| | Asmodian - Dla mnie podział jest raczej jasny. Proste, sieczne bronie to miecze (dwu czy jedno sieczne to już inna kwestia i inne podziały) <- mega uproszczenie  . Wygięte, jednosieczne kawałki żelastwa ciężko mi nazywać mieczem. I tyle.
Oczywiście w rozmowie też używam określenia "miecz" w odniesieniu do katany i pochodnych ale tylko w celu łatwej komunikacji i dogadania się. Lepiej być zrozumianym niż kurczowo trzymać się jakiejś nazwy. A co do nasze prawnej kwestii.
Nie szukałem zbyt głęboko po internetach a już natknąłem się na jakieś konkrety. Nie tylko my zaczęliśmy o tym dyskutować.
Tak jak coś mi tam świtało. Istniały prawa nakazujące posiadanie broni ale nie chciałem zmyślać.
Co do tej Anglii bo tu wypływa co rusz. Taki dziwny to był kraj że umiejętność czytania wśród chłopstwa nie była niczym niezwykłym. Chłopi uczyli się i swoje dzieci czytać żeby móc ciągać się po sądach albo i sądzić się z panami swoich ziem. W dupach im się poprzewracało. Źródło. (Tak wiem, to tylko jakieś tam forum, ale uważam że warto się z tym zapoznać. Rzuca to pewnie światło na sprawę.) Cytat:
Terms like "ordinary civilian", "peasant" and "commoner" are very vauge and can have very diffrent meanings depending on the time and place. For example everyone outside the noble & clerical classes was a "commoner" regardless of wether the man in question was a prosperous yeoman, a serf or a professional soldier.
Diffrent nations would have diffrent laws and rules concerning the ownership of arms. In Sweden for example owning arms & armour was mandatory for every free man over the age of 18. The various provincial laws laid down the arms to be owned in greater or lesser detail.
The Helsinge Law:
Bow, sword or axe, shield, helmet, mail.
The law of Sodermanland:
Bow, spear, sword, shield, helmet, mail or coat of plates.
The law of Ostergotland:
Sword, shield and helmet
The law of the town of Soderkoping
Sword, shield, helmet and coat of plates.
In England the Statute of Winchester laid down the arms & armour to be owned by every man according to his wealth
Cytat: |
AND Further, It is commanded, That every Man have in his house Harness for to keep the Peace after the ancient Assise; that is to say, Every Man between fifteen years of age, and sixty years, shall be assessed and sworn to Armor according to the quantity of their Lands and Goods;
| From Fifteen Pounds Lands, and Goods Forty Marks, an Hauberke, capel de fer, a Sword, a Knife, and an Horse
From Ten Pounds of Lands, and Twenty Marks Goods, an Hauberke, a Capel, a Sword, and a Knife ;'
From Five Pound Lands , a Gambison, a Capel de Fer, a Sword, and a Knife
From Forty Shillings Land and more, unto One hundred Shillings of Land, a Sword, a Bow and Arrows, and a Knife
And he that hath less than Forty Shillings yearly, shall be sworn to keep Gis-armes; Knives, and other less Weapons
And he that hath less than Twenty Marks in Goods, shall have Swords, Knives, and other less Weapons ;
And all other that may, shall have Bows and Arrows out of the Forest, and in the Forest Bows and Boults.
Many cities in Flanders, Germany and Italy to name a few places could field large and well armed urban militias thanks to similar laws.
Swords came in wide variety of qualities and prices and were by no means too expensive for many of the "common men". These would be bought at markets or from a maker/merchant towns/cities were those were active. A list of the swords produced by Master Markus Dieffstädter in a single year included 150 'peasant's swords' next to the military swords, rapiers and daggers made in his workshop.
Walking down the street sword in hand would be a sure way to attract the attention of the local authorities. Swords and heavier weapons were not a part of everyday dress even for the nobility. Knives and daggers were the most common 'weapons' worn as part of everyday dress.
How an army was raised aand equiped depended even more on 'where' and 'when'. The medieval period saw a huge number of variation on this subject. There was no such thing as a 'standard' medieval army. I'll get back to you with a few examples in a later post.
| I tu jeszcze jeden cycacik: Cytat:
This depends hugely on time and place. In some regions, peasants where mere property (notably in eastern europe) while in other areas, there when no nobles at all (for instance in pre 14th century Norway or iceland...)
Generally, the medevial military system was based on each subject buying weapons and equipment in acordance to his wealth.
Exactly what you should own would, of course, vary with place and time as well.
In addition to this, a king could give land to vasals in exchange for a certain military or monetary contribution. This provided a core of professional, well equiped feudal troops.
In some countries, like France, the armies consisted almost entirely of feudal troops (simply because the country was large enough) while other countries, like England, fleshed out their armies with leavied troops (mostly archers, because leavies where not considered suited for hand to hand with the pros). Others again had so few feudal troops that they fielded the leavies as the main force, like the Scots during the first Scottish War of Independence.
In the later case, the leavies actually fared well against the English feudal force, due to the effort put into their training and deployment, causing the English to replicate their Digg-in-and-hold-with-infantry tactics when similarly out-knighted in France, though they had sufficient feudal troops to have them do the hand to hand figthing.
Consequently, in quite a few countries owning weapons was mandatory as a part of national defence, in others (where the nobles had tighter controll) they would be outlawed to prevent poaching or brigandry. (rebelions where usually brutally smashed anyhow)
Swords where quite expensive in the early middle ages, but prices plumeted as more efficient manefacturing technologies where developed (the cost of metal is estimated to have dropped by 90% in the 13th c alone)
By the high middle ages, a sword would be as expensive in comparative terms as a modern firearm.
| Może i większość mojego posta to cytaty ale nie widze sensu w przepisywaniu tego samego skoro mogę wstawić cytat i link. Te dwa cytaty głównie tyczą się Anglii ale na tamtym forum ludzie omawiają też inne kraje, a przynajmniej po krótce opisują.
Teraz trzeba to tylko odnieść to od realiów warhammerowych i każdy MG który potrzebuje ustalić jak dużo broni i jak popularna ona jest niech podejmie własną decyzję.
Może zmieniać to w zależności od prowincji? Przykładowo na granicach z kislevem, czy innych granicznych ziemiach, bardziej niebezpiecznych na których ludzie przeważnie muszą bronić się zami bo zanim możni zbiorą jakiś oddział zbrojnych to już będzie po ptokach, było by tego więcej, a w pobliżu stolicy szlachta trzymała by za mordy ludność znacznie bardziej i "miecz" tam nie był by taki popularny. No i jeszcze dochodzą tu inne państwa poza imperium!
Takie podejście wydaje mi się całkiem sensowne.
Coś mi się wydaje że trzeba będzie zmienić tytuł tego wątku bo przerwanie dyskusji w tym momencie było by zbrodnią. 
__________________
Our sugar is Yours, friend.
Ostatnio edytowane przez Cattus : 01-07-2014 o 17:43.
|