Medieval - Pre WW2 History Thread

[Yastreb]

- Hell, they didn't even have writing. They used Quipu Knots to record information

Some think Quipu was a form of writing, though most experts don't accept this and believe it was used only to record numbers.

-They had this weird practise of forcing children's heads to grow into strange shapes. This was used to physically differentiate the upper and lower classes

The Maya did this too. If I remember correctly the Maya wanted their heads be shaped like ears of corn while the Inca tried to shape them like a mountain peak.

 

[Frank Gulotta]

The Maya did this too. If I remember correctly the Maya wanted their heads be shaped like ears of corn while the Inca tried to shape them like a mountain peak.

There is some archeological evidence found in Paracas, Peru, that people actually born with cone shaped heads have existed https://www.express.co.uk/news/weir...Elongated-Paracas-Skulls-could-change-history (just ignore the clickbait fake news title, it's not likely aliens) and several cultures could've seeked to emulate their appearance. Sounds like it could make sense, given the massive disadvantages that came with head binding, a lifetime of crippling headaches and mental troubles, that makes people wonder why anyone would do that with people who were born to rule.

Could be bullshit but I find it asinine to believe we know everything, especially if in the process we just discard interesting archeological findings. Breakthroughs can still happen in our understanding of unrecorded history.

 

[Fallowfox]

Central Asian cultures like the Hun were also famous for head-binding.
This also occurred even in western Europe, in Germany, France, Norway and Italy, during the period after the decline of the western Roman Empire.

I checked wikipedia and there appear to be examples from almost every continent, and there are links to cited work attesting that practice continued in remote European areas right into the 20th century.

 

[Frank Gulotta]

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[The_biscuits_532]

Read a bit on Greenlandic history recently

Apparently it was a bit warmer when they first settled it

Apparently during famines, "the old and helpless were killed and thrown over cliffs".

Apparently the initial settlements died out around 1350-1450, due to the little ice age, likely caused by volcanism in New Zealand.

 

[Fallowfox]

Read a bit on Greenlandic history recently

Apparently it was a bit warmer when they first settled it

Apparently during famines, "the old and helpless were killed and thrown over cliffs".

Apparently the initial settlements died out around 1350-1450, due to the little ice age, likely caused by volcanism in New Zealand.

I find it surprising that the Norse reached Greenland before its current Inuit population did.

Most cultures' experience of Greenland appear to have been 'arrived in Greenland, clung to existence and then died out,'.

 

[tentiv]

More mythology than history, but I thoroughly enjoyed this rendition of Beowulf, sung in Old English and accompanied by a lyre.

 

[Kope]

20 Of The Slowest Historical Torture Methods We Can't Believe Living Souls Had to Endure

20 of the slowest and most painful historical torture methods you would not want to endure

historycollection.com

 

[Wodenofthegays]

- No concept of commerce, used a barter system for their economy

Barter systems only exist in the modern world when systems of capital collapse and were essentially invented as an ancient fact by Adam Smith to justify his works. If markets predated the state, that gave some credence to the idea that the emergence of capitalism was a good, natural thing.

Modern research on what the Quechua and other local people of the time actually did has largely been tainted by that and is often biased towards attempting to prove that point a priori.

If you look at contemporary accounts, it was similar to a lot of pre-nation-state systems in which land was largely used as-needed based on loose precedent rather than owned and leased under a codified judicial system, gift-giving was the primary method of exchange for luxury and the community largely provided for the base needs of the community.

Inca Garcilaso de la Vega spent a lot of time explaining this to Europeans in his Royal Commentaries of the Incas. They had trouble understanding living outside of a newly developing system of markets, the nation-state, and capital. We do as well in the modern world were those things are all the more entrenched.

Here are a few chapter titles as a taste:

"Gold, silver, and other objects of value were not offered as tribute, but as presents."
"They supplied clothing for their subjects; there were no beggars"
"The laws and ordinances of the Incas for the benefit of their vassals"

That's not to say that it was all good, for example the Sapa Inca could force anyone within Tiwantansuyu to perform labor for them as they were the head of royal family and, because of this, divine.

