What are some good (simple) resources on the discovery of metal and metallurgy? Was it an invention in one location that spread or has it been discovered in different places around the globe?
0
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
I know Mesoamericans independently invented bronzeworking before Europeans arrived; the Incans had some bronze tools, ornaments, and weaponry, but the technology was still pretty new and hadn't diffused throughout the Americas yet; copper and goldworking though were long known before that. There's some debate about if sub-Saharan Africa independently invented metallurgy or if it diffused to them somehow, but I'm not familiar enough with the sides to pick one. Dunno what the best resources would be though; I've just been assembling factoids for my own project.
Thanks. The question came out of a discussion with friends about armour being invented independently. My argument was that armour wouldn't be invented without metal weapons or ranged weapons, as generally cloaks etc do a good enough job against nonmetallic weapons. Though there is some cultures that had non-metal armour. Some northern pacific islands had woven armour and some American tribes used it as well as a group in China (well, a group that China fought). Though the latter two examples are cultures that had invented/learned metalworking but were in areas without much metal. So they had metal weapons but relied on woven armour.
If you're in an organized warlike society and it's not too bloody hot (or if you have cavalry) there will be armour. So the Azteks used quilted cotton soaked in brine (to make it stiffer) which was almost as effective as steel in protecting against blunt force or obsidian blades/arrow heads. And when it's too bloody hot warriors will use a very large shield.
Saying that "armour wouldn't be invented without metal weapons or ranged weapons" is silly, because there are always ranged weapons. Humans love ranged weapons and evolution has designed us as throwing specialists. There is not a continent on earth that does not feature some form of ranged weapon or a way to enhance the thrown spear.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
I think that nearly every culture that had metal armor also had non-metal armor.
Sometimes used alone, sometimes used to supplement the metal armor.
People really underestimate what cloth/fabric armor can do against bludgeoning, cutting and piercing weaponry.
The gambeson was a critical piece of cloth armor and was worn alone or under mail or plate. Brigandine was a hugely popular form of armor that combined fabric and plates. I mean heck, modern body armor is made with kevlar fabric.
+6
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
Rigid over soft has been the dominant armor standard almost everywhere that wore armor. Armor flat out does not work unless attached to garments that holds the plating to the body, and that cloth needs to be tough to hold up to the rigors of use. By the time you meet structural requirement you're halfway to decent padding with ancient/medieval garments, they didn’t have super strong modern fabrics, you had to layer for strength.
Brigandine fabric was a layer of leather or heavy cloth which the metal plates were riveted to. It wasn't multilayered or treated, and as such did not provide any protection on its own. The protection was from the riveted metal plates, and it was usually worn with gambeson or a combination of maille and gambeson. Or possibly mail, brigandine and auxiliary plates to cover shoulders, legs and arms and then a padded undershirt.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
A few weeks back we discussed the tactics and development of Pike and Musket warfare in Western Europe; Warlord Games is a British publisher of miniatures rules, and they just made their PIKE & SHOTTE rulebook available for free PDF download. Quite a bit of historical information in here: https://us-store.warlordgames.com/collections/rules-books/products/ebook-pike-shotte-rulebook
This is a really fun game btw, and two fully painted forces looks really awesome facing off on a board! The guys at Warlord are really nice and enthusiastic too.
Linen armour was incredibly common and pretty effective, unfortunately for the most part obsidian based weapons don't do shit to steel armour.
Well. It's more the other way around. Neither obsidian or steel were very effective against steel armor. But then the steel worn by the conquistadors (or at least the infantry) still left plenty of flesh to cut at.
However, while the Aztec cotton/jute armor was highly effective against clubs and obsidian weaponry*, it was not very effective against steel weaponry. Linen armor has about 50-100% higher resistance against cutting/piercing weapons, and linen itself was vulnerable to steel edged weapons.
*Many later conquistadors used maille or native armor since it provided adequate protection against local weapons, while having none of the drawbacks of full plate. Plate is really bad at ventilating, and you can imagine how hot it gets inside a full plate around the equator.
P.S: Also, plenty of rivers to fall into. While you can get out of maille if you keep your wits no such luck with plate. And swimming in plate is something you can only do if you're very fit, a very skilled swimmer and only for short distances. Most conquistadors were fit, but few were good swimmers.
