>he thinks his sword made by the village blacksmith can stand up to the Kings trebuchet

>he thinks his sword made by the village blacksmith can stand up to the Kings trebuchet
lol, lmao even

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >gets arm cut off by rittenhaus

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      THIS SQUIRE HATH TRAVERSED IN OTHER COUNTIES

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Rittenhouse was a knave unable to attain even the status of page, do not sully squires with his name

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    no but my slingy pebble barrage with free pebbles can disable your royal highness's trebuchet operators en masse.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Post thou latrine

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    My hands shalt loose two score arrows from the cloak of the forest before thine beady eyes ascertain whence the arrow in thy chest came forth

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      So anyway, I started blasting.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >a hit ratio of one in twelve arrows
      Verily thou jest or thou art destitute as a beggar, for even .22 inche arrows coste much pennies these days

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    OH NO! The Trebuchet is firing!
    ....Okay. it missed. Everybody can relax for the next two hours.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous
      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        *Thunk*...Did a bird just run into our castle walls? Oh, they have a traction trebuchet. Do you think they know we've got 3 foot wide stone walls? Or that the wall their hitting is backed by dirt?

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    just spam light cav, follow with archers if they counter with pikes.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Handgonnes are just a meme. All you need to disperse bandits is a good longbow.

      >he thinks medieval warfare is like in hecking Hollywood movies and hecking Total War games with hecking medieval machine gun s and medieval artillery.

      away with you, vile saracens

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Handgonnes are just a meme. All you need to disperse bandits is a good longbow.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >bandits will not ambush you wearing full plate!
      >you don't need a crossbow capable of penetrating armour!
      >only the sheriff needs such weapons of war
      >trust in the kings counsel

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >he thinks medieval warfare is like in hecking Hollywood movies and hecking Total War games with hecking medieval machine gun s and medieval artillery.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >hecking
      >hexen
      >hecate
      HE'S A WITCH, GET HIM!

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Post thine hand, thee won't thee dirty saracen

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >but gentlemen, pray tell, wherefore needeth thou yon swords and pikes of warlike craft, when the humble bow and knife of the huntsman verily meetheth thine needs of sustenance. Thou berghers needeth not the armes of the King's chivalrous orders.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      well done

      usually from birth, unless they collected those of slain adversaries of course but that would be weird

      no it wasn't, looting was common and to a degree it was unironically
      >you keep what you kill
      all the way through the Napoleonic era it was understood to be a "perk" of combat and commanders rarely forced the men to give up their loot, although they did try to stop too much looting by securing their own "official" loot for the army

      no, nobility produced them and handed them out to employed troop which were led by knights, dukes, counts etc.

      a peasant didnt have enough money to order a sword and he was forbidden from owning weapons of war anyway. not even farm owners had weapons.

      a lot of peasant revolts happened in my area (austria) in the late medieval period and they all got brutally put down. they tried to reforge farming equipment and used looted weapons.

      >my area (austria) in the late medieval period
      well that's you buddy
      the various British, French, German and Italian factions were trend-setters in medieval practice and it was common for peasants to have at least some weapons for call-ups, often family heirlooms from previous wars

      it wasnt a cash society, most people had no money and didnt use money.

      learn to understand a fricking analogy, moron

      yeah and they got their weapons issued by nobility. they didnt buy them themselves and then joined whatever.

      >they didnt buy them themselves and then joined whatever
      except they did

      >professional soldier
      employed by whom? ? a fricking noble guy!

      that doesnt contradict what anon said.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >it was common for peasants to have at least some weapons for call-ups, often family heirlooms from previous wars

        source? your fricking ass!

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >source?
          Soldiers and Silver: Mobilizing Resources in the Age of Roman Conquest by Michael J. Taylor.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >in the Age of Roman Conquest
            we were talking about medieval times dude, not ancient period.

            English tax and inheritance records. Peasants owned polearms, bows and swords. They can't possibly be taxed on issued property, now can they?