It is however, not barter.

- The Inca obviously had a massive technological disadvantage

I contest that idea, and so did many writers of the past about many indigenous peoples. Inca Garcilaso de la Vega dedicates a whole book of one of his texts to describing marvels and oddities of technology from Cusco.

They didn't have a massive technological disadvantage; they just didnt conduct war at the scale Europeans did, so they never really needed to develop those tools of war.

You don't need to smelt bronze or iron if you're not waging war. The stuff holds an edge and you can make a lot of it fast, but that's not appealing to anybody that doesn't suffer the wars Asia, North Africa, western Africa, and Europe did. Making pottery, textiles, and tools from much more easily-extracted resources makes much more sense in the world of medieval and renaissance Peru, and their technological development reflects that.

Were the kings and queens of Spain less advanced than the Sapa Inca because they didn't have quipucamayocs advising them?

Edit to note: in the gift-giving chapter above it relates to the gift-giving of peasants, the Inca, and their vassals to the Sapa Inca and his governance, but the chapter speaks about how these things are so common and their ownership within the society

 

[Frank Gulotta]

Been looking for this interpretation, which I've heard in a compilation a while ago

I don't know how accurate it is to how they would've sang it back then but it's a banger

 

[Fallowfox]

@Wodenofthegays
I checked, and the Inca did have metallurgy, including alloys such as bronze- and they did make armour and metal clubs. Bronze clubs and helmets were both used in their warfare.

Putting this aside, I think there's a semantic confusion about what a 'technological disadvantage' is.

If your civilisation has not developed iron or steel, this doesn't mean it's not technologically sophisticated. Ancient Egypt was aware of but rarely used iron for much of its duration, for example.
But if you have to make war with a civilisation that has those technologies, this is a big disadvantage.

I also don't agree that there's no need for technologies such as steel if you don't rely on them for warfare; these technologies have many applications outside of warfare.

 

[Attaman]

My understanding is that the Inca were pretty good at fighting the Spanish,when there weren't hostages involved or the whole matter of "Smallpox going through their communities as a Black Plague 2.0" or whatnot. They were very accomplished slingers to the point that Alfonso Enríquez (a veteran of conflict with the Inca and eventual Admiral of Castile) explicitly referred to them as only "slightly lesser to a harquebus", which is generally not the sort of thing said lightly by an occupying force.

My guess is that part of the protestation against the "technological disadvantage" bit is that a lot of people overestimate the "guns and steel" part of the conquest of the (South) Americas and underestimate the mix of politicking, the sheer damage done by disease / pathogens, and in some cases just straight blind luck. Likewise that a lot of people look at "They did not shift almost entirely to metal tools" as "technological disadvantage" whereas there's a lot more to technology than "What do you make it out of?" It can be critically important for some things, yeah, but it reflects the rather spotty categorization of history built around Stone -> Polished Stone -> Copper -> Bronze -> Iron -> Steel which disregards both a slew of complicated factors around such things and that this tends to be based on regions that had a very specific combination of materials available to them (the Bronze Age is only really a thing because the necessary materials were available to alloy bronze into creation in adequate quantities, for example, as there's nothing preventing a jump straight from copper to iron).

 

[The_biscuits_532]

@Wodenofthegays
I checked, and the Inca did have metallurgy, including alloys such as bronze- and they did make armour and metal clubs. Bronze clubs and helmets were both used in their warfare.

Putting this aside, I think there's a semantic confusion about what a 'technological disadvantage' is.

If your civilisation has not developed iron or steel, this doesn't mean it's not technologically sophisticated. Ancient Egypt was aware of but rarely used iron for much of its duration, for example.
But if you have to make war with a civilisation that has those technologies, this is a big disadvantage.

I also don't agree that there's no need for technologies such as steel if you don't rely on them for warfare; these technologies have many applications outside of warfare.

Yes that was my point exactly. The Inca were fine against other local civilisations, but had no way of piercing the Spanish metal armour.

