|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 20, 2014 11:41:53 GMT
It isn't surprising that 'Manky' exists in Australian-English, according to Wiktionary it is UK, Irish and Scottish slang (Because Scotland apparently isn't part of the United Kingdom...). So it would make sense if it ended up being used in Australia as English and Irish convicts were the majority of those send down under. (The Scots seem to have used transportation less often. I'd assume because the Scots were unsure if being sent to a place where you get to see the sun comprised a punishment or a holiday)
The Irish link might explain why 'Manky' seems to be more commonly used in the North West than elsewhere, as a lot of Irish people came over and settled that area (I know because that includes both sides of my family shrub).
****
Back on topic.
Organic materials don't survive being buried for long, historically speaking, so we often only have incomplete records and comments in documents. People often didn't give specifics about technology or items that were in popular use, often because they didn't know the specifics but also because such things were known well enough that the intended audience knew what they were talking about and didn't need to be given a detailed account.
For example modern writers don't explain how body armor works or is made, just if someone is wearing or was issued it. Who knows, 4000+ years from now maybe someone will be investigating 'ancient' Kevlar body armor and trying to figure out how it was made and if it provided as much protection as claimed*. After all by that time any Kevlar vests will have rotted away to nothing, and a lot of the information we take for granted might well have been lost - even if that is something as simple as not understanding the programming coding we use to store information.
(*Probably based on Hollywood's version of 'Kevlar' which can stop rifle rounds at point blank range)
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Sept 20, 2014 13:35:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by freegan on Oct 29, 2014 9:51:42 GMT
As I've come to this discussion a little late, my contribution harks back to the use of silk and wool.
I used to know a group of 'Medieval Re-enacters' who claimed to use 'original' methods and materials.
I recall that the woolen garments worn beneath their chain-mail and armour was of woolen felt rather than knitted wool.
Silk was historically worn between the linen and the felt (with the linen next to the skin to prevent a build up of sweat).
The apparent purpose of silk was to enable the removal of arrows that had pierced the warrior's flesh, the fine fibers of the silk engaged with the wooden shaft of the arrow reducing its penetration and allowing the 'surgeon' to withdraw the arrow intact by pulling on the silk.
The arrows most feared by warriors were 'Bodkins', which were tipped with a narrow steel spike that could pass through chain-mail and even pierce armour.
It was against these bodkins that silk was the intended remedy.
Of course, the group that I knew had no need of silk as they weren't interested in being shot at, preferring instead to lay about one another with swords, their armour being sufficient protection from wounds and the felt sufficient to prevent bruising in even the most energetic bouts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 29, 2014 11:30:08 GMT
Silk was used under armour for the same reason pilots preferred silk scarfs during the world wars - it didn't chaff. It was probably also something of a status symbol, as it was never cheap - ESPECIALLY not in the west, and because it looked good.
Although it might well have proved to make removing an arrow a lot easier that would have been incidental/accidental.
Bodkin points are the bows version of armour piercing rounds, intended for use against plate armour. They don't seem to have been the most commonly used type of arrow, in part because they would have been more expensive to make but also because the additional mass on the end of the arrow reduced the effective range. In fact now I think about it all the penetration tests I've been for bodkin point arrows were carried out at very short ranges - as in if you missed there was no chance of being able to reload before the man you just shot at has a chance to walk above and object.
I might ask a friend of mine about silk under-armour and bodkin points. She is an expert on fabrics and clothing, which covers armours as she is also in a reenactment group. I've heard the silk and arrow myth before, and would like something beyond a distantly remembered TV show as proof for this.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 29, 2014 14:26:21 GMT
silk as arrow protection has been brought up repeatedly on the old boards. being a stronger fiber, it might make a difference, but I suspect the legend came about from eastern armor, which used a lot of silk to hold it together, and may have included quilted silk padding.