            Now go away you ludicrous homosexual.

            >English tax and inheritance records
            lol post them!

            i highly doubt the state made records of what some farmhand guy had under his straw pillow. how delusional. tax and inheritance is something that was only relevant for farm owners who are not the lowest class. the average guy was a farmhand, he didnt own the farm he worked on and lived in the stable or some chamber for farmhands. that was their life, they were not so unsimilar to incels today.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >i highly doubt
              personal incredulity fallacy

              >lol post them!
              have you never heard of the fricking Domesday Book? you are so fricking ignorant
              and that's just the tip of the iceberg. English manorial tax records are so critical to the study of late medieval history, we would hardly know anything at all if not for these sources

              >the average guy was a farmhand, he didnt own the farm he worked on
              we've established that you haven't actually "learned some fricking history", so let's just keep in mind that this is your ignorant pop-culture view of medieval times talking

              where do you think this pop culture view came from? somebody just thought it up? "oh the lords must surely have taxed the peasants, it's common sense"? no you illiterate mong, it's a 1-liner describing a massive body of work by centuries of historians examining the records left behind by 13th century manorial courts, and that work is far more complex and nuanced than your pea brain can imagine

              >tax and inheritance is something that was only relevant for farm owners who are not the lowest class
              not only are you wrong, you're shifting the goalposts to "the lowest class" when the subject is PEASANTS which has already been pointed out to you encompassed a far wider social class than your pop-culture brain imagines
              >the average guy was a farmhand, he didnt own the farm he worked on and lived in the stable or some chamber
              it's called a cottage
              and at best that describes young unmarried teenagers; most >20s were heads of households, did own small strips of land and property and were taxed accordingly

              he is literally on the painting dude, its the one guy with the sword.

              [...]
              >knightly retinue
              so a noble guys gang

              OPs point was that a sword was an everyday weapon that every average joe had and could use to defend himself against the local government, when in reality the average joe didnt have the means to get a sword made for him, wasnt really allowed to carry it anyway and had no way to store it because he was a literal farmhand at some farmers farm and had no house of his own.

              [...]
              not everyone had an axe, not everyone was a lumberjack. iron was valuable and farmers needed iron tools for farming, they didnt prioritize buying weapons for their farm hands, that would only get them into trouble anyway. you have no idea how economically poor people were back then. they had basically no weapons at all, which is why pretty much every single one of their revolts ended nowhere. you can count the few successful peasant revolts with a single hand (dutch, swiss and czech hussites managed it successfully, everyone else got beat down like its nothing. even in the 17th century fire arms were like magic to peasants and most people had never seen one. a local peasant revolt leader here in my area got shot by a musket because he believed it wouldnt be able to pierce his metal armor. these guys knew jack shit about arms.

              >the average joe didnt have the means to get a sword made for him, wasnt really allowed to carry it anyway and had no way to store it because he was a literal farmhand at some farmers farm and had no house of his own
              and if we asked you for the source of this, you'd just google it amirite?
              >a local peasant revolt leader here in my area
              evidently your area's just specially moronic
              to this day

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I'll even throw you a fricking bone because it's so sad to see someone this fricking ignorant being this fricking mouthy

              >Missing Links: Taxable Wealth, Markets, and Stratification among Medieval English Peasants
              >Kathleen Biddick
              >The Journal of Interdisciplinary History
              >Vol. 18, No. 2 (Autumn, 1987), pp. 277-298 (22 pages)
              >Published By: The MIT Press
              >https://doi.org/10.2307/204284
              >https://www.jstor.org/stable/204284

              this is a very good knowledge base and there's at least a year's worth of reading here unless you're a NEET, actually learn some fricking history and don't darken this board again with your History Channel (or shitty Austrian knockoff equivalent) pop culture bullshit until you do

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          English tax and inheritance records. Peasants owned polearms, bows and swords. They can't possibly be taxed on issued property, now can they?