 

[KimberVaile]

Yes that was my point exactly. The Inca were fine against other local civilisations, but had no way of piercing the Spanish metal armour.

Agreed.

Necessity is the mother of invention. The few wars the Incans had, were against opponents that did not utilize metals, and the Incans were among the most powerful civilizations in that region. For what reason would they need the reinforced metal weapons?

History is too often made into sports matches were you got a team you want to win.

The Incans were not lesser for having less sturdy tools of war than the Spanish, but they were technological less advanced in that area and it was a strong factor for why they were overrun. I would attribute the Europeans having steel weapons at least partially as a product of intense competition. Many European inventions can be attributed to competition between multiple countries within the continent forcing innovation. At the end of the day, that's more about the conditions of life and existence in Europe producing an environment were competition and innovation being more prioritized/seen as more necessary. It has nothing to do with x country being better or anything of the sort.

People often grossly underestimate how much effect your environment has on you. It played a key role in the distinct military advantages the Spanish brought, but like with everything, that wasn't the full story. There's always more to it than one singular factor.

 

[Attaman]

Yes that was my point exactly. The Inca were fine against other local civilisations, but had no way of piercing the Spanish metal armour.

I will reiterate their Slings.

Like, seriously: I know film and video games and D&D and whatnot have given people a skewed perception of slings as "Child Weapon" or "Thing That Is Technically A Weapon I Guess", but proficient and accomplished slingers are considered up until the Age of Gunpowder second only to Firearms for a reason (and again, don't just take my word on it: A contemporary veteran of the Spanish-Inca conflicts explicitly called them only slightly lesser than their arquebus'). Incan slingers were scary, quite capable of downing both Spanish warhorses and their riders even into use of metal armor and early firearms. They fell out of favor less because they aren't useful (if anything they're quite effective against a variety of armor that arrows and the like aren't) but for much the same reason firearms rapidly displaced the assorted bows: Because the amount of training needed to become an adequate Slinger is significantly higher than that of alternatives.

Which is part of why I refer back to Smallpox and whatnot: When you've very recently been on the receiving end of a horrific plague, "A surplus of highly fit, trained, and specialized individuals" is usually not in the cards. A couple months of good drilling can get you reasonably adequate gunners. Slingers can take years to get in the same position (casual perusal suggests approximately two years to hit a stationary plate-sized target at 60' with a sling).

 

[KimberVaile]

I will reiterate their Slings.

Like, seriously: I know film and video games and D&D and whatnot have given people a skewed perception of slings as "Child Weapon" or "Thing That Is Technically A Weapon I Guess", but proficient and accomplished slingers are considered up until the Age of Gunpowder second only to Firearms for a reason (and again, don't just take my word on it: A contemporary veteran of the Spanish-Inca conflicts explicitly called them only slightly lesser than their arquebus'). Incan slingers were scary, quite capable of downing both Spanish warhorses and their riders even into use of metal armor and early firearms. They fell out of favor less because they aren't useful (if anything they're quite effective against a variety of armor that arrows and the like aren't) but for much the same reason firearms rapidly displaced the assorted bows: Because the amount of training needed to become an adequate Slinger is significantly higher than that of alternatives.

Which is part of why I refer back to Smallpox and whatnot: When you've very recently been on the receiving end of a horrific plague, "A surplus of highly fit, trained, and specialized individuals" is usually not in the cards. A couple months of good drilling can get you reasonably adequate gunners. Slingers can take years to get in the same position (casual perusal suggests approximately two years to hit a stationary plate-sized target at 60' with a sling).

To add some context, the Spanish armor that was brought was quite effective and helped give them an advantage too.

Many of the Spanish had to buy their own armor. So, it does depend, though the more wealthy cavalrymen usually carried great quality armor. Penetrating armor like that even with an arquebus was a tall order. We're talking specifically crafted armor weighing around 60 lbs. It wasn't shabby stuff. Less wealthy Spanish brought along simple breastplates or just lighter chainmail which while less protective was similarly of high quality. The Spanish armor does deserve some recognition for the quality it brought. I'd say the biggest issues were the heat more than anything. A decent amount of Spanish actually ended up adopting Incan armor and combing it with some of their own due to how severe the heat was to deal with while in plate armor.

