View previous topic | View next topic

Knights

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Spud McLaren
942629.  Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:24 am Reply with quote

Q: where would the route of a knight's tour describe a geometric pattern?

K: in a Dan Brown version of one of the Crusades.

A: in chess. A knight's tour is called a closed tour if the knight ends on a square attacking the square from which it began (so that it may tour the board again immediately with the same path). Otherwise the tour is open. On an 8 × 8 board, there are exactly 26,534,728,821,064 directed closed tours (i.e. two tours along the same path that travel in opposite directions are counted separately, as are rotations and reflections). The exact number of open tours is still unknown.

The problem is first described in the Kavyalankara, and is there related to both poetry and mathematics.

 
Grymm
943492.  Wed Oct 03, 2012 4:39 pm Reply with quote

Terry Jones (Of Monty Python fame) wrote a quite interesting book about knights of the muddyevil period. It put foward an alternative view to the Kernig'it in shiney tin much beloved of Hollywood, pulling that image apart especially the 'verray, parfit, gentil knyght' from Canterbury Tales and putting a very good case for it being a parody, a joke we no longer 'get' that would have been obvious to a period audience.

I didn't know, for instance , that in the early part of the period any knight could 'knight' another man, or that, because of so many potential knights 'avoiding the draught(so to speak) it became law that if you owned £40 in goods etc you had to be a knight, unless you could stitch some... er find someone to be knighted in your place.

 
'yorz
943494.  Wed Oct 03, 2012 4:47 pm Reply with quote

draught or draft?

 
Grymm
943699.  Thu Oct 04, 2012 4:14 pm Reply with quote

They avoided beer and games with counters ... Stingy buggers never played or even got a round in =o) Bloody tinnys think they's soooooo much betterer than us pbi.

Prob'ly draft , which is the more modernised spelling but both forms have been used to mean soldiery type things. Draught is a bit more 18thC, also earlier, but in my defense I spend a lot of time reading and research old documents and books (14th-18thC) so the non standardised spelling, grammer and syntax bleedeŞ Şrow...

 
Sadurian Mike
964787.  Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:18 am Reply with quote

These chaps are reinactors, of course, but who are they dressed as?



Knights? Well, maybe, but not everyone dressed in full armour and carry a sword was a knight.

The medieval soldier was a man-at-arms, a term which described everyone who fought professionally but was generally only applied to those who usually fought in close combat. Bowmen and crossbowmen need not apply.

The difference in armour, livery and weapons between a knight and common (by birth rather than proliferation) man-at-arms was often small or invisible. A rich man-at-arms could have better armour, weapons and mounts than a knight. What he could not have was his own official heraldry - although mercenary bands sometimes designed their own livery and banner.

 
Sadurian Mike
964800.  Mon Jan 21, 2013 7:35 am Reply with quote

The sword is often seen as the weapon of the knight, but it was very much a tertiary weapon on the battlefield.

A mounted knight would generally start with a lance, a dismounted one with a double-handed weapon such as a halberd or pollaxe.

Once they lost their primary weapon, the next best thing was a battleaxe, mace or hammer. The sword would usually be kept in the scabbard.

Medieval armour was of three main types, cloth or padded leather, mail*, or plate. Often it was a combination of the three. The sword edge would struggle against thick cloth or leather and have little chance against mail. The point could penetrate cloth, but struggle against mail. It would hardly dent plate in either case.

A two-handed weapon could use brute force to smash through even plate armour, and had the added advantage of being long enough to use from a rear rank in melee.

One-handed maces, axes and hammers, despite not having the kinetic power of a two-handed swing, would concentrate their force in a small area, either penetrating the armour or simply smashing the force through to the body beneath. A stunned or otherwise disabled victim was as good as dead, although ransoming rich prisoners was more common than killing them.

It was the rise of good plate armour that saw the disappearance of the shield in common use. Two-handed weapons were required to tackle heavy armour and so shields could not be carried. Happily, the armour was good enough that the loss of protection was not as great as it could have otherwise been.



*Not 'chainmail'. Contemporary writers referred to mail, maille, chain (sometimes) or just armour. 'Chainmail' was a Victorian word.

 
EXE
966565.  Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:10 am Reply with quote

In Chinese chess, not only is there a horse piece (not called a knight but similar obviously) but also an elephant piece.

 
Sadurian Mike
966742.  Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:34 pm Reply with quote

Q. When would Italian night fashions be clumsier than German ones?

A. When the (k)night fashion in question is medieval armour.

http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=15648&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

 
AlmondFacialBar
966744.  Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:36 pm Reply with quote

EXE wrote:
In Chinese chess, not only is there a horse piece (not called a knight but similar obviously) but also an elephant piece.


The elephant presumably having the place of the castle?

:-)

AlmondFacialBar

 
Sadurian Mike
966758.  Sat Jan 26, 2013 2:29 pm Reply with quote

Yup.

A lot of chess sets also have the elephant rooks carrying towers on their back.

 
Grymm
976768.  Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:39 pm Reply with quote

Sadurian Mike wrote:
These chaps are re-enactors, of course, but who are they dressed as?



Knights? Well, maybe, but not everyone dressed in full armour and carry a sword was a knight.


Of the guys in the pic wearing the psuedo late 14thC style armour the two in the middle by the COAs are pretending to be Henry Percy Earl of Northumberland and Hugh DeSpencer 'Earl of Gloucester' and they are being smirked at, behind right, by a bunch of guys in late 15thc yorkist livery, presumably because the 'battle' is one from the Wars of the Roses (Annual Tewksbury or Bosworth bashes) and they are 50-100 out of date/fashion and the characters are dead =o)

 
Sadurian Mike
991723.  Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:47 am Reply with quote

That actually brings up a good point. Just like clothing, armour followed fashions. Wearing unfashionable armour on the battlefield was not as socially unacceptable as wearing unfashionable clothes, but it did mark you out as somewhat lacking in finances or style.

 
dr bartolo
991786.  Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:51 am Reply with quote

repost-see blwo


Last edited by dr bartolo on Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:57 am; edited 2 times in total

 
dr bartolo
991789.  Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:56 am Reply with quote

AlmondFacialBar wrote:
EXE wrote:
In Chinese chess, not only is there a horse piece (not called a knight but similar obviously) but also an elephant piece.


The elephant presumably having the place of the castle?

:-)

AlmondFacialBar


Here is how a xiangqi set looks like:



As you can see, xiangqi pieces are simply little pieces of wood, like poker chips, engraved with the names of the peices in chinese. For example, the knight is marked 馬 - chinese for horse

As for the elephants( 象 / 相- the characters are written differently for the opposing sides ) , they take the place of the
bishops. The rook/ castle is replaced by a chariot ( 車).

 
Jenny
991796.  Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:10 am Reply with quote

That's interesting dr bartolo, and I will make a mental note of xiangqi for the X series, if we get that far.

 

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group