Fiendishrabbit on
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
A more appropriate title would be "The heads of state of Europe: Every year", but not even that is accurate since it gets really blurry between various "Self-ruling dukes/archdukes nominally under the control of a king/emperor" so I don't know which criteria he uses to determine which of the the states within the Holy Roman Empire are considered sovereign and which aren't. Not to mention the various "Constitutional Monarchs" of Sweden which vary greatly in how much power they actually wield (For example Adolph Fredrick ruled only in name between 1756 and 1768, the year he abdicated, and the High Council simply used his namestamp to sign all documents that needed to be signed by the king, frequently against his will).
Still. Interesting video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpKqCu6RcdI
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
A more appropriate title would be "The heads of state of Europe: Every year", but not even that is accurate since it gets really blurry between various "Self-ruling dukes/archdukes nominally under the control of a king/emperor" so I don't know which criteria he uses to determine which of the the states within the Holy Roman Empire are considered sovereign and which aren't. Not to mention the various "Constitutional Monarchs" of Sweden which vary greatly in how much power they actually wield (For example Adolph Fredrick ruled only in name between 1756 and 1768, the year he abdicated, and the High Council simply used his namestamp to sign all documents that needed to be signed by the king, frequently against his will).
Still. Interesting video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpKqCu6RcdI
It was cool seeing the Roman names change annually, then gradually get to longer and longer stretches, then Marius had a big run, then Julius Caesar, and finally Augustus.
The most effective weapon used by the conquistadors was Smallpox
Not that Smallpox didn't kill shit-tons of Europeans too, but society was also kind of built on the idea that these epidemica would wipe a double figure percentage of the population out every now and again, when you're not expecting it then it's utterly devastating.
Also, the double digits in Europe didn't usually start with a 9.
Indeed. It's a sad reflexion of the inherent racism and white-washing of history that the Black Death killing off a third of Europeans is still nightmare fuel, while smallpox killing off 90+% of Americans is casually brushed aside.
Also, the double digits in Europe didn't usually start with a 9.
Indeed. It's a sad reflexion of the inherent racism and white-washing of history that the Black Death killing off a third of Europeans is still nightmare fuel, while smallpox killing off 90+% of Americans is casually brushed aside.
Was it really that high? I had no idea, although I knew it was bad. I thought something happened just prior to the European arrival that reduced the population pretty severely. Did not realize that smallpox was that devastating.
Also, the double digits in Europe didn't usually start with a 9.
Indeed. It's a sad reflexion of the inherent racism and white-washing of history that the Black Death killing off a third of Europeans is still nightmare fuel, while smallpox killing off 90+% of Americans is casually brushed aside.
Was it really that high? I had no idea, although I knew it was bad. I thought something happened just prior to the European arrival that reduced the population pretty severely. Did not realize that smallpox was that devastating.
Between 80% and 90% in Mexico and the Carribean (somewhat lower than that in Peru at about 50%), sometimes over a period as short as a single generation. For example the Taino on Quisqueya/Hispaniola (modern day Haiti/Dominican Republic) declined by probably 90%.
Barthomoleo de la Casas wrote:
"There were 60,000 people living on this island [when I arrived in 1508], including the Indians; so that from 1494 to 1508, over three million people had perished from war, slavery and the mines. Who in future generations will believe this?"
3 million is an exaggeration, but estimates place it at about 300,000-1,000,000. So a hideous deathtoll in just 15 years, and the majority of that was from Smallpox.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
There was an apocalyptic collapse in what we call New England too, I read it was probably caused by diseases transmitted up the coast from the Spanish in Florida
So it probably happened across the whole hemisphere
I remember reading in 1491 by Charles Mann that low estimates of pre-Columbian population being 20 million, while on the highest (and more unlikely) end being 100 million. After contact, don't most estimates put the population at something like 1-2 million a couple centuries afterward?
Mann's book is fairly old now, though, so I'm not up to date with the most recent research. I know that there have been some discoveries in Central and South America that have recently suggested much larger and more complex societies, e.g. this study that suggests 10-15 million possible in the Mayan jungles, alone.
Also, the double digits in Europe didn't usually start with a 9.
Indeed. It's a sad reflexion of the inherent racism and white-washing of history that the Black Death killing off a third of Europeans is still nightmare fuel, while smallpox killing off 90+% of Americans is casually brushed aside.
