- Invitation Status
- Posting Speed
- 1-3 posts per week
- One post per week
- Slow As Molasses
- Online Availability
- Afternoons and evenings, some weekends.
- Writing Levels
- Intermediate
- Adept
- Advanced
- Prestige
- Douche
- Adaptable
- Preferred Character Gender
- Male
- Female
- Primarily Prefer Male
- Primarily Prefer Female
- Genres
- Fantasy, Science Fiction, Post Apocalypse, Horror, Romance, Survival...
ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL HISTORY MYTHS HOO-YA!
Myth: Rome was pro-homo, yo.
Fact: The closest Rome got to pro-homo was a man of superior birth (Senators->Roman born in Rome->Roman citizen->Foreigner->Slave) boinking a man of inferior birth from a superior position. It was never acceptable in any other context. Even in Greece, which was more sexually liberal than Rome was, it was always a show of dominance as opposed to a loving, equal relationship.
In short, a man boinking another man was merely to show how much more value you had over the other male. Higher class Romans who played catcher instead of pitcher were generally looked upon as servile, perverted, and disturbed.
In fact, it's best just to say that ancient societies were nowhere near as wonderful as Hollywood and TV often makes them out to be.
Myth: Spears always stop horses.
Fact: Nope. Heavily armoured knights atop equally armoured horses could rip through most spear lines, which resulted in a variety of attempts to evolve new tactics to stop them. If spears alone always stopped horses, cavalry would have stopped being a useful tool--because cavalry is more expensive and more sparse than lining up a bunch of peasants with sticks. This isn't to say that spears didn't have their use and that they weren't potentially deadly--they most certainly were! However, spears alone didn't stop heavy cavalry, and most light cavalry weren't stupid enough to full-charge any forward facing group of soldiers.
The crossbow was the primary counter to the knight, and after the invention of cannons and firearms and the organization of square formations, knights soon fell to the wayside. Cavalry itself continued to be useful up until the first world war, when fully automatic machine guns were simply too much for cavalry to deal with.
Myth: Battles were climactic and epic!
Fact: Most battles went on for days, or weeks. In rare cases, even months. A "battle" was primarily two forces being led by commanding officers, who would attempt to gain the upper hand against one another via positioning. This was especially true of castles, which were normally (or at least ideally) besieged until the defenders starved to death. The times where climactic battles did occur, they were absolute clusterfucks where it was unclear which side was winning until one side was running from the other. It was, in fact, strategically foolish to throw your army into climactic battle after climactic battle, as it usually meant that the casualties you would sustain would only grant you a string of Pyrrhic victories. (One such leader learned this first hand.)
Myth: Knights were honourable!
Fact: Some were. Most weren't. Most knights were nobility that looked upon peasants as little more than tools to further their own ambitions. Knights rode in on armour because they weren't looking for a fair fight--most of the weapons peasants had couldn't even penetrate plate mail, and even more still didn't have the training to fight properly. It was basically the equivalent of letting a rabid pit bull into a cage with rabbits. This isn't even to say that they were evil--back then, the conception of an individual life holding inherent value was ridiculous. The divine right to rule determined who had value and who did not.
Myth: Samurais were honourable!
Fact: Some were. Most weren't. Most samurai were warrior nobility that fought battles in the back lines, using war bows, rather than charging onto the front line. Samurai also existed long before the modern ideas of Bushido. In fact, there was a law that allowed Samurai to cut off the heads of any members of the Ashigaru class who so much as disrespected them. Again, like with knights, this was because the Samurai were simply believed to be outright superior beings with superior value to anyone else.
Myth: The Crusades were unwarranted aggression.
Fact: At least the beginning of the Crusades weren't--it's debatable whether or not later Crusades were. The early Crusades (esp. the Reconquista) were responses to the Muslim world constantly jihading and taking over Christian states. The only reason the Crusades were even greenlit in the first place, was because of the threat of a jihad pushing into the Byzantium empire, and because most of the Iberian Peninsula had been lost to repeated jihads.
Now, this isn't to say that the Crusaders were good people. Most were bored knights or desperate fanatics looking for a way to spread themselves some Jesus, and being told "murder is okay in this instance" was embraced happily by several deranged people. That being said, historically speaking, they were perfectly justified as a response to several dozen jihads.
Oh, and don't think that Muslims were bad guys just because they were the aggressors. Just like the Crusaders, those who engaged in the Jihads were often terrible people, irrelevant of their religion.
Myth: I can dodge an arrow!
Fact: Nope. At least, not likely. Arrows travel between 225-300 feet per second on average. The average healthy male can jog at around 8.3 miles per hour and the average healthy female at 6.5 miles per hour, which translates to about 100 meters (or 328 feet) in 27-34 seconds.
In other words, arrows are several times faster than you are, on a magnitude of 20-30 times faster than you.
In terms of physics, unless you angle the shot of a bow, an arrow will generally not stay in flight for more than 4-6 seconds (because gravity exists), thus unless you are shot at from the maximum potential range of an archer, you are not dodging an arrow. If you're within 200-300 feet, you will be hit in just one second.
In terms of an angled shot, it's never just one archer. That's several archers working together to pepper a regiment of soldiers--at which point, accuracy is not generally relevant so long as you hit the right general area. In terms of one archer against one target under 150 feet? That target is dead. You will hear the bow string at the same time the arrow embeds itself in a target.
Myth: Guns are better than bows/crossbows and that's why they took over!
Fact: Not for hundreds of years. The reason guns ended up surpassing bows and crossbows after a while is twofold.
