5 claims they make:
If i'm not mistaken, Viking Age Scandinavians took great care of their personal image. They bathed when they had the chance and groomed their hair.
There are finds of combs in Scandinavia, and they're pretty common, and in several places in Iceland there are [hot baths] (http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/daily_living/pix/snorri_bath.jpg) and bathing is mentioned in several sagas and poems:
From Reginsmál (25):
Combed and washed every thoughtful man should be and fed in the morning; for one cannot foresee where one will be by evening; it is bad to rush headlong before one's fate.
Hávamál (61)
Washed and fed, a man should ride to the Assembly though he may not be very well dressed; of his shoes and breeches no man should be ashamed nor of his horse, though he doesn't have a good one.
I hope this is a good enough source, and there is more to be found in there. I'm just trying to help, but if it's inadequate or incorrect, mods feel free to remove this.
'2. Most samurai at the time fought with yari (long spear) and bow. The sword was still part of their armament, but it was considered a secondary weapon. That said, the cultural influence of swords for samurai can be traced to the 1588 sword hunt of Toyotomi Hideyoshi. Basically, the sword hunt banned anybody that wasn't a samurai (such as the warrior monks and peasant rebels) from carrying a sword. As a result, it became somewhat of a status symbol from that point onwards.
'4. In medieval times, while walls of pikes do stop cavalry charges, the problem was that in addition to knights and their men-at-arms, a substantial amount of a medieval levy consisted of ill-trained troops, hagtag groups of mercenaries, and in general troops that had not drilled together or trained well. The thing that really made the cavalry decisive was the fact that if enough men in a pike formation decided they would rather run than stay together, the formation wouldn't hold together, allowing the cavalry to punch through. And among ill-trained, undrilled troops, a lot of men would run. Cavalry charges are scary, above all else. I hate to point to a fictional movie as an example, but if you've seen Lord of the Rings ROTK, the scene where the Rohan cavalry charge, you notice how the Orc spearmen started backing up and the formation loses coherence as the cavalry approaches. That's the sort of thing the heavy cavalry charges relied on.
These charges remained effective for some time, even after the advent of firearms. At the Battle of Klushino in 1610, Polish heavy "winged" hussars repeatedly charged and broke a much larger Russian infantry formation, causing their troops to withdraw into fortified camps isolated from each other. It took the infantry square and improved rate of fire for the power of cavalry to weaken, although even then there were exceptions like Von Bredow's Death Ride in the late 1800s.
- Roman Gladiators are/were fat.
Contrary to Spartacus and Gladiator, men who fought in the arena typically were not at 5% body fat, glistening with oil and showing off their 6 packs. Specifically speaking, the belief is that due to a massive diet consisting primarily of simple grains (wheat, barley) and little protein, a bi-product of the diet was a bit of extra weight.
From the article:
Contemporary accounts of gladiator life sometimes refer to the warriors as hordearii--literally, "barley men." Grossschmidt and collaborator Fabian Kanz subjected bits of the bone to isotopic analysis, a technique that measures trace chemical elements such as calcium, strontium, and zinc, to see if they could find out why. They turned up some surprising results. Compared to the average inhabitant of Ephesus, gladiators ate more plants and very little animal protein. The vegetarian diet had nothing to do with poverty or animal rights. Gladiators, it seems, were fat. Consuming a lot of simple carbohydrates, such as barley, and legumes, like beans, was designed for survival in the arena. Packing in the carbs also packed on the pounds. "Gladiators needed subcutaneous fat," Grossschmidt explains. "A fat cushion protects you from cut wounds and shields nerves and blood vessels in a fight." Not only would a lean gladiator have been dead meat, he would have made for a bad show. Surface wounds "look more spectacular," says Grossschmidt. "If I get wounded but just in the fatty layer, I can fight on," he adds. "It doesn't hurt much, and it looks great for the spectators."
I can speak to the second item (or fourth as they present it). I have not read that Samurai were embarrassed by their swords, so I cannot comment on the authenticity of that claim. However, up until after the reunification of Japan under Hideyoshi and Tokugawa no Ieyasu, the bow was a critical part of Japanese warfare. Swords were definitely used as secondary weapons, similar to sidearms in modern warfare.
