Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Metatron"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
An estoc is a specialised anti-armor sword. It usually has no cutting edge, because the possibility to cut a man in armor is negligible. It has instead a thin, sharp tip, to be able to trust trough armor gaps. It can be used with one hand, two, or half-swording The knight's impact spear is an entirely different thing. The infantry spear is much less accurate when used one-handed, it offers no protection for the hand, and its large head is less capable to pass trough gaps. The spear-ish competitor of the estoc is the spetum(spiedo)-ranseur(brandistocco). Infact they were used in the same period.
Bludgeoning weapons often requires many hits to be effective against a good armor, and are of little use in grappling.
From several chivalric challenges-duels fought during the Siege of Barletta (1502-1503) we know that the estoc was a favourite of the fighters when armors had reached the highest point of their evolution. IE, in the most famous of those challenges (the one that saw 13 Italians vs. 13 French) the equipment of the Italian knights was: A knight's spear, two estocs (one to the saddle, one to the belt), and an axe (specifically an heavy "peasant's" axe, not a waraxe). Several spetums were stuck to the ground, to be eventually used by the knights that had lost the other weapons.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Columbus was backed by many scholars. Among them the most renown cartographer of his time, Toscanelli, whose map placed Japan more or less where in reality is west Mexico. That's why Columbus thought to have reached a group of islands east of Japan, because, in his map there was no physycal place for a continent between those islands and Japan. The problem was infact not that much the circumference of the Earth, but the extension of Asia, that, at that time, everyone thought it was much more extended that it really is and, at the same time, everyone palced Japan more far from China that it really is (see, for example the orb of Behaim).
That's also why, once reached the continent, in his third voyage, he immediately wrote instead it was a new continent (that he called "Paria"). Because, on his map, at that latitude, there should have been no land mass capable to sustain the rivers he saw.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Columbus was backed by many scholars. Among them the most renown cartographer of his time, Toscanelli, whose map placed Japan more or less where in reality is west Mexico. That's why Columbus thought to have reached a group of islands east of Japan, because, in his map there was no physycal place for a continent between those islands and Japan. The problem was not that much the circumference of the Earth, but the extension of Asia, that, at that time, everyone thought it was much more extended that it really is and, at the same time, everyone palced Japan more far from China that it really is (see, for example the orb of Behaim).
That's also why, once reached the continent, in his third voyage, he immediately wrote instead it was a new continent (that he called "Paria"). Because, on his map, at that latitude, there should have been no land mass capable to sustain the rivers he saw.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tylerstevenson8085 At this point I don't know if you can think. What "the majority" has to do wit the topic now? The majority of trade is made with, and the majority of travels are done in, the immediate proximity. That means that trading and traveling outside the immediate proximity is impossible? The majority of what you eat is not pepper. That means pepper doesn't exist?
I already said, we were talking of seafaring capability in Roman times, not if you could navigate the entire route from te city of Rome to India. Egypt was Empire too. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE THE STARTING POINT OF THE VOYAGE WAS AS LONG IT WAS IN THE EMPIRE. To keep on argumenting that Rome is in the Mediterranean, so part ot the trip from India to specifically the city of Rome had to be done overland, at this point, is beyond stupid (it was even at the start, really). So stop being beyond stupid and using dumb arguments.
Majority of trade between Rome and India was made by sea. Is "by sea" even if the goods were disembarked at Mios Hormos, on the Red sea, shipped on the Nile to Alexandria, and then put on another ship to Rome. Or if they didn't reach the city of Rome at all. THE EMPIRE WAS NOT ONLY THE CITY OF ROME.
The original comment was about the supposed inability of the Romans to navigate the ocean. In reality Romans happened to navigate the ocean.
When Egypt was not part of the empire, the same route was followed by someone else. The goods were transported mainly BY SEA anyway.
Yeah. The problem is EXACTLY that, with "Rome" you mean only the city. Otherwise you had not came up with that nonsense of " a completely sea bound route from India to Italy was impossible" (and so? What it has to do with the ability of navigating the Ocean?)
2
-
2
-
He talked about average, and that's the average. On average, for the same body weight, men are about 1/3 physically stronger than women and, since men are on average bigger and heavier, that difference is closer to 50% IRL.
That's reflected on high level competitions, where men and women train the same.
In weightlifting, the discipline that's closer to be of pure physical strenght, there are two categories 55kg and 81kg where the body weight limit is the same for men and women, so are directly comparable.
The current world record for 55kg category, snatch, clean& jerk and total are: men 135kg, 166kg, 294kg; women 102kg, 129kg, 227kg.
The current world record for 81kg category, snatch, clean& jerk and total are: men 175kg, 207kg, 378kg; women 127kg, 158kg, 283kg.
So, when technique don't really count, men are around 33% stronger for the same body weight.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2