Maps rock! Tuesday, Sep 1 2009

How often do you see a map of the world? You probably think it’s no big deal. If you were flipping through papers and came across one you’d probably pay no attention to it. Have you ever stopped to think what it took to make that map? It took us thousands of years to full explore and map the planet. How many people died in the quest to fill in the blank edges on the map?

That modern map you hold in your hands is probably not worth much to you now, but imagine how much money you could get for it if you took it back 5-700 years. You could get so much money that you would never have to want for anything. And yet now it’s just another piece of paper you flip past.

Imagine how useful a modern map would be if there was an armageddon type war, where people were cut off from one another. Imagine if the power stations were blown up and there was no electricity to run your computer. No internet to use mapquest. That modern map would suddenly mean a lot more to you. It would represent knowledge, control, and freedom of movement.

Given all that went into finally making an accurate map of the world, I feel I can safely say that Google Earth is one of the greatest technological achievements mankind has ever produced.

One Response »

 

Female armor Friday, Jun 12 2009

Sexy female armor is ridiculous. Plain and simple. To quote Savage Garden, it’s like swimming in a raincoat.

The whole point of wearing armor is to protect your body, especially vital organs. As you can see, all three women have their sexy stomachs exposed. Often sexy armor covers even less.

As sexy as this armor is, It offers you almost no protection from weapons. It’s like the idea is that a force field of sexyness is supposed to protect the wearer from harm.

But on second thought, maybe the strength in sexy armor is not physical, perhaps it’s mental. Maybe the idea behind it is to make a male opponent falter, if only for a split second. If I turned around in a fight and was confronted by a woman wearing this, I would surely stop to admire. Every guy would, it’s automatic and we can’t help it. It would only take a second, but anyone who spars knows that a second is all that’s needed. On the bright side, I’m sure plenty of guys would love to die at the hands of such a beautiful enemy… ^_^

6 Responses »

 

Going to Newcastle Wednesday, May 20 2009

Well I’m pretty excited, today I got my acceptance letter in the post from Newcastle University. I’ll be going there later this summer for an archaeology program. Hopefully I’ll also be able to travel around the country a bit and see some cool medieval sights during the 3 weeks I’ll be there.

I’ve been to the UK twice before, but only to the south. I hear the northern section of the island is like a whole other country. I’ve also heard mixed things about British rail as a way of trying to get around. I do know that there is someone from Newcastle that views my site, but all I have is an IP address. :-p

Leave a Response »

 

D&D Armor and Weapon Weights Thursday, May 7 2009

Like I said in my earlier post on my ship dungeon, I’m new to this whole table-top gaming thing, so forgive any ignorance. (My DM girlfriend loves lecturing me about roleplaying at the drop of a hat  ~_^)

When I first flipped through her game books well over a year ago, one of the things that drove me crazy was the armor and weapons section. Having done medieval living history for almost a decade, studied Western martial arts for 5 years in ARMA, and owning a full suit of armor (the real stuff, not bullshit leather, plastic, or stainless steel) I think I can pretty well say that I know weapon and armor weights, and what you can do with both.

For example, the buckler is a small shield that can be used defensively and offensively. It has a small hand grip and is in no way “strapped” to your arm.

The hypertext 3E SRD describes a buckler as: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm.” Another thing that drove me crazy was the idea of a “locked gauntlet.” Again, the SRD describes this as: “This armored gauntlet has small chains and braces that allow the wearer to attach a weapon to the gauntlet so that it cannot be dropped easily. It provides a +10 bonus on any roll made to keep from being disarmed in combat.”

Small chains? You know why real knights never wore horns on their armor? Because horns, just like chains, give the enemy something perfect to grab at and hook you on to let them pull you down. That’s why real armor is always smooth and flowing, so there is nothing that can be caught. Chains defeats the whole point. But that’s not my biggest objection. My biggest problem with this idea is that very often in real combat you want to be able to drop your weapon.

Look at this video, at around 1:30 they start to do some techniques that are part of what is called “half-swording.” Many times, when your opponent starts to “wind” his blade the only thing you can do if you can’t out wind him is to drop your blade and grapple him.

