Page 1 of 3

Silly, strange and stupid questions from the public.

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 6:37 pm
by Master Thomas Pike
Hey Everyone,

I have only been reenacting now for around 5/6 months but having not yet missed one of our shows it has been interesting to talk to a wide variety of the public and to try and answer some of the questions and statements presented.

I thought I would start a thread in which we can share these little nuggets of 'wisdom'.

MTP

p.s. Please remember that this is not meant as a mean dig against the public, just some fun. A few of my best friends are even public members! :wink:

Let me start:
"So are you tramps?" asked by a young girl just after a friend of mine and I had explained to her brother that we were not Romans but medieval English.

Re: Silly, strange and stupid questions from the public.

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 6:43 pm
by Malvoisin
Master Thomas Pike wrote:I thought I would start a thread in which we can share these little nuggets of 'wisdom'.


Join the club. :roll: http://livinghistory.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18299

Search and you'll find many other "aren't normal people silly, not like us" etc, blah, blah, etc, type threads on this forum.... ZZzzzz.

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 6:52 pm
by Master Thomas Pike
lol I can't say I am surprised to find threads just like this one but I didn't know they exsisted or where they were. =D

Like I say above it is entertaining to hear some of the things people come out with.

One of our members has a great responce to "Is that a real fire?" which I'll wait till he posts it up here to share. =)

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 8:37 pm
by the real lord duvet
is it "f*** off you stupid chav"?

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 10:58 pm
by fangorn
i doubt it, that would lower you to beyond their level ! :D

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:04 pm
by the real lord duvet
there are many games that the old hands play at events. talk to jim smith about the strange ending sentence game first played at ludlow.

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 11:39 pm
by Trading-Dragon
In favour of our general public I would like to say that our Have-a-Go Archery attracts many interested young men who, although in tracksuits, will display an amazing level of skill and understanding in the handling of the bow. Others are complete numpties. Very often it's society itself that breeds them by depriving them of a broader horizon of interesting experiences.

There are many reasons why this is so: health and safety culture, no more school excursions, and sheltered living are some of my pet hates.

And still, if you take all this into considerations you still meet some people who are just THICK.

"Is that a real fire" is my all-time favorite, followed closely by a guy who haughtily exclaimed that he'd done archery before and that I ought to stop patronizing him. He promptly shot a nice groove into his index finger because he'd overdrawn the bow before I could stop him. Luckily he felt too embarrassed to sue us..!
...and then the lady who ran her mobility scooter through two lines of safety rope and traffic cones into out battle arena, nearly strangling herself on the rope in the process...you gotta love 'em. :?

Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:29 am
by Medicus Matt
Trading-Dragon wrote:In favour of our general public I would like to say that our Have-a-Go Archery attracts many interested young men who, although in tracksuits, will display an amazing level of skill and understanding in the handling of the bow.


For heavens sake, don't arm the b*ggers! :shock:

Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 2:45 pm
by Marcus Woodhouse
A really clever, interesting and challenging questions from MOP would be far more original. :roll:

Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 4:31 pm
by Hraefn
Like "So when did we (meaning humans) start keeping chickens then?"
That made me think....

Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:52 pm
by Malvoisin
Hraefn wrote:Like "So when did we (meaning humans) start keeping chickens then?"
That made me think....


I had that one, but about peacocks in england, I couldn't give an answer :oops: ...
Well I don't know everything! :lol:

Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:02 pm
by craig1459
The sillier the questions, the more purpose we have

Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:06 pm
by fangorn
jorvic viking festival this year, in the traders tent at de cliffords furriers

"Mummy, whats that?" says a young lass to her mother, shes pointing at a horse tail.

her mother replies "i have'nt a clue" so i said, "its an 'osses bum !" :lol:

to which her mother replies "ahh but at least its not real" :roll:

so i picked up the tail and turned it over to show the hide attached to the hair saying to the girl "look its still got its bum attached"

young girl goes "coooooool" , her mother goes green and tries to walk away, unfortunatly the girl by this time has found the masks, pelts etc and her mothers face has just about gone through the rainbow of colour changing before she basically had to drag the lass away :D

made me chuckle anyway :lol:

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:40 am
by Fox
I think the "is that a real...?" questions are just a sad reflection on our heritage industry, that their experience of historical sites is that a fire, or a baby or even a dog is going to be a fake.

But I never mind questions, no matter how stupid they first appear; I don't even mind the "but they didn't have..." statements, because they're really a form of question too.

What iritates me is parents who make things up for their children, right in front of you; especially if they're total, total hogwash.

And I could live without anyone referencing Braveheart again, although at least it's an opportunity to set the record straight.

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:58 am
by Medicus Matt
Fox wrote:
What iritates me is parents who make things up for their children, right in front of you; especially if they're total, total hogwash.


Oh I enjoy those, especially if there are other MOPs listening.
Wait for parent to finish talking cobblers and then start off with "That's not entirely correct sir..."

The best ones are when the parent then tries to get arsey about it.