I mean, is it?
People mostly just don't know about it and the black death isn't anything like nightmare fuel these days nor do most people seem aware of just how many people the black death actually killed.
I'm pretty sure neither incident gets it's due in the public consciousness.
We have many records and accounts of the plague in Europe over several generations, and we have a few people guesstimating what happened in the Americas
Yeah, seems to be drawing an erroneous conclusion. Lack of knowledge by the general populace regarding any type of history, not including something specific like the impact of diseases of European origin on Native American populations hardly constitutes racism.
North America prior to the arrival of concerted efforts to colonize by the Spanish, Portuguese and British was basically Mad Max Fury Road and less wide open world of wonder. Those diseases had arrived by very early traders and sailors and decimated the population by the time people like the Pilgrims showed up.
Yeah, seems to be drawing an erroneous conclusion. Lack of knowledge by the general populace regarding any type of history, not including something specific like the impact of diseases of European origin on Native American populations hardly constitutes racism.
North America prior to the arrival of concerted efforts to colonize by the Spanish, Portuguese and British was basically Mad Max Fury Road and less wide open world of wonder. Those diseases had arrived by very early traders and sailors and decimated the population by the time people like the Pilgrims showed up.
I think the term we're looking for is, IMHO, "insular" or perhaps "myopic".
If it doesn't happen around us and the people we identify as "us" we don't give a shit.
Compare: Palestine vs Rohingya
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Is there a graph that goes earlier? I had also heard that something happened before any Europeans arrived that hurt the populations, but I can't remember any details...
My understanding is that the very first groups of Europeans started it and it spread much faster than the Europeans could, so by the time they got to say New England, it was basically deserted cause everyone had died years prior.
Is there a graph that goes earlier? I had also heard that something happened before any Europeans arrived that hurt the populations, but I can't remember any details...
You might be thinking of the Inca specifically, because there was a civil war that left them weakened when the Spanish arrived.
It's haunting to read about explorers finding giant towns and cities that a generation later don't exist at all when someone else goes the same way.
And the settlers who came along after they were gone and saw a land devoid of people but with all the effects of generations of grooming in place and assumed it was God's chosen land because why else would it the so fit for habitation.
Is there a graph that goes earlier? I had also heard that something happened before any Europeans arrived that hurt the populations, but I can't remember any details...
You might be thinking of the Inca specifically, because there was a civil war that left them weakened when the Spanish arrived.
The people in the Andes had the same kind of attrition to disease as everyone else. But the diseases spread up the amazon and into the Inca empire a fair bit before Pizarro headed south. So by the time the Spanish were there the first round of disease was well underway. The civil war you mentioned was caused because the Emperor was rather suddenly and unexpectedly (as he wasn't an old man) killed by a European disease. There wasn't a clear succession at that point and the two sides that ended up fighting it out where too evenly balanced leading to a huge war (like, nearly Napoleonic era sized armies, vastly bigger than anything Europe would see for 200 years).
My understanding is that the very first groups of Europeans started it and it spread much faster than the Europeans could, so by the time they got to say New England, it was basically deserted cause everyone had died years prior.
And then the pilgrims moved into empty villages, dug up graves for treasure, and oppressed each other over religion.
My understanding is that the very first groups of Europeans started it and it spread much faster than the Europeans could, so by the time they got to say New England, it was basically deserted cause everyone had died years prior.
And then the pilgrims moved into empty villages, dug up graves for treasure, and oppressed each other over religion.
Well obviously. What else would they do? Get along?
Posts
Saying that "armour wouldn't be invented without metal weapons or ranged weapons" is silly, because there are always ranged weapons. Humans love ranged weapons and evolution has designed us as throwing specialists. There is not a continent on earth that does not feature some form of ranged weapon or a way to enhance the thrown spear.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Sometimes used alone, sometimes used to supplement the metal armor.
People really underestimate what cloth/fabric armor can do against bludgeoning, cutting and piercing weaponry.
The gambeson was a critical piece of cloth armor and was worn alone or under mail or plate. Brigandine was a hugely popular form of armor that combined fabric and plates. I mean heck, modern body armor is made with kevlar fabric.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
This is a really fun game btw, and two fully painted forces looks really awesome facing off on a board! The guys at Warlord are really nice and enthusiastic too.