I very sincerely doubt a single layer of silk would not allow an arrow to just cut right through.
|
|
|
|
Post by freegan on Oct 29, 2014 15:00:47 GMT
silk as arrow protection has been brought up repeatedly on the old boards. being a stronger fiber, it might make a difference, but I suspect the legend came about from eastern armor, which used a lot of silk to hold it together, and may have included quilted silk padding. I very sincerely doubt a single layer of silk would not allow an arrow to just cut right through. As I understand it, the medieval European use of silk was not intended to prevent a wound but to minimize infection and ease in the removal of the arrow. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 29, 2014 15:19:09 GMT
silk as arrow protection has been brought up repeatedly on the old boards. being a stronger fiber, it might make a difference, but I suspect the legend came about from eastern armor, which used a lot of silk to hold it together, and may have included quilted silk padding. I very sincerely doubt a single layer of silk would not allow an arrow to just cut right through. As I understand it, the medieval European use of silk was not intended to prevent a wound but to minimize infection and ease in the removal of the arrow. to clarify - the myth that kept getting posted was that the silk would fold into the wound around the arrow, so by puling on the silk, the arrow would come back out - I suspect an arrow would just cut through a single layer of silk like it would cut through anything else. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 29, 2014 15:58:24 GMT
The version I heard on a TV show was in relation to crossbow bolts. Both arrows (of different types) and crossbows could be tested as the setup would be the same - firing through a silk sheet into a block of balistics gel and trying to pull the arrow back out. A very quick and simple myth, which could also be coupled with other 'silk armour' myths. Such as it being arrow proof if used as a layered armour. (This is most likely confusing early flak jackets, which were made of layered silk, with the use of silk with armour in earlier periods.
And hey, if they are using silk they might as well retest the scene from Shanghai Noon where Jackie Chan uses a urine soaked silk shirt to bend the bars of a jail cell enough that they can slip out.
Adam sort of did this in Salsa jail break a few years back, but apart from the setup being wrong (the bars were thicker and shorter than in the film) he was actually testing the line 'wet silk won't break' rather than the viability of the technique for getting out of the cell.
Besides, I'd love to see the guys reactions at having a bucket of urine* put in front of them....
(*You can mix urine rather than getting 'donations' from the crew)
|
|
|
|
Post by freegan on Oct 29, 2014 16:34:37 GMT
The version I heard on a TV show was in relation to crossbow bolts. Both arrows (of different types) and crossbows could be tested as the setup would be the same - firing through a silk sheet into a block of balistics gel and trying to pull the arrow back out. A very quick and simple myth, which could also be coupled with other 'silk armour' myths. Such as it being arrow proof if used as a layered armour. (This is most likely confusing early flak jackets, which were made of layered silk, with the use of silk with armour in earlier periods. And hey, if they are using silk they might as well retest the scene from Shanghai Noon where Jackie Chan uses a urine soaked silk shirt to bend the bars of a jail cell enough that they can slip out. Adam sort of did this in Salsa jail break a few years back, but apart from the setup being wrong (the bars were thicker and shorter than in the film) he was actually testing the line 'wet silk won't break' rather than the viability of the technique for getting out of the cell. Besides, I'd love to see the guys reactions at having a bucket of urine* put in front of them.... (*You can mix urine rather than getting 'donations' from the crew) I thought that it was a cotton shirt, as cotton fibers are more likely to bind together whereas silk (wet or dry) tends to slide over itself. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 29, 2014 16:34:42 GMT
To add to that, there is evidence medeievel shields - at least later in the period - were laminated construction, similar to modern plywood, with a few extra layers to toughen the material.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 29, 2014 16:56:36 GMT
To add to that, there is evidence medeievel shields - at least later in the period - were laminated construction, similar to modern plywood, with a few extra layers to toughen the material. That would make sense. Presumably shields were constructed from wooden planks, but no matter how well you put these together you'd end up with weak areas where the edges of the planks joined. Having a second 'layer' of planks aligned in a different direction would provide additional strength. Joining them together was probably done with rivets, the central boss and/or a metal band around the edge of the shield. (For the record this is my best guess, not a statement of fact) |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 29, 2014 18:23:20 GMT
To add to that, there is evidence medeievel shields - at least later in the period - were laminated construction, similar to modern plywood, with a few extra layers to toughen the material. That would make sense. Presumably shields were constructed from wooden planks, but no matter how well you put these together you'd end up with weak areas where the edges of the planks joined. Having a second 'layer' of planks aligned in a different direction would provide additional strength. Joining them together was probably done with rivets, the central boss and/or a metal band around the edge of the shield. (For the record this is my best guess, not a statement of fact) the article I saw; and I can't vouch for its accuracy, included cloth as well as wood in the laminations - and was bonded with some form of glue. another period armor myth is that (fact) they used horsehair as padding material. (myth) the horsehair padding was as effective as modern resilient padding. |
|