Guns would not actually surpass crossbows and bows in terms of mechanical, objective superiority, until the revolver was invented. When you could fire more than one shot one after another rapidly, the crossbow and the bow became outdated and outmoded.
I HAVE MORE IF PEOPLE WANT THEM?
Myth: Rome was pro-homo, yo.
Fact: The closest Rome got to pro-homo was a man of superior birth (Senators->Roman born in Rome->Roman citizen->Foreigner->Slave) boinking a man of inferior birth from a superior position. It was never acceptable in any other context. Even in Greece, which was more sexually liberal than Rome was, it was always a show of dominance as opposed to a loving, equal relationship.
In short, a man boinking another man was merely to show how much more value you had over the other male. Higher class Romans who played catcher instead of pitcher were generally looked upon as servile, perverted, and disturbed.
In fact, it's best just to say that ancient societies were nowhere near as wonderful as Hollywood and TV often makes them out to be.
Myth: Spears always stop horses.
Fact: Nope. Heavily armoured knights atop equally armoured horses could rip through most spear lines, which resulted in a variety of attempts to evolve new tactics to stop them. If spears alone always stopped horses, cavalry would have stopped being a useful tool--because cavalry is more expensive and more sparse than lining up a bunch of peasants with sticks. This isn't to say that spears didn't have their use and that they weren't potentially deadly--they most certainly were! However, spears alone didn't stop heavy cavalry, and most light cavalry weren't stupid enough to full-charge any forward facing group of soldiers.
The crossbow was the primary counter to the knight, and after the invention of cannons and firearms and the organization of square formations, knights soon fell to the wayside. Cavalry itself continued to be useful up until the first world war, when fully automatic machine guns were simply too much for cavalry to deal with.
Myth: Battles were climactic and epic!
Fact: Most battles went on for days, or weeks. In rare cases, even months. A "battle" was primarily two forces being led by commanding officers, who would attempt to gain the upper hand against one another via positioning. This was especially true of castles, which were normally (or at least ideally) besieged until the defenders starved to death. The times where climactic battles did occur, they were absolute clusterfucks where it was unclear which side was winning until one side was running from the other. It was, in fact, strategically foolish to throw your army into climactic battle after climactic battle, as it usually meant that the casualties you would sustain would only grant you a string of Pyrrhic victories. (One such leader learned this first hand.)
Myth: Knights were honourable!
Fact: Some were. Most weren't. Most knights were nobility that looked upon peasants as little more than tools to further their own ambitions. Knights rode in on armour because they weren't looking for a fair fight--most of the weapons peasants had couldn't even penetrate plate mail, and even more still didn't have the training to fight properly. It was basically the equivalent of letting a rabid pit bull into a cage with rabbits. This isn't even to say that they were evil--back then, the conception of an individual life holding inherent value was ridiculous. The divine right to rule determined who had value and who did not.
Myth: Samurais were honourable!
Fact: Some were. Most weren't. Most samurai were warrior nobility that fought battles in the back lines, using war bows, rather than charging onto the front line. Samurai also existed long before the modern ideas of Bushido. In fact, there was a law that allowed Samurai to cut off the heads of any members of the Ashigaru class who so much as disrespected them. Again, like with knights, this was because the Samurai were simply believed to be outright superior beings with superior value to anyone else.
Myth: The Crusades were unwarranted aggression.
Fact: At least the beginning of the Crusades weren't--it's debatable whether or not later Crusades were. The early Crusades (esp. the Reconquista) were responses to the Muslim world constantly jihading and taking over Christian states. The only reason the Crusades were even greenlit in the first place, was because of the threat of a jihad pushing into the Byzantium empire, and because most of the Iberian Peninsula had been lost to repeated jihads.
Now, this isn't to say that the Crusaders were good people. Most were bored knights or desperate fanatics looking for a way to spread themselves some Jesus, and being told "murder is okay in this instance" was embraced happily by several deranged people. That being said, historically speaking, they were perfectly justified as a response to several dozen jihads.
Oh, and don't think that Muslims were bad guys just because they were the aggressors. Just like the Crusaders, those who engaged in the Jihads were often terrible people, irrelevant of their religion.
Myth: I can dodge an arrow!
Fact: Nope. At least, not likely. Arrows travel between 225-300 feet per second on average. The average healthy male can jog at around 8.3 miles per hour and the average healthy female at 6.5 miles per hour, which translates to about 100 meters (or 328 feet) in 27-34 seconds.
In other words, arrows are several times faster than you are, on a magnitude of 20-30 times faster than you.
In terms of physics, unless you angle the shot of a bow, an arrow will generally not stay in flight for more than 4-6 seconds (because gravity exists), thus unless you are shot at from the maximum potential range of an archer, you are not dodging an arrow. If you're within 200-300 feet, you will be hit in just one second.
In terms of an angled shot, it's never just one archer. That's several archers working together to pepper a regiment of soldiers--at which point, accuracy is not generally relevant so long as you hit the right general area. In terms of one archer against one target under 150 feet? That target is dead. You will hear the bow string at the same time the arrow embeds itself in a target.
Myth: Guns are better than bows/crossbows and that's why they took over!
Fact: Not for hundreds of years. The reason guns ended up surpassing bows and crossbows after a while is twofold.
- Because lead pellets were capable of poisoning their victims, thus resulting in more post-battle fatalities.
- Because you could teach pretty well any peasant to use a gun.
Guns would not actually surpass crossbows and bows in terms of mechanical, objective superiority, until the revolver was invented. When you could fire more than one shot one after another rapidly, the crossbow and the bow became outdated and outmoded.
I HAVE MORE IF PEOPLE WANT THEM?