Lastly, the other thing that drove me up the wall was the weights. Let me start with shield weights.  Again, the buckler, the 3E SRD says a buckler weighs 5lbs. I’m holding mine in my hand right now and it only weighs about a pound. Here’s a picture of me with my buckler:

But perhaps the most ridiculous shield weight has to be that of a tower shield. 3E SRD says it is 45lbs. Now something like that would unpractical to carry into battle. Even these huge judicial shields weren’t that heavy, the guys can still swing them around easily.

I also know Roman re-enactors and their tower Shields aren’t that heavy either, and they have to sometimes form a testudo:

Now on to armor:

I must say, the 3E SRD does a good job when it comes to armor weights. They have padded armor at 10lbs, which is accurate.  A padded jack like this one:

is pretty darn heavy for just a bunch of cloth. Mine has 25 layer of linen and weighs about that much dry. I don’t ever want to see how heavy it is if wet.

3E SRD has full plate at 50lbs,  Swords and Wizardry core rules has it at 70, 4E player’s handbook has it also at 50. I must say that I am surprised how close to accurate they came.  The true weights are somewhere between 60lbs and 80lbs. It depends on the time period really. Here, look at this picture:

My friend is the guy on the left, I’m the guy on the right. My suit of armor is 1370’s ish, his is 1470’s ish. His weighs about 60lbs, mine weighs about 75lbs. The difference is the chainmaile. As you can see, I have a LOT more maile than him. As the armor got better and stronger, the knights started to ditch the maile, hence why his is lighter.

Weapons:

This is the part of roleplaying that I think is most egregious and epitomised by this clip from the 13th Warrior:

Lets take my favorite weapon, the longsword:

This particular sword happens to be called “The Agincourt“, made by Albion Swords (one of the finest places to buy a real sword, period) and weighs 3lbs 7oz. Swords and Wizardry has the longsword at 10lbs! 4E is closer with a weight of 4lbs, but then gives a greatsword a weight of 8lbs!

Ask any re-enactors in Das TeufelsAlpdrücken Fähnlein how heavy their two-handers are, and they’ll tell you not more than 4-5lbs.

All these horrible weights make me think D&D is trying to tell you all swords handle like this:

D&D Glaive weight: 10lbs, real weight, 3-4lbs, D&D Halberd weight 12lbs, real weight 5lbs. D&D dagger weight 1lbs, real weight .7 (Ok, so now I’m getting picky :-p)

My DM girlfriend tries to tell me that these weights are an attempt to signify weight + volume, or how difficult it is to carry something. I don’t know if I buy that. Maybe. But it then leaves people with this horrible idea that the real weapons weigh that much, which as a re-enactor, is my duty to dispel.

6 Responses »

 

The people you meet at reenactments Tuesday, Mar 24 2009

There are a lot of interesting people you meet at living history events. Here are some archetypes:

The armchair general: Usually a slightly overweight white guy in his 20’s to early 40’s. He’s a big military history buff despite never actually having served. Often these guys are old wargamers and model enthusiasts.

The spoiled fat kid with delusions of grandeur: This kid usually is out of sight of his irresponsible parents and loves to run around at high speeds through the camp. Your camp is his playground. “Don’t touch without asking” is a phrase this kid has never heard, nor understands. Watch your food table because he’ll help himself if he thinks he can get away with it. Often he asks to join your group believe himself to be very important and a great fighter.

The veteran: One of the more enjoyable visitors. This guy actually served in the military and as a result is much more subdued about your weapons and armor. He usually asks educated questions about your equipment’s weight, trying to make comparisons to his experiences.

The teenage girl: She’s usually with all her girlfriends and loves to put on the helmets and take group photos with their cellphones. A pleasant enough visitor, but usually doesn’t ask too many questions.

The young family: Usually only married a few years with one or two young kids. The kids are often scared of you especially if you’re in armor with a helmet on. Usually to get the kids to warm up to you you have to take off the helmet, bed down and let them touch the armor. The parents are moderately interested and ask good questions.

