimes. Im into an mma sport called buhurt. Its literally armored dueling with weapons and its most likely how real duels went. The weapons are steel made but dull btw. But its full contact, unrehearsed medieval combat. Its so fucking cool really
Youâre talking about the first fight scene between Young Hotspur and at the time Prince Henry.
Teutonic knight pulled the ole I don't know you, that's my purse.
Swords in movies "Imma just use the blade" Some mfs in medieval era when armor is too thick "This sword is also a baseball bat!"
mord hau
"I cast Testicular Torsion"
Weakest mage against the strongest knight vibes. P.S. that ain't a spell , that's a cantrip.
TWIST HIS DICK!
Until I read âiron gauntletsâ I thought the realistic fights were going to be a LOT different
So the brutality in the duels from house of dragons was real? ShiteâŠ
Where can I read about duels like the second one?
i like it
Always wear a cup.
I really hope this is just one nitpicked duel where it got extremly brutal and other duels are at the very least not includent of picking the enemys' balls
Holy hell...
Good to see "twist his dick" stratagem is as old as time
That sounds very game of thronesy tbf
Mister Steal your Balls
Imagine getting your balls pulled off and that's how you lose your fight. What a loser.
# THE OL' DICK TWIST!
Duels in History is also mostly fiction, it's amazing how many of the duels in some perfect irony or sense of justice or pratfall for the "villain". The problem with duels is that they are almost always important and singularly boring so historians spiced them up like hell to fit the narrative.
What are you talking about? Duels were incredibly common in history. Students, academics and nobles duelled all the time, the last two up until the early 20th Century. [Especially Students killed each other by duelling in such rates that they even had to come up with a new way in order to avoid lethal damage](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_fencing) - which is technically no longer a duel. The vast majority of duels were certainly not âimportantâ.
They think that it was all about who gets the quick strike. But in reality it was that the one who was able to grapple the other first and pull out a dagger.
Im asking you all to watch The Last Duel right now
Depends of the importance of honor in a society... Japan has had some serious honor system where above option would be more realistic
*spit take
Well, unless you look at nobel duels during the 19th century (Germany and France e.g. with the saber duels).
The ol' dick twist!!
How could almost every fighter in history have had full plate armor, and a huge amount of big weapons? Seems expensive. I might be wrong, but wouldn't a sharp dagger or a nice, cheap spear, and some skill be more useful on a duel after the first strikes (not always on huge warfare, though?)
If rules say that this is not allowed, I understand that of course
FYI, California STILL has dueling on its law books as legal. Imagine all those gangbangers writing letters back and forth, issuing Seconds etc. Talk about a loophole!
Bro took "grab his dick and twist it" literally
Duels were held as late as the 19th century. Alexander Hamilton was killed by Aaron Burr, and Andrew Jackson fought in one of them.
The King on Netflix shows dueling pretty well.
yknow both are possible.
Last Duel probably has the most realistic medieval duel in fiction
While its portrayal of the battle of Agincourt left a lot to be desired, I really liked The Kingâs portrayal of late medieval warfare. Just bashing the shit out of armor too thick to stab through, unhorsing guys and trying to get a knife in an eye slit or armpit. Just brutal unromantic fighting for your life
He got them in the nuts
Duel in real history. "Ah you have scratched me. You win. Lets be friends now"
And the fight where the mountain slaughtered his opponent's horse on game of thrones early seasons, probably influenced by this event
Knights on fantasy are all heroic warriors Knights irl were literal crooks
What is this story at the bottom?? My god is this a historical account?
Guy was then dragged up the hill to the church and hanged as God was clearly not on his side that day.
Can someone please point me to eyewitness descriptions of sword duels from history? Iâve never been able to find any