          Now go away you ludicrous homosexual.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >sword made by the village blacksmith
    swords were expensive as frick, only nobility had them. peasants had pitchforks and makeshift pikes. and i think 90% of peasant uprisings ended extremely bad for the peasants.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Lol no. Most men at arms weren't nobles. Plenty of professional soldiery in the middle ages

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        that doesnt contradict what i said.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >only nobles had swords
          >men at arms usually weren't nobles
          >not contradictory
          ok...

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            where did the men at arms get their arms?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Usually by buying them, sometimes by being gifted them or by inheritance

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                no, nobility produced them and handed them out to employed troop which were led by knights, dukes, counts etc.

                a peasant didnt have enough money to order a sword and he was forbidden from owning weapons of war anyway. not even farm owners had weapons.

                a lot of peasant revolts happened in my area (austria) in the late medieval period and they all got brutally put down. they tried to reforge farming equipment and used looted weapons.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Do you not know what a man at arms is?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                do you? do you really think a farmhand in medieval europe had the money to let a sword be made for him? these guys lived in the stable and were paid in food and a place to sleep. the farmers would have maybe had the money but they werent allowed to bear arms. this was a huge problem for the people when foreign armies invaded and nobility fricked off to hide in the castles. they just let the people get slaughtered and when the people self organized defense (for example against the turks) they got hunted down for insurrection afterwards. this shit happened here.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carinthian_Peasant_Revolt

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >A wagie at McDonald's, who lives with his parents because he can't afford rent. Couldn't own an AR-15, so there for nobody but rich people owned AR-15s in the 2010s.
                This is (You)

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                it wasnt a cash society, most people had no money and didnt use money.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                A man at arms is a professional soldier, not a fricking farmhand. Knights were men at arms, but men at arms weren't necessarily knights.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                yeah and they got their weapons issued by nobility. they didnt buy them themselves and then joined whatever.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                No that's completely fricking wrong dipshit

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >professional soldier
                employed by whom? ? a fricking noble guy!

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Usually, but not exclusively. And they generally owned their weapons and horses and could even get titles and noble status if they didn't have it already and advancement and lands if they did by distinguishing themselves.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                A man at arms is not a peasant, you imbecile.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Knightly retinue and mercenaries were considered men at arms. Were they all noble as well?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not every non-noble is a peasant, you have zero idea about Medieval European society.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Keep in mind, this all started with

                >sword made by the village blacksmith
                swords were expensive as frick, only nobility had them. peasants had pitchforks and makeshift pikes. and i think 90% of peasant uprisings ended extremely bad for the peasants.

                >swords were expensive as frick, only nobility had them
                Arguing that the Gentry could own swords is essentially a strawman.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I am not the one claiming otherwise. They weren't necessarily nobles, and anyway men from peasant backgrounds could become professional soldiers

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >not even farm owners had weapons

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                kek good luck with your scythe on the medieval battlefield.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Beats using your fists.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >forbidden from owning weapons of war anyway
                An axe is a weapon of war you fricktard and infinitely better than a sword. How do you think peasants cut their wood with a fricking electric chainsaw?
                All you need is to change the handle to a longer one and voila you have a fricking poleaxe, an extremely scary weapon of war that works fine against armor too.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              usually from birth, unless they collected those of slain adversaries of course but that would be weird

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >medieval fuddlore
      Why post this?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >/k/ thread without fuddlore
        U wot m8?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      this is peak midwit
      >Did sword makers prefer to sell very high quality and high margin swords to aristocrats
      yes, exact same thing as ARs today. They'd rather sell a gucci $1,500 than a $500 poorgay special.

      Swords aren't much different from just big knifes/daggers. The Messer is proof enough that there was both demand and supply of lower quality swords.
      And no, the messer had the handle it did because of German guild autism, it had nothing to do with legal loop holes about carrying a sword nor did it make it significantly cheaper. In Germany there was plenty of swords with normal handles. The knife making guilds just wanted in on the sword action.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        if you think that the average joe in 1400 germany ran around with a sword you re living in an alternate reality.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          if they wanted yeah, that was the whole reason messers were invented in the first place. A lot of people wanted swords and the knife makers wanted to be able to sell swords too.

