Recent comments in /f/history

Simmocic t1_j2d3il4 wrote

New Year themed question! Before the change to the Gregorian calendar- does anyone know how the ancients traced and spoke about the years? Like in what year would Julius Caesar himself have thought he crossed the rubicon? Or in which year did Leonidas believe be was making his last stand at Thermopylae?

And what was the measure of their years? Did romans count from the foundation of Rome? Greeks from establishment of Olympus?

1

Bitter_Mongoose t1_j2d2cpw wrote

>There was a highland Scot who taught broadsword (or a brit teaching highland broadsword, as happened more often than not in the 18th century for a few reasons) who opened the first fencing school in America in the early-ish 18th century in Boston, but I forget their name.

Duncan Mcloud of the Clan McCloud

4

TVthe118th t1_j2cxdg3 wrote

I'm reading, and loving it - Two Houses, Two Kingdoms by Catherine Harley. This is a history of Britain's relationship with France from 1100 to 1300.

Last week I finished The War of the Roses, by Alison Weir. A history of Britain - Edward III's children and grandchildren and their wars.

3

Stalins_Moustachio t1_j2cw5ls wrote

Reply to comment by Ka3ket in Bookclub Wednesday! by AutoModerator

Hey there! A good starting point would be to check out Al Jabarti's Chronicle of Napoleon's invasion of Egypt. Should be on Amazon/orderable through your local book store.

As for the Battle of the Pyramids, a few corrections. The Mamluk army of Murad Bey did not fight with "sticks and knives." Rather, what gave the French a superior battlefield advantage was the effective use of square formations, artillery, and of course sueprior firearms. Further, the Mamluk army was still structured around an over-reliance on cavalry, which square formations counter perfectly. Adding to that, the Mamluk army was primarily made up of drafted peasantry, as opposed to Napoleon's well-trained and battle-hardened troops.

2

pronnowpls t1_j2crzb6 wrote

Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World by Jack Weatherford. Simply amazing telling of the life of Genghis Khan by someone who truly immersed himself in the culture and the secret history of the Mongols. Timujin ftw

He followed that up with Mongol Queens which is also awesome but Genghis Khan is where it’s at, dude was seriously bad ass. Highly recommend.

3

Antisocialite99 t1_j2cgyiy wrote

But not all sabers are calvalry sabers...

The calvary variant has less of a gradual curve and more quick pronounced bend.

I don't fence you guys know way more than me n that regard I just follow cus I'd like to try...

But I do know the old west Era calvary sabers were designed to supposed cut off a foot soldiers head by riding past them with the sword pointed straight ahead just letting the curve of the sword produce an almost perpendicular blade. I think this technique was supposed to be better than swinging your arm as you rode past... im.not sure why though perhaps just more accurate when riding past at speed? It's a very similar technique to.the way a bullfighter goes in for the killing blow except the saber is so bent instead of a point it creates a.head.choppy off near sideways blade.

Im not even sure it was a good design but there's a whole history of that feature beinf designed in and then redesigned out I've read it just can't remember. I think there were complaints about how they handled when actually fencing another swordsman.

1

Kelend t1_j2cekp7 wrote

>Calvary sabers really aren't designed for fencing primarily they are designed to be held Ina static position while you ride them into someone.

Modern Olympic fencing consists of three weapon types.

Foil, Epee.... and... and... Saber.

The modern Olympic sport of Saber fencing still shows its roots in its use as a calvary weapon.

1

Sinfullyvannila t1_j2c37kd wrote

It really depends on the gun. That's probably the case for a good striker fired handgun if there is already a bullet in the chamber or a pump action or break loaded shotgun. But otherwise, military rifles usually have less obvious slide operations and/or safeties. Double-action handguns of all kinds have a much heavier trigger pull than most people expect and it's not obvious whether a revolver is single, or double action.

Even with something as popular as a 1911, even if someone knew how to operate the slide, they probably wouldn't recognize the manual safety they don't know you also have to squeeze the lever on the back of the grip to engage the trigger.

2

Poopy_McTurdFace t1_j2bty1c wrote

You're correct. The statements I've been making have been applicable for America and Brittan for the 18th and 19th centuries.

The late 16th and 17th centuries saw quite a bit of infantry fencing training. Nations that were historically lighter on cavalry also had infantry fencing being a larger part of military doctrine for a while longer.

5

Reactor_Jack t1_j2btihm wrote

Similar to what I planned to say. Pikes could have a "formal system" for use, like a military drill manual, and pretty simple in comparison to that of a sword. The days of flintlock, matchlock, even cap lock (right before the modern cartridge era) of the US Civil War made for a pretty unwieldy pike, stick a pointy end on it and it was at least something if the ranks broke or you had no time to reload before being overrun.

5