Suffice to say it was no exaggeration ,the Spanish brought pretty high quality armor, even the lighter stuff. It's biggest weakness was less it's protection and more the practicality of wearing full plate in such brutally hot environments. That's not to say they didn't help of course. They still did quite a bit for the Spanish.

That's also not to deny that Slings weren't effective, they've been a long staple of warfare for a reason, they're not particularly expensive to make, and when you get close enough bring quite a bit of power behind them. In terms of weapons, the common soldiers weapons were mostly Halberds, pikes, broadswords, and crossbows. The Spanish Arquebusss were actually more specialty weapons, and not standard issue, though quite effective when used. Calvary used lances or swords. All weapons were proven and quite effective. Though I'd argue the most devastating weapon they brought were their light cannons. The projectiles being launched were capable of lopping off a person's leg and keep going, with the potential to harm or kill multiple dozens in it's line of path. The damage it caused was considered severe enough that the Incans would make loose formations to mitigate the effect.

It'd be disengenious to say these militatry tech advantages were the only factor of course. The Spanish brought along maybe a couple hundred men to face a couple thousand. Even with technological advantages, it's a bit unrealistic to say there wasn't another factor helping them. Smallpox likely played an effect on Incan morale as well as reducing total numbers that were able to be fielded. Which is to say nothing of how the food supply was impacted by it.

 

[Attaman]

To add some context, the Spanish armor that was brought was quite effective and helped give them an advantage too.

Many of the Spanish had to buy their own armor. So, it does depend, though the more wealthy cavalrymen usually carried great quality armor. Penetrating armor like that even with an arquebus was a tall order. We're talking specifically crafted armor weighing around 60 lbs. It wasn't shabby stuff. Less wealthy Spanish brought along simple breastplates or just lighter chainmail which while less protective was similarly of high quality. The Spanish armor does deserve some recognition for the quality it brought. I'd say the biggest issues were the heat more than anything. A decent amount of Spanish actually ended up adopting Incan armor and combing it with some of their own due to how severe the heat was to deal with while in plate armor.

Oh, this isn't to deny Spanish kit or military prowess: There's a reason the Spanish Tercio basically either dominated or shaped European land warfare for... some time.

It is to say that people underestimate just how dangerous rocks can be in the right situations. Another good example outside slings being how a lot of movies seem to show rocks being used defenders almost as a 'last resort' and rarely doing anything unless / solely being in the realm of "About the size of cinderblocks". In actuality, from above and practically guaranteed to land down on either a head or shoulder (armored or not) you don't even necessarily need something the size of a brick to cause terminal injury.

Kinetic Energy: It's a bitch.

That's also not to deny that Slings weren't effective, they've been a long staple of warfare for a reason, they're not particularly expensive to make, and when you get close enough bring quite a bit of power behind them. In terms of weapons, the common soldiers weapons were mostly Halberds, pikes, broadswords, and crossbows

This is part of why I point out that a Spanish Veteran specifically highlighted the Sling as only slightly lesser than the (sic) Harquebus. Said source also makes mention of - through personal experience - watching slings break swords with lucky strikes, on top of aforementioned "Watched it kill cavalry and steed alike".

I guess the best way to put it into comparison for anyone who doesn't military: There was a relatively recent study in Israel that basically says "If you have reason to suspect you're being pelted by slingers: Don riot gear, try to park yourself at least 60m away, and above all else wear your helmet - visor-down - if anywhere within 200m". This is their advice for protection against serious injury slings. And while even incomplete plate tends to have some distinct advantages over riot gear, it gives a good idea of just how such things could happen and why it would be decidedly Not Fun (TM) to face a polity well known for the quality of its slingers.

It'd be disengenious to say these militatry tech advantages were the only factor of course. The Spanish brought along maybe a couple hundred men to face a couple thousand. Even with technological advantages, it's a bit unrealistic to say there wasn't another factor helping them. Smallpox likely played an effect on Incan morale as well as reducing total numbers that were able to be fielded. Which is to say nothing of how the food supply was impacted by it.