          Carrying swords was also common, even among peasants, in Poland

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >if they wanted yeah
            no, it was forbidden

            >the whole reason messers were invented
            messer is german for knife because it was a personal defense weapon, not a weapon of war. a 30cm blade isnt a sword.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >no, it was forbidden
              in some places, but generally not
              >30cm blade
              I think you're confusing inches and cm m8
              And additionally they had "Kriegsmesser's" which where larger two handed versions.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                see, the only guy in this peasant wedding painting who carries a sword is the local lord. the guy carrying a knife (messer) is a pesant.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >here's this one painting bro
                also did you ever think that the local lord wouldn't be sitting on a bench with everyone else?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                he is literally on the painting dude, its the one guy with the sword.

                Knightly retinue and mercenaries were considered men at arms. Were they all noble as well?

                >knightly retinue
                so a noble guys gang

                OPs point was that a sword was an everyday weapon that every average joe had and could use to defend himself against the local government, when in reality the average joe didnt have the means to get a sword made for him, wasnt really allowed to carry it anyway and had no way to store it because he was a literal farmhand at some farmers farm and had no house of his own.

                >forbidden from owning weapons of war anyway
                An axe is a weapon of war you fricktard and infinitely better than a sword. How do you think peasants cut their wood with a fricking electric chainsaw?
                All you need is to change the handle to a longer one and voila you have a fricking poleaxe, an extremely scary weapon of war that works fine against armor too.

                not everyone had an axe, not everyone was a lumberjack. iron was valuable and farmers needed iron tools for farming, they didnt prioritize buying weapons for their farm hands, that would only get them into trouble anyway. you have no idea how economically poor people were back then. they had basically no weapons at all, which is why pretty much every single one of their revolts ended nowhere. you can count the few successful peasant revolts with a single hand (dutch, swiss and czech hussites managed it successfully, everyone else got beat down like its nothing. even in the 17th century fire arms were like magic to peasants and most people had never seen one. a local peasant revolt leader here in my area got shot by a musket because he believed it wouldnt be able to pierce his metal armor. these guys knew jack shit about arms.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >in some places, but generally not

                "only noblemen were allowed to carry a sword in public. Since in most regions swords were regarded as “weapons of war” (as opposed to the dagger, for example), peasants and burghers, not belonging to the “warrior class” of medieval society, were forbidden to carry swords."

                Breiding, Dirk H. “Arms and Armor—Common Misconceptions and Frequently Asked Questions.” In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–.

                https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/hd_aams.htm

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                > Foot soldiers such as mercenaries, or groups of retainers comprising peasants, as well as burghers, also participated in armed conflict and accordingly protected themselves with armor of varying quality and extent. Indeed, the burghers (of a certain age, and above a stipulated wealth or income) of most medieval and Renaissance cities were expected—an expectation often enforced by laws and decrees—to acquire and keep their own arms and armor. Usually this would not be a complete suit of armor, but comprised at least a helmet, a body defense in the form of a mail shirt (2008.245), fabric armor, or breastplate, as well as a weapon such as a spear, pike, bow, or crossbow. In times of war, these militia forces were required to defend the city or do military service for feudal lords or allied cities. During the fifteenth century, as some wealthy and powerful cities became more independent and confident, even burghers organized their own tournaments for which, of course, they would have worn armor.

                >15. Only knights were allowed to carry swords.—Wrong, or not entirely true.
                As with the wearing of armor, not everyone who carried a sword was a knight. But the idea that the sword is an exclusively “knightly” weapon is not entirely wrong. The custom, or even the right, to wear a sword varied according to time, place, and changing regulations.