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:33 am
by levyarcher
Fox
You surely don't mean that Mel got it wrong? NEVER!!!!
LMAO

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:50 am
by Marcus Woodhouse
Then again while getting all self righteous about it there are plenty of re-enactors who spout total B***cks or regurgitate old, out of date facts and information to the public giving an equally distorted, false image.
The commentators who go on about the effectiveness of an arrowstorm, the ineffectiveness of cannons, crossbows only being used by foriegn mercenaries, the "give fire" call (I'm going to warn you that I'm about to fire a gun so you can duck and take cover even though we're 200 feet from any action), the parleys that never happened, the "fights of the Champions" stuff.
All a load of crap and much of it given out as well.
I think the only people who are stupid are the ones who don't ask questions, and that includes the ones who express disbelief at seeing a "real baby" or fire ( who like as not only state the obvious because they are amazed that someone would bring a baby along to a re-enactment when dealing with one in the "modern" world is so much hassle or that H&S allows-for the moment-real fires to be lit.)
I've asked questions on this forum that now make me cringe with embaressment, and see some which make me wonder just what on earth is going on-in fact the utter inanity of most of what gets posted here makes me want to barf half the time.
At the same time I acknowledge (and try to let the poster know) that there are occasions when I am granted access to ideas and knowledge that make my understanding of this period much greater. (Though this happens less and less, in part because I make an effort to research and get more satisfaction by doing this myself.)
The "Aren't MOP silly and aren't we clever" posts grate on me for two reasons. The first is that in most cases MOP have paid to come and see/talk to us, that suggests they have an interest and a desire to learn, if they knew it all they would stay at home or pick holes in the glaring inaccuracies (just as re-enactors do at shows or while watching films/T.V.), the second is that even the most well informed re-enactors who post here, people I have a real admiration and respect for, are quite clear that they actually know very little about the period.

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:14 pm
by mike
Well here we go, in at the deep end with my first post here :oops:
Mostly I agree with what Marcus said above.
I have mostly maintained that the only stupid question is the one not asked and those that laugh at supposed "stupid question" often wanted to ask it too.
while wandering around at Kelmarsh this year young a lad was describing medieval archery equipment to a mum with her son. I had to bite my lip and walk away when he described his Hickory backed yew bow as a yew self bow. Another described his crescent arrow heads as horse cutters.
Not all MOP are stupid or ill informed. Some do not belong to reenactment groups but take at least a similar interest.
I've attended quite a few events and learnt a lot and hope I never stop learning. A lot of informative stuff on this site

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 1:37 pm
by Fox
mike wrote:I had to bite my lip and walk away when he described his Hickory backed yew bow as a yew self bow.

That does seem an odd thing to say; are you certain that it wasn't what he said it was? [In other words, how did you know it was a hickory?]

Marcus Woodhouse wrote:...in most cases MOP have paid to come and see/talk to us, that suggests they have an interest and a desire to learn...

I don't think that's true at all. A sizable chunk of those attending want something like Medieval Times; they want to be entertained by a Hollywood Film in the flesh, not educated.
That isn't to say that we shouldn't educated the biggins while they're not looking, but if you set out with the false premise it doesn't help.

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 1:57 pm
by mike
any bowman should be able tell a self bow, especially Yew, from a mile off. I've yet to see a self yew with a dead straight line between the sap and heart wood, along with no lumps, bumps or pins.
It didn't look like an Ash or Maple backing. Nothing wrong with that in itself, I have read that some yew was backed when the staves were of poorer quality but to portray what he was holding as a self yew is misleading IMO

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:03 pm
by Fox
Fair point. That indicates you had both a good enough view of what you saw and enough knowledge to know what your about.

So why did you bite your lip? You should have said something; get him out the habit of lying.

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:15 pm
by John Waller
mike wrote: Another described his crescent arrow heads as horse cutters.


So what are they for then?

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:02 pm
by mike
well they aint for cutting ships rigging either

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:11 pm
by Hobbitstomper
Alledgedly birds.

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:15 pm
by Medicus Matt
But weren't they used on the battlefield during the WotR? I'm sure I saw a reference to them being used at Tewkesbury somewhere.

Or did they stop to bag a brace for lunch?

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:28 pm
by John Waller
mike wrote:well they aint for cutting ships rigging either


So come on then. What do you know?

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:33 pm
by mike
the speed an arrow hits something like a goose, wouldn't be a good idea to have an arrow head that doesn't fully penetrate or even go right through?
There have been hundreds founds in old quays and some have speculated about ships rigging. as foul as they may taste, sea birds are a more likely target than tar coated rigging.
Do think the tendons of horses are going to be cut but a crescent head? you'd have be the finest archer on earth to achieve that, let alone allow for nay arrow spin. and why specifically aim at the legs when any part of a war horse penetrated deeply enough by any sort of head, would have the desired effect.

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 5:02 pm
by Hobbitstomper
Not sure what you mean Mike about geese.

I think the theory is that they are plenty for pheasants, pigeons and the like but are more likely to twist themselves out of they hit a tree or just bounce off undergrowth. A bit like a zudo point. Needs someone to do some experimentation.

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 5:58 pm
by Hraefn
I think they are just the muddyevil equivilent of a dumdum, nasty ripping tearing things.

Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:16 pm
by mike
nasty tearing ripping things they may be but as soon they hit bone, they stop.
I only picked out geese as an example. the inside of the crescent is sharpened, not the outer, so maiming the bird enough it can't fly.