Focus on swordsmanship increased significantly during the long period of peace following the rules of Hideyoshi and Tokugawa known as the Edo or Tokugawa period. It was during this period that Samurai shed their armor (no one to fight) and swordsmanship turned from practical war applications to an emerging martial art. Keep in mind that this focus on swordsmanship took over seven centuries at least.
Like swordsmanship as well, archery grew in popularity in the Edo period and was already an established martial art and emerging sport with its inclusion in court rituals. If you'd like to know more about the Samurai or their weapons and how they were used, both sources below are excellent works and gave me the information to respond to your question.
"The First Samurai", by Karl F. Friday
"Armed Martial Arts of Japan", by G. Cameron Hurst III
Edit - Spacing for ease of reading.
- Cavalry charge can be easily defended in medieval warfare.
This is false. By any definition of easly, it is in fact very hard.
At the moment Im reading "Sowing the Dragon's Teeth: Byzantine Warfare in the Tenth Century" which goes into great detail on how to defend against charges of enemy heavy cavalery.
The Byzantines used professional troopes or at least well trained semi professional troupes and in there millitary manuals the dont make it sound at all easy. Their claim rather is, if your deployment is correct, and your man have the will to stand and fight you can break a charge.
The had special heavy spearman they would use as a special counter and we can see from there manuals that these heavy speer man increased over time in numbers. In order to break a charge you should have a very good archery support to weaken the lines.
Its also clear that the Byzantines changed there tactics a little to double the depth of the line where the charge arrived. It says the this changing of depth in line must be trained a lot and the troupes need to execute it fast.
So specially in these times having well armored troupes with the needed training and support structure is not easy at all. Argubly the majority of the medival armies did not have the infnatary to stand up to a charge of heavy cavalery.
Edit: It should also be noted that even when the Byzantine faced enemys that had good infantery, they would still relay on the charge as one of there most importent tools.
On the Roman auxiliaries, that's true. The say "The Roman army had absolute zero interest in offering each and every auxiliary unit the classic legionnaire uniform.", which is pretty self-evident. The auxiliaries weren't legionaries, so they wouldn't get (or need) the equipment of a legionary.
Indeed, as the article quite verbosely says, auxiliary units came from all parts of the empire; they had their own region-specific speciality (for instance Numidian and Iberian horsemen, Ligurian and Thracian light forces, Balearic slingers and Cretan archers) and used their own equipment.
[edit: spelling]
- Roman auxiliaries is not supplied with uniforms by the romans, instead they have to make their owns.
The Cracked article says, "That's because Imperial Rome's army was basically the ancient world's version of the French Foreign legion, only they didn't bother with matching uniforms."
I wouldn't agree with that.
The military, as a whole, DID bother with matching uniforms. At least around the time of Caesar (and it probably wasn't particularly novel even then) portion of every soldier's wage was withheld to cover the cost of the uniform he was issued, plus it's repair and replacement (and also to cover his rations, not to digress). Each legion traveled with artisans who kept the uniforms and gear in good repair and kept the shields properly painted.
From the images that exist, it would seem the legion's auxiliaries wore the standard-issue helmet, but distinct body armor more suited to their specialty. They also used a distinct but otherwise uniform shield. Here's auxiliaries depicted Trajan's column. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Engineering_corps_traian_s_column_river_crossing.jpg
They certainly look uniform to me.
Their comment on cavalry charges isn't entirely true. During the first crusade, the crusaders cavalry charges has been attributed as one of the main reason for their success in battle against the Muslim forces. John France military history of the first crusade, can't remember the exact title, gives a good insight into how horses were used in battle.
Cavalry charges weren't effective? I'm not home with my books, but the Polish Hussars were pretty damn effective at the Siege of Vienna.
I believe that bit about cavalry charges being easy to defend against is talking about pikes.
The Middle Ages is a very broad span on time. In the early Middle Ages heavy cavalry dominated battles, but when the Swiss developed trained pike units and demonstrated there martial power in several battles the tactic started to be adopted by most European powers.
The pikes would remain a dominate force on the battle field even up until the invention of firearms.