I would argue that biggest things by far were disease, alliances (which is going to tie into #4), luck (if ever there is an ideal time to launch an invasion: "In the aftermath of a plague that killed the previous leader and has lead to a civil war during a succession crisis" is quite hard to beat!) and the Spanish's shameless willingness to break any treaty / brokerage if it turned out convenient for them. When such things weren't in their favor, there's a reason the numbers fielded to see results tended to climb significantly higher to hold onto territories (as well as why certain groups - like the Mapuche - were so effective at being a thorn in the Spaniards' sides).

 

[Kope]

I sometimes wish guns weren’t a thing and we could all go back to melee combat. It feels more skillful : p

 

[KimberVaile]

Oh, this isn't to deny Spanish kit or military prowess: There's a reason the Spanish Tercio basically either dominated or shaped European land warfare for... some time.

It is to say that people underestimate just how dangerous rocks can be in the right situations. Another good example outside slings being how a lot of movies seem to show rocks being used defenders almost as a 'last resort' and rarely doing anything unless / solely being in the realm of "About the size of cinderblocks". In actuality, from above and practically guaranteed to land down on either a head or shoulder (armored or not) you don't even necessarily need something the size of a brick to cause terminal injury.

Kinetic Energy: It's a bitch.

This is part of why I point out that a Spanish Veteran specifically highlighted the Sling as only slightly lesser than the (sic) Harquebus. Said source also makes mention of - through personal experience - watching slings break swords with lucky strikes, on top of aforementioned "Watched it kill cavalry and steed alike".

I guess the best way to put it into comparison for anyone who doesn't military: There was a relatively recent study in Israel that basically says "If you have reason to suspect you're being pelted by slingers: Don riot gear, try to park yourself at least 60m away, and above all else wear your helmet - visor-down - if anywhere within 200m". This is their advice for protection against serious injury slings. And while even incomplete plate tends to have some distinct advantages over riot gear, it gives a good idea of just how such things could happen and why it would be decidedly Not Fun (TM) to face a polity well known for the quality of its slingers.

I would argue that biggest things by far were disease, alliances (which is going to tie into #4), luck (if ever there is an ideal time to launch an invasion: "In the aftermath of a plague that killed the previous leader and has lead to a civil war during a succession crisis" is quite hard to beat!) and the Spanish's shameless willingness to break any treaty / brokerage if it turned out convenient for them. When such things weren't in their favor, there's a reason the numbers fielded to see results tended to climb significantly higher to hold onto territories (as well as why certain groups - like the Mapuche - were so effective at being a thorn in the Spaniards' sides).

Do agree, it's easy to underestimate a sling, but it's plenty deadly, and before the advent of the composite bow, had considerably more power behind it than an arrow.
It's not a poor weapon, and I don't doubt that it was considered such a dangerous weapon by the Spanish. Even with armor, the sheer force of getting hit by a sling is a very real threat to you. While you'll likely survive a hit, it will be quite painful and more concerning, if you can get knocked down by it, (very possible due to the force) your throat will be exposed, which is a very dangerous position for somebody in heavier plate armor. This has a lot to do with how exposed your throat is.

Disease was probably the strongest factor, with Spanish military technology and tactics as a close second. It was a strong reason for why a couple hundred men were able to whittle down an empire of 10 million, (Auxiliaries and native allies that came a little later helped even things too) even if it was as weakened as it was, it's still an empire, and toppling an empire which such few numbers is no small task. The technology helped a lot to make the small numbers more substantial at the very least. The conquistador cavalry, cannons, and arquebusses were strong pillars of their army. Luck also greater helped of course. Especially considering that there was a civil war not too long before the arrival of the Spanish. After the conquest of the Incan empire, there was quite a bit of push back and a pretty substantial resistance to them. The Incans gave the Spanish trouble with clever use of guerilla tactics, they realized open conflict wasn't always the best option, and adapted to what I believe was a mix of guerilla tactics, some open conflict and misdirection. They ended up learning how the Spanish fought pretty well and there were several instances where the Incan line would fall back and would lead Spanish Cavalry to canyons, where they would then trigger avalanches on them and rain missile weapons down on them. Which I think goes to show how ill advised it was to underestimate the Incans like that.