The boyfriend: He usually is a fit, hip guy who has to wear the armor and hold the weapons while flexing his muscles to show off to his girlfriend. Usually he doesn’t ask very many questions because he’s too busy trying to show off.

The fantasy nerd: Usually a scrawny white kid who plays World of Warcraft while watching Lord of the Rings extended edition. He loves the armor and weapons but is not to interested in the actual history. He believes he knows all there is to know about fighting based off of fantasy moves in the Final Fantasy cut scenes.

I’ll add to this if I can think of anything else. Feel free to suggest archetypes.

Leave a Response »

 

Reenactment Politics Sunday, Mar 22 2009

So I just got home from Military Through the Ages (MTA) which is a timeline event (multiple groups from different periods set up in a chronological order) hosted in Jamestown VA, and I am exhausted. I didn’t have sun block (mistake) and so I covered my self by just standing around in armor most of the day trying to lure people into our camp. Wearing turnshoes that were a size too small and standing on wooden pastons (attachable wooden soles) which were also too short on me heels left my entire body aching.

Besides all that the event went REALLY well. The weather was perfect, clear skies and a bit on the cool side. Usually every year it rains horribly, giving MTA the other meaning, Mud up To your Ass.

The only thing that sucked during the event was the politics. Normally I love politics, but when it comes to friends and living history groups, I HATE it. I’m a realitivley new member in my group, and so sometimes I still feel like I have to prove myself; usually by doing as many chores as possible, but then it’s no longer any fun for me, it’s like work that I pay to go be a part of. (I’ve only been in the group for 2-3 years but I’ve been doing living history for almost a decade)

Yet the biggest stressor has to be group to group politics. A few years ago I left a group I spent 6 years with because I felt I’d taken enough bullshit from the head lady of the group. (She ran several people out of the group over the 6 years, just being a total bitch) The sad thing is I really like the other head of the group, a guy she shares a house with. It was great growing up in living history with him around.

I haven’t talked to him since I left the group in protest of her. Unfortunately for me, they’ve started coming to MTA the past couple of years with another group. Our time periods are far enough apart that we’re not camped next to each other, but we’re still close enough to see one another.

It’s been forever, but I still avoid her like the plauge. I’m not scared of her, I just hate confrontation. I’d always be purposely looking in the other direction if she walked by, if not just go inside a tent all together. I just wish I could see the old guy again and ask how he was doing, but the politics of it kinda prevent me from stopping by.

Leave a Response »

 

The downside to being accurate Wednesday, Jan 14 2009

When does being as historically accurate as possible become a negative in living history? I think it’s a grey area between not having fun, and hampering your interactions with the public.

I love the middle ages, and I love being in a late medieval living history group, but the big downside to doing the middle ages is the social structure. When the group members are hanging out, not doing an event, we’re all equal, tax paying adults, yet the situation changes when we’re at an event.

As it is in most living history groups (I’d guess) the people with the most money and stuff are at the top of the group, and everyone else falls down below to make up the pyramid.  (Reenacting wise, not talking about group politics) This pyramid then comprises the rigid medieval social structure.

I’m a jobless college student, who can barely afford the gas it costs to get to an event, so needless to say I’m towards the bottom of this social structure. I have an ok archer kit, but it’s not the $10,000 + suits of armor 3 other guys in the group have. As such, they’re the “gentlemen” and I’m a mere yeoman. I have to serve them at the table. They get to wear nice clothes, eat fancy food, and tell me what to do around camp.

While it’s ok, it’s not nearly as much fun as it would to be one of those gentlemen, dressed head to toe in steel, the stars of the show. The sad thing is, I know how much fun it is, I did 100 years war living history with another group for 6 years before my current one where I had my own suit of armor. I got to dress up and be the badass one, running around doing demonstrations, pretending to be a statue just to scare little kids, etc… It was amazing! But now I’m just an archer. My lower standing in the camp is historically accurate. I can afford less stuff, and so the people who have more stuff order me around.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s still really fun to dress up and stand around in camp. My favorite part is acting as camp sentry, that way I get to put on some armor, wield a big pole ax, and look intimidating.