                >Throughout medieval Europe, swords were the chief weapon of knights and mounted men-at-arms. In times of peace, however, generally speaking only noblemen were allowed to carry a sword in public. Since in most regions swords were regarded as “weapons of war” (as opposed to the dagger, for example), peasants and burghers, not belonging to the “warrior class” of medieval society, were forbidden to carry swords. An exception to this rule was granted to travelers (citizens, merchants, even pilgrims) due to the inherent dangers of travel by land and sea.

                Go frick yourself you cherrypicking homosexual.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                a burgher was upper class back then. not your average joe. peasants didnt have swords and if a local lord wanted to raise an army he obviously had to buy them weapons and order his knights to train the guys. thats common sense.

                also i found even more concerning medieval right to bear arms:

                >In 1393, Richard II forbade “any man of whatsoever estate or condition… to go armed, girt with a sword or arrayed with unwonted harness [armor]

                https://www.medievalists.net/2021/11/the-right-to-bear-arms-and-medieval-law/

                learn some fricking history.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >cherrypicked his own link
                >got called out
                >ignores his own link, scrambles for another link to cherrypick
                >appeal to common sense fallacy
                frick your mudda
                >In 1393, Richard II forbade “any man of whatsoever estate
                >WHATSOEVER ESTATE
                including knights no doubt

                by the way, "peasants" in England at least included landowners of as many as 50 hides of arable land which is thousands of acres, and "burghers" referred to professional tradesmen living in a village who could be as poor as the average peasant

                >it was common for peasants to have at least some weapons for call-ups, often family heirlooms from previous wars

                source? your fricking ass!

                it's common sense, learn some fricking history 😉
                begin with the Roman Republic

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The source of your confusion is the phrase "To go armed" which means to walk about in public carrying a sword hanging from their belt. So this does not prohibit the lower classes from OWNING weapons, it just means that they can't carry them around town when they're not being called up to war or for some other specific purpose that might require them to be armed. Carrying a sword with them wherever they pleased was a privilege of the knightly class and above, partially since they were expected if not required to maintain order in the areas they presided over, partially because being prominent & wealthy persons as well as being lawmakers/enforcers they were more likely to be the target of violent attacks from those who held a grudge against them or who felt they had been wronged by their policies in the past and thus were statistically more likely to be required to apply violent force on a regular basis, and finally partially as a symbol that they were the social betters ruling over the lower classes, and that if they were disobeyed they could draw their swords and cut you to pieces while you had only a knife to defend yourself with. If it helps think of it how in some places the average person does not openly carry a gun with them wherever they go without purpose, and would be looked at strangely if they did, whereas the town sheriff (or other police force given the location) is expected to be carrying a gun, and is expected to use it when the need arises. Even in places where carrying a gun is largely unrestricted, the police may still have access to better firearms than the average person does, and will usually be assumed to be able to bring greater firepower to bear against those they would be required to use it against.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                i think the main hindrance to sword ownership in medieval times was financial means. nowadays everyone lives in an apartment and can buy a gun, they are very cheap. but back then most people didnt own real estate and often didnt even use money because they earned none and had none. i think people forget how different life was back then. every farm here was basically a company of 10-30 people and the farmers was the company boss. yeah he could afford to let a sword or some other weapon be made for him, but for the 10-30 other guys on his farm? no. back then starvation was still a very real possibility, so buying a weapon instead of a horse, cow, plow etc. could have been a fatal mistake, if the harvest was bad in the next year.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                That depends on time period and region.
                In some places/times, freeman landholders were expected to keep a literal war chest (furnished with minimally necessary equipment, as per an officially-approved list), for the eventual occasion they were mustered by their lord.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                i think the main hindrance to sword ownership in medieval times was financial means. nowadays everyone lives in an apartment and can buy a gun, they are very cheap. but back then most people didnt own real estate and often didnt even use money because they earned none and had none. i think people forget how different life was back then. every farm here was basically a company of 10-30 people and the farmers was the company boss. yeah he could afford to let a sword or some other weapon be made for him, but for the 10-30 other guys on his farm? no. back then starvation was still a very real possibility, so buying a weapon instead of a horse, cow, plow etc. could have been a fatal mistake, if the harvest was bad in the next year.