I'd argue that were it not for Spanish Fortifications, the war could have easily turned on them. Which at the very least, is good stargetic forethought on the Spanish's part to lay down forts at key strategic points.

 

[Fallowfox]

Agreed.

Necessity is the mother of invention. The few wars the Incans had, were against opponents that did not utilize metals, and the Incans were among the most powerful civilizations in that region. For what reason would they need the reinforced metal weapons?

I should point out that the Inca used bronze and copper weapons and armour, and that they were an empire that conquered surrounding cultures through war.

Iron-smelting wasn't a European invention; it was introduced to us from the east.

The transition from bronze to iron happened in Europe after a catastrophic collapse of many bronze-age cultures, that still isn't fully understood.
So it is a bit difficult to explain why an iron-age developed in Europe but not South America. Maybe it was down to chance.

 

[KimberVaile]

I should point out that the Inca used bronze and copper weapons and armour, and that they were an empire that conquered surrounding cultures through war.

Iron-smelting wasn't a European invention; it was introduced to us from the east.

The transition from bronze to iron happened in Europe after a catastrophic collapse of many bronze-age cultures, that still isn't fully understood.
So it is a bit difficult to explain why an iron-age developed in Europe but not South America. Maybe it was down to chance.

I didn't say iron smelting was a European invention. I said that necessity is the mother of Invention. The ways in which Europeans were able to manipulate and refine their metals a large part of why they were able to have such refined and well made suits of armor and weapons. They made alot of advancements and refinements to metal working, armor making and weapon making through their environments. The environment this happened in involved many countries constantly in a state of competition towards them. The Incans comparatively eliminated/conquered their competitors rather quickly.
There's more to it than the material used, it's how the metals were refined, smithed and so on that is important too. So I'm not simply saying they lacked iron smelting, it also concerns the techniques used to get the most out of the materials used, which can be it's own discussion altogether. The Italians in particular were famous were the high quality of armor they produced at the time the Conquistadors were active.

Which is a long way of saying, knowing that Iron can be smelted won't mean anything if you don't know the best way to shape it into something useful. What does matter is the techniques used in forging the metals.

 

[Frank Gulotta]

I sometimes wish guns weren’t a thing and we could all go back to melee combat. It feels more skillful : p

There's always been ranged weapons, and they require their own sets of skills. I'm positive if prehistoric people could HUNT with javelins they also warred with them. Slingers were also a key part of ancient armies. They decorated their projectiles with yo mama jokes, in the same way as WW2 bomber crews would write insults on the bombs they were going to drop. Humanity is a young species and for now, the same patterns replicate again and again.

 

[TurbidCyno]

I think I read somewhere that slings were about as potent as a .44 magnum and had enough concussive force to negate most armors of the period.

 

[KimberVaile]

I think I read somewhere that slings were about as potent as a .44 magnum and had enough concussive force to negate most armors of the period.

Ancient Slingshot Was as Deadly as a .44 Magnum

An excavation in Scotland shows that Roman soldiers used lead ammo with lethal accuracy.

www.nationalgeographic.com

This article likely, which referenced the Roman use of slings that used 'whistling bullets' to damage the morale of their enemies. The most commonly used armor then was a sort of chainmail. Keep in mind the total power of impact and penetration are different categories, but still impressive nonetheless.

 

[Kope]

There's always been ranged weapons, and they require their own sets of skills. I'm positive if prehistoric people could HUNT with javelins they also warred with them. Slingers were also a key part of ancient armies. They decorated their projectiles with yo mama jokes, in the same way as WW2 bomber crews would write insults on the bombs they were going to drop. Humanity is a young species and for now, the same patterns replicate again and again.

is there no hope for us then to break the cycle