As for hampering your ability to talk to the public, I think there is some point when being perfectly accurate is ridiculous. If I wanted to really show how a yeoman plucked from the 15th century would act if suddenly dropped in a 21st century event I’d be running around freaking out and killing people because he wouldn’t know what was going on.

But that’s an extreme example. How about this one, I can’t see shit. I wear glasses normally, I can read things up close fine, but get more than 6 feet away and you become blurry. (Not much of an archer am I? ~_^) I just recently got contact lenses. For the first time in 9 years I will actually be able to see at an event! But then, contact lenses aren’t historically accurate. Should I not wear them despite the fact that nobody can tell and I’d be having trouble getting around camp?

What about deodorant? This is one I’ve often thought about. Should I not wear deodorant? Even if it’s unscented? Am I trying to replicate an authentic smell of a lower class medieval yeomen archer, who’s in the field on campaign? How do I even explain that to the public? “Hi,….. don’t walk away! I smell like shit for a reason!” Erm…yeah….

Should I stay in character, try to fake an accent? Speak in middle English or Latin? How will the public understand me then? They won’t learn anything. I also can’t scream at the women in camp, or hit them, even though a male in the middle ages probably would have gotten away with that no sweat. (Not that I’d want to)

While I do think trying to being as historically accurate as possible is a good thing, there are limits. Lets face it. Life back then sucked. People got sick, died, were underfed and over worked. You were trapped in an extremely rigid social class while the people at the top milked you for all your worth. History is often romanticised by the movies and in books, when in reality it was hell.

Reenactors are in the wonderful position of being able to dress up, go play, and come home to a hot shower, tv, Nyquil, and the Bill of Rights. I guess that’s what makes the past fun. The fact that you can go and experience it, but in the back of your mind you know that if anything goes wrong, you have the safety net of modern society to catch you.

One Response »

 

Sexism and Racism in Living History? Tuesday, Jan 13 2009

This is a very touchy topic, and I honestly haven’t seen it come up much in living history, although the thought has always been there.

If your group is trying to portray a time period / group of people as accurately as possible, what do you do about people who want to join who are of historically inaccurate sex/race? I mean, lets face it, women and people of color did not have all the opportunities back then that they do today. It was not normal to have female knights, there were no black archers at Agincourt.

So what do you do about this? I don’t know of any woman who’s tried to be a knight in one of the more accurate medieval living history groups. There are a handful in the SCA and larp, and that’s cool, but those groups aren’t going for accuracy of portrayals.

I know of one WWI combat group that says right on their website “Sorry, but this group is exclusive to males, not trying to be sexist, but that’s how it was” (I can’t find their page in my bookmarks for the life of me)

But this brings up another question, should even white males not portray another ethnicity? I’m 5′6 white male with English/German decent, I’d look off if I tried to play a viking, Italian, or Saracen.  I think the one thing that sticks out the most is when a white guy, especially a fat white guy tries to portray a samurai. The result just makes me cringe every time I see it. I know people are obsessed with samurai, but if you’re a western male it just doesn’t work!

Thoughts?

4 Responses »

 

Living history vs farb….. Tuesday, Jan 13 2009

First off, I want to say that there is nothing wrong with people who commit farb crimes, as long as they are not at an event that is trying to show the general public “how it was back then.”

For non living history/ reeanctor readers, jargon definition:

Farb: a derogatory term used in the hobby of historical reenacting in reference to participants who exhibit indifference to historical authenticity, either from a material-cultural standpoint or in action.

I know this post is going to sound arrogant and condesending, but that’s not how I mean to come across. I’m sure doing LARP and SCA* stuff is really fun, I know people who have a great time doing it, I have nothing against that. What I do have something against is those same people coming to living history / reenacting events that are open to the public and bringing their farb ways with them. (*I am aware not all SCA is the same, and that some groups try very hard to be accurate.)