                Broad strokes thats correct but its more accurate to say the main hindrance to GOOD sword ownership was financial. We know for certain that there is a bias in modern interpretations of historical weapons because only the very best, most well made ones tend to survive, but most weapons available were ugly, crummy and poorly made. We can even see many historical artifacts that have clear marks of imperfect manufacture like crooked and asymmetrical parts, weak spots in the metal, blemishes and signs of constant repairs and refits. Its safe to assume the average person could probably save up for a weapon but itd be an ugly poorly made piece of shit, and they were fine sticking to daggers and more practical, reliable stuff. For the average person itd be better to use the metal on a tool for every day use.

                Its kinda like how everyone can afford a Hi Point if they really need a gun, but is it really worth it?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Also, the size difference between the biggest dagger and the smallest sword is not very significant, people underestimate how useful a dagger is in self defense for most situations while you can still use it to cut random shit like food, string, clothes, etc, it was important to carry around a knife in general because medieval people were constantly doing manual labor.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                A bush knife isn't considered a weapon. Neither is an agricultural axe, scythe or ploughshare despite being improvisationally used as such.

                Most peasants are recorded as being armed with polearms, typically the bill, halberd and pike. These are not repurposed agricultural equipment, but made and kept specially for war, typically of longer-lasting and more durable hardwood and with more iron content e.g. bigger and longer blades.
                British peasants also often had longbows.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Being armed with =/ personal ownership, most people did not own weapons they couldn't carry at all times because what is even the point, bandits will jump you while you're walking home far away from your bill. Big battlefield weapons like that were usually just part of the community's shared cache. Daggers, swords and some maces were actual personal weapons to carry with you while you work the fields or do whatever for a living.

                So the Roman empire could equip entire legions of poorgays with swords but european states a thousand years later couldn't?

                Roman legionaries had their gear paid for by their commander on loan and they paid it back over several years. They had to save up to pay for better food and custom gear. Most Roman legionaries came from military families and usually inherited old stuff until it broke, even then the legion had their own professional smiths attached to every legion and huge arms factories running at all times to keep up with the demand for arms and tools.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >there's no point owning a weapon you can't EDC
                Come now
                >were usually just part of the community's shared cache
                Nope; our sources for the arms of English peasants come from tax assessments

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The second, earlier post you replied to is a moron entranced by an image of dogshit poor serfdom that is hilariously outmoded. "Most peasants were landless slaves" is a long debunked myth. Even the bottom half of peasants held small plots of land and rented more, while the upper half held hundreds or thousands of acres of their own. Land use could be concentrated into family and communal lots for economies of scale but individual ownership was surprisingly fragmented. Life expectancy being what it was, inheritance provided a natural churn to break up large parcels of land.

                As with today, the deciding factor for weapon ownership was actually threat level. In villages located on borders or in bandit country, weapon ownership could range as high as 100%. In more peaceful, urbanised country, weapon ownership per capita actually fell. Cities were more peaceful, well protected by armies, and home to "war exempt" categories such as key manufacturing industries and churches.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                A burger was also not a noble

                So you're still wrong. Just take the L, learn something, and move on

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >the messer had the handle it did because of German guild autism
        Yeah, basically knife makers weren't allowed to make swords because the swordmakers guild would get mad at them. So then they invented the longknife.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Depends on the place and time. During the late medieval era swords became cheap enough that even middle class workers like blacksmiths and carpenters could buy swords. A simple peasant might own a looted sword handed down for generations.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Swords are a meme and only good against unarmored peasants.
      Against an armorer noble peasants would be better off with the axe they use to cut wood.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        you're moronic