Yeah, that's the impression I am getting, but unfortunately, it all seems to have rotted away
Well. It's more the other way around. Neither obsidian or steel were very effective against steel armor. But then the steel worn by the conquistadors (or at least the infantry) still left plenty of flesh to cut at.
However, while the Aztec cotton/jute armor was highly effective against clubs and obsidian weaponry*, it was not very effective against steel weaponry. Linen armor has about 50-100% higher resistance against cutting/piercing weapons, and linen itself was vulnerable to steel edged weapons.
*Many later conquistadors used maille or native armor since it provided adequate protection against local weapons, while having none of the drawbacks of full plate. Plate is really bad at ventilating, and you can imagine how hot it gets inside a full plate around the equator.
P.S: Also, plenty of rivers to fall into. While you can get out of maille if you keep your wits no such luck with plate. And swimming in plate is something you can only do if you're very fit, a very skilled swimmer and only for short distances. Most conquistadors were fit, but few were good swimmers.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Still. Interesting video.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
It was cool seeing the Roman names change annually, then gradually get to longer and longer stretches, then Marius had a big run, then Julius Caesar, and finally Augustus.
Not that Smallpox didn't kill shit-tons of Europeans too, but society was also kind of built on the idea that these epidemica would wipe a double figure percentage of the population out every now and again, when you're not expecting it then it's utterly devastating.
Indeed. It's a sad reflexion of the inherent racism and white-washing of history that the Black Death killing off a third of Europeans is still nightmare fuel, while smallpox killing off 90+% of Americans is casually brushed aside.
Was it really that high? I had no idea, although I knew it was bad. I thought something happened just prior to the European arrival that reduced the population pretty severely. Did not realize that smallpox was that devastating.
PSN:Furlion
Between 80% and 90% in Mexico and the Carribean (somewhat lower than that in Peru at about 50%), sometimes over a period as short as a single generation. For example the Taino on Quisqueya/Hispaniola (modern day Haiti/Dominican Republic) declined by probably 90%.
Barthomoleo de la Casas wrote:
3 million is an exaggeration, but estimates place it at about 300,000-1,000,000. So a hideous deathtoll in just 15 years, and the majority of that was from Smallpox.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
So it probably happened across the whole hemisphere
It wasn't just smallpox but also other diseases like measles and influenza that they had no resistance against.
Mann's book is fairly old now, though, so I'm not up to date with the most recent research. I know that there have been some discoveries in Central and South America that have recently suggested much larger and more complex societies, e.g. this study that suggests 10-15 million possible in the Mayan jungles, alone.
I mean, is it?
People mostly just don't know about it and the black death isn't anything like nightmare fuel these days nor do most people seem aware of just how many people the black death actually killed.
I'm pretty sure neither incident gets it's due in the public consciousness.
North America prior to the arrival of concerted efforts to colonize by the Spanish, Portuguese and British was basically Mad Max Fury Road and less wide open world of wonder. Those diseases had arrived by very early traders and sailors and decimated the population by the time people like the Pilgrims showed up.
I think the term we're looking for is, IMHO, "insular" or perhaps "myopic".
If it doesn't happen around us and the people we identify as "us" we don't give a shit.
Compare: Palestine vs Rohingya
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Just unbelievable
They must have throught this is it, this is the end of everything
yay.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
You might be thinking of the Inca specifically, because there was a civil war that left them weakened when the Spanish arrived.
And the settlers who came along after they were gone and saw a land devoid of people but with all the effects of generations of grooming in place and assumed it was God's chosen land because why else would it the so fit for habitation.
The people in the Andes had the same kind of attrition to disease as everyone else. But the diseases spread up the amazon and into the Inca empire a fair bit before Pizarro headed south. So by the time the Spanish were there the first round of disease was well underway. The civil war you mentioned was caused because the Emperor was rather suddenly and unexpectedly (as he wasn't an old man) killed by a European disease. There wasn't a clear succession at that point and the two sides that ended up fighting it out where too evenly balanced leading to a huge war (like, nearly Napoleonic era sized armies, vastly bigger than anything Europe would see for 200 years).
The sheer amount of land they claimed in the New World is mindboggling when you see the maps.
And then the pilgrims moved into empty villages, dug up graves for treasure, and oppressed each other over religion.
Well obviously. What else would they do? Get along?