The point at those events is to educate the public, and to have fun doing it. If you’re not interested in properly educating the people by presenting as accurate depictions as possible, then go have your own group event. Just don’t come to a educational one with your drink coolers, pop up tents, plastic armor, and stainless steel swords. Again, there is nothing wrong with having that stuff, using it, and enjoying yourself, but just not at these events.

Some people think it’s just too much work to get the real thing, and put an expert kit together, but the quality shows. Let me give you some examples.

In camp: farb with coolers, pop up tents, bamboo mats, and obviously no period cloth for clothing:

Ok now here is an example of a non farb camp

Can you spot the difference? How about a compare/contrast with armor and fighting?

Farb:

Ok, now for the non farb guys:

Can you tell a quality difference? One group looks like a renfaire and the other looks like a movie set?

I must admit, when I first started doing living history at age 12, I was a farby. Here is the proof:

It takes time, a long time to put together an expert kit, but the effort you put in it really shows.

The two living history groups used as good examples in this post are Lord Grey’s Retinue and The Guild of Saint Olaus.

5 Responses »

 

No, anime swordsmanship stuff is bull…. Saturday, Jan 10 2009

After watching some anime stuff with my friends, I just couldn’t stand listening to all the Japanese swordsmanship bull that gets spewed….Allow me to let of some medieval European steam…All this “well I use (insert obscure important sounding fighting style here)!” and “This sword has special powers!” crap is driving me nuts. People are absolutely crazy for samurai stuff. This brings up the age old geek debate “Which is better? A knight or a Samurai?” Let me preface this by saying that this debate is fundamentally absurd; a knight of the 15th century would never run into a Samurai of the 14th. And then there is the fact that in hand to hand combat, it’s not the weapons or the armor, it’s the skill of the fighter.

That noted, assume in some nonexistent plane a knight at the peak of medieval weapon and armor development (right before gunpowder made them obsolete) meet at samurai at their peak, and that they were both equally good fighters. Contrary to what many of my Japanese obsessed friends think, the knight would totally kick the Samurai’s ass.

Look at the equipment. The knight, in full plate armor, would be covered head to toe in steel, with chainmaile covering any gaps, and then an arming doublet of some kind under it. The samurai would have on his bamboo and cloth armor with little bits of metal here and there. Bamboo and cloth…. Many people who have no experience with plate armor try to make the claim “well, the knight is slower and can’t move as well as the samurai.” Bullshit. You can move very well in full plate. I KNOW. And yes, if you get pushed over you can hop right back up. (Well, maybe not some of my older living history friends ~_^)

As for the swords, the longsword is far superior to the katana. The knight has a better striking range than the samurai, and the big advantage of TWO edges to the sword. The katana only has one edge. With the two edges, the knight has a whole range of cuts he can preform that the samurai cannot. After a swing in one direction, to cut back the same way, the samurai must rotate his sword around and swing again, the knight can just cut straight back, no rotating required.

The katana also doesn’t have a substantial guard (the cross piece where the blade meets the hilt). There is almost nothing to keep the knight’s sword from sliding down the blade onto the samurai’s hands. The knight however has a nice big guard which he can use to catch and block the samurai’s cuts. The samurai also doesn’t have a pommel with witch to utilize the back of the sword, the knight does, which means he can whip the sword around and bash the samurai in the face if they closed.

The katana also has no chance of cutting through the knight’s armor. I don’t care how sharp it is, in real life it can’t cut through steel. The thrusting point is also inferior to that of a longsword’s, which could easily pierce through bamboo and cloth. Again, this whole debate is absurd however since the two developed in different cultures and the samurai’s weapons were not designed to come up against something like a knight in full plate.

Furthermore, it drives me nuts how they practically worship the sword. It’s a piece of steel. Hunks of atoms assembled (assembled masterfully albeit) , and there is nothing “magical” about it. There is also no magical ancient spirit that protects the fighters or enhances their attacks. (WWII proved that)  It just drives me nuts how my friends just gobbled down this BS. Maybe they are just better at suspending disbelief….

7 Responses »