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Count Thomas of Perche was killed by a sword through the eye at the Battle of Lincoln (1217)

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Every peasant had a large knife.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      So the Roman empire could equip entire legions of poorgays with swords but european states a thousand years later couldn't?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        yes, thats why its called the dark ages. there was a huge competency crisis in europe after rome fell and all the medieval realms were inferior to rome in every way.

        im not even memeing, rome had 160 million people, medieval britain had 3-5 million people.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >rome had 160 million people
          i meant 60.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >in everyway
          well they did have the wheelbarrow

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes. Why do you think we always sperg out about the Romans? They basically prototyped modern democracy and got their shit together so well Rome fielded more professional troops than most nations could find peasant levies.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    they look a lot like oil pumping units

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Drone be upon ye, foul Muscovite.

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Watt has given the example, a ban on swords matters not, seize the arsenal of the town watch

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Verily, 'tis true. As a veteran of his Majesty's summer campaign, only landed knights and nobles are worthy of arnaments.

    [img]yeoldecostanzaface.tapestry[/img

    -John Smythe

    Sent via Crier-to-Talk
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    King's peasant levy 1235-1236 A.D.
    '42 Cornish Mule
    12 chickens
    2 hogs (one is me wife, but I shan't let her know lest she scorn mine ears)

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Mark it in thine own chronicle. The peasantry upon which thou tread are the common folk which thou dependeth upon. We are thine launderers, we bake the breads and pies which nourish thine own flesh, serve in every nook and crook of thine great houses. It is we who roam grand halls in dead of blackest night and stand a watch for brigands over thine very own beds as thou slumber. May the devil rot thee, should thou frig with the tail of common men. For who shall keepeth the blade from the throats of wrights of such engines, if not those common men?

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Dost thou prospect verily that thy novel crossbow shall save thee when anarchy reigns?
    I shall pierce thy skull with my longbow and take that crossbow for myself!

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Back to back Anglo-Scottish war champion

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Can a sword actually destroy a trebuchet like vidya shows

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Present tapestries of your arms or begone, sodomite.

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Are all of you too stupid to understand that the time frame in discussion spanned hundreds of years, and laws and customs can very country to country, region to region, and change over time. Just because farmers in Austria couldnt own swords at a certain point doesnt mean they couldnt later or that germany couldnt at that same time.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Are all of you too stupid
      no, it's just that one autistic Austrian frickwit

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I bet he got rejected from art school and is seeking a career in politics.

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >takes forever to setup

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >"my handgonne is the finest and most reliable in the land"
    >rain falls upon thee
    >thine gonne is rendered impotent
    Pray tell, how has such a grand score of men fallen to such a pathetic jest? Verily a man needs not more than a bow, crossbows only belong under the command of the king

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Dost the whom possesses no bow, believe his phantom armament will deliver arrows true after a summer eve’s rain?

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Trebs have a minimum range and jack shit for melee armor, so I can just slice it to bits at my leisure. inb4 it has some homies guarding it, okay, then I have a bunch of crossbowmen shooting your homies.

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >All yee knights walking around with crossgaurd meme
    900 RAIDS BY SEA

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Richard the Lionheart had two trebuchets that he named "God's Own Catapult" and "Bad Neighbour that he used in the In the Siege of Acre in 1191.

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Frankly, I don't even think it's worth it to parody that argument. It's always brought forward by an actual 90 IQ with bottom tier testosterone levels (likely a woman) and absolutely zero knowledge of history. If you asked them a question like "in the roughest terms imaginable, what was the strategic situation in Europe in 1913? If you don't know it, you can easily infer it [a satisfactory answer] from your knowledge of WW1", and see them stammer into an incoherent puddle and likely aborting the discussion.

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    To be fair, you could probably ride up to a trebuchet, chase off the crew, and then use all that rope as kindling to set it on fire so long as there wasn't an army around to stop you. Trebuchets were generally shit at hitting man-sized targets.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *