Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VII

[Matthew]

Not really. What he described is "heavy leather armor" where you put additional layers of leather on the leather plates. Not sure if this was actually done, or even if all leather armor was actually made that way, but there's nothing that explains where the term "studded" comes from.

Ah, well, this is one of two descriptions in the DMG:



Leather Armour is shaped cuir bou[il]li (leather hardened by immersion in boiling oil) cuirass and shoulder pieces and softer shirt and leggings

Studded Leather is leather armour to which have been fastened metal studding as additional protection, usually including an outer coat of fairly close-set studs (small plates).

[Yora]

In that case it depends on the size of the "small plates". English isn't my native english, but I don't associate studs with plates.

[fusilier]

The first description (pg 165) sounds as if "studded leather" could mean something like a "coat of plates" (I think that's the term). Where only studs show on the outside, but the inside has larger plates. That's basically the way I've interpreted "studded leather" anyway; i.e. it describes the appearance of the armor, and not it's underlying construction.

[Galloglaich]

yeah, it's really obviously supposed to be Brigandine, which is much better armor than studded leather is in DnD. Basically it was just a mistake that was never corrected for 30 years.

Original DnD's system was fine for miniatures combat, but it wasn't granular enough for player characters in an RPG game. And it wasn't realistic, you could still pretty easily kill a first level fighter in full mail or even plate armor by cutting them once with a sword or an axe, which is ridiculous. But in a miniatures game like chainmail where you are going to have to resolve dozens of combats each turn it's an acceptable compromise.


So that and a few other flaws could have been fairly easily corrected if anyone had been paying attention in a grown-up way, instead unfortunately the original historical research by Gary Gygax (which was really quite good by the standards of the 1970s) became the high-water mark. The RPG world veered off down an increasingly ridiculous 'klingon' tunnel that made this completely new form of game play that no longer even involves any role playing, but instead is rather a very muted fantasy wish-fulfillment board game set up to take you along some very well-worn grooves.

Most of the early attempts to make more realistic games that i've ever looked at were based on Ren Faire cliches about Ye Olde Medievale Englande which had more to do with Monty Python and comic books than History or Literature or Mythology, and got bogged down in endless hit location and damage effect tables which were fun to read but took forever to actually play...

So this turned everybody off from any kind of realism or historical basis for game design and further entrenched the trend toward very specific narrow-track game style within the well worn cliche post-Literary (so called "Cinematic") Fantasy tropes, steepening the slope toward what the game is today (also spawning a whole new generation of computer games, manga, anime and really bad TV shows and films which have completely eclipsed the original 'grown up' fantasy genre in the pop culture, and even replaced a basic grasp of History for most people).

And those of us who liked to play a rather different way or who liked history and old fantasy Literature were kind of left behind by that new DnD bandwagon, standing on the side of the road with our Call of Cthulhu book and AD&D DMG in hand... wondering what had happened.

G.

[Fhaolan]

It's a problem of translation. Kinda like the old game of 'telephone'.

Gygax based his armour descriptions on a small book written by Charles Ffoulkes in 1909 for the layman, which was in turn based mostly on Samuel Meyrick's analysis of the Bayeux Tapestry. (Ffoulkes even mentions several times his reservations about Meyrick's conclusions in his book.)

Then each time the D&D description got re-written, it got altered slightly.

There are historical suits of armour that could be mistaken for 'Studded Leather' if you read the descriptions of their appearance without being able to examine the suit. It's really easy to go from the European coat of plates, brigandine, the Indian 'shirt of a thousand nails', or other non-European armours, and end up with something that sounds an awful lot like studded leather. Until you look closer.

[Galloglaich]

The interesting question to me is this... given how limited research resources were in the 1970s, Gygax did pretty well picking Ffoulkes, Ffoulkes has some errors and is a bit dated in certain respects, but he is a good source, I used Ffoulkes.

What is odd to me is that in the 1980s, 1990s, even early 2000s, when more and more sources became available especially after the explosion of the internet in the mid 1990s, very few game designers ever bothered to do any research on this or any of the other famous glaring holes in the basic building blocks in the combat systems of these games.

How many RPGs, how mny computer games, how many movies and Tv shows have repeated that old Studded Leather canard?

It's interesting to think about and extrapolate a little bit.

G.

[Galloglaich]

the Indian 'shirt of a thousand nails'

yeah that is another good one I forgot the shirt of a thousand nails... certainly studded in a way... but not leather! Not in Hindu India...

G

[Yora]

How many RPGs, how mny computer games, how many movies and Tv shows have repeated that old Studded Leather canard?
Given the crimes of movies and games when it comes to military technology, the studded leather armor really is nothing but a minor felony.

I just say "Glaive". :smallyuk:

[Galloglaich]

Ah... now you are bringing me back man!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBKcmg0c2bU&feature=related

[fusilier]

The interesting question to me is this... given how limited research resources were in the 1970s, Gygax did pretty well picking Ffoulkes, Ffoulkes has some errors and is a bit dated in certain respects, but he is a good source, I used Ffoulkes.

What is odd to me is that in the 1980s, 1990s, even early 2000s, when more and more sources became available especially after the explosion of the internet in the mid 1990s, very few game designers ever bothered to do any research on this or any of the other famous glaring holes in the basic building blocks in the combat systems of these games.

How many RPGs, how mny computer games, how many movies and Tv shows have repeated that old Studded Leather canard?

It's interesting to think about and extrapolate a little bit.

G.

I think Gary Gygax belonged to a different generation that was more historically minded. I can't find it right now, but I remember seeing an article online by Gygax that was about wargaming destroyer combat in the First World War. How many "mainstream" RPG designers would have the background to even tell you who the major participants were in WW1? The generation that followed had little to no interest in history, and didn't have any desire to understand and continue the historical groundwork that had laid the basis for the earliest fantasy roleplaying games. The result is that most fantasy rpg's gradually slipped away from those roots.

Historical wargaming, while still around, has taken a seat at the back of the bus, with only Warhammer Ancients and Flames of War to compete with the Warhammer Fantasy, Warhammer 40K, Warmachine, etc.

I think there is a general lack of interest in history, when compared to previous generations (I'm speaking about the US here specifically). Just look at old television series (Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett, lots of Westerns, Victory at Sea), and attempt to find any equivalent today.

I think most of the general public isn't interested in history, and neither are most game designers. History only gets in the way now, when one of us sticks our nose into their rulebooks and says "Plate armor didn't weigh that much", etc. GURPS has some good historical information, but that's inherent in its design which allows individuals to focus on a particular subject and produce a detailed sourcebook, while the primary rules provide a framework (this is not to say that GURPS is devoid of errors or mistakes). That's the only mainstream exception that I can think of.

[Raum]

I think there is a general lack of interest in history, when compared to previous generations (I'm speaking about the US here specifically). Just look at old television series (Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett, lots of Westerns, Victory at Sea), and attempt to find any equivalent today.I'm not sure I buy that...there is enough interest to support multiple cable / satellite channels after all. Even if much of the programming is relatively poor quality. :smallmad: Point is, good programming or not, the interest is there.


I think most of the general public isn't interested in history, and neither are most game designers. History only gets in the way now, when one of us sticks our nose into their rulebooks and says "Plate armor didn't weigh that much", etc. There has been a move over the last couple decades towards faster / simpler play even at the expense of realism. Over the Edge may have been the first (I'm not certain) but there have been many games since which move away from trying to duplicate Newtonian physics. I suspect this correlates with how tied the industry leaders / publishers were to historical war gaming roots. Just a wild guess.


GURPS has some good historical information, but that's inherent in its design which allows individuals to focus on a particular subject and produce a detailed sourcebook, while the primary rules provide a framework (this is not to say that GURPS is devoid of errors or mistakes). That's the only mainstream exception that I can think of.There are other examples...but game wars are probably best left to another thread. :smallwink:

[Matthew]

Yeah, it's really obviously supposed to be Brigandine, which is much better armor than studded leather is in DnD. Basically it was just a mistake that was never corrected for 30 years.

I dunno, seems like a sort of "reinforced leather" to me, which I think was basically what Gygax was aiming for. It is pretty much a mirror image of his Padded Armour (AC 8) and "Ring Mail" (AC 7).



Original DnD's system was fine for miniatures combat, but it wasn't granular enough for player characters in an RPG game. And it wasn't realistic, you could still pretty easily kill a first level fighter in full mail or even plate armor by cutting them once with a sword or an axe, which is ridiculous. But in a miniatures game like chainmail where you are going to have to resolve dozens of combats each turn it's an acceptable compromise.

Well, not to get too far off track, but there is:

The Mass Combat Chain Mail Rules [Figure Scale 1:10 or 1:20]
The Man to Man Chain Mail Rules [Figure Scale 1:1]
The Alternative Combat System [The OD&D alternative to Man-to-Man]

All of them use the "one minute" round and defer to the "one attack is not one blow" justification (so it is rarely a case of cutting a guy once with an axe or sword), but their main problem is always failure to wound. A guy is either dead or alive, and that is that.




*snippety snip*


Yeah, it is interesting to note that (according to a fairly recent interview I read) the entire TSR art department based its ideas on weapons and armour from attending "Ren Fayres" and occasionally trading art for items to use as models. That suggests a very low degree of information dissemination in the company as a whole. I definitely remember the watershed article for me, though, which appeared during the 3.0 run on the WotC website disavowing any historical pretence for weapons in favour of "fantasy"; a kind of Papal Infallibility clause. It does amuse me in a sort of insane way to see people talking about "knight killer" crossbows (http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2010/08/knight-killer-crossbow.html) and the like. Sort of a "little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing" scenario to my mind.



It's a problem of translation. Kinda like the old game of 'telephone'.

Gygax based his armour descriptions on a small book written by Charles Ffoulkes in 1909 for the layman, which was in turn based mostly on Samuel Meyrick's analysis of the Bayeux Tapestry. (Ffoulkes even mentions several times his reservations about Meyrick's conclusions in his book.)

Then each time the D&D description got re-written, it got altered slightly.

There are historical suits of armour that could be mistaken for 'Studded Leather' if you read the descriptions of their appearance without being able to examine the suit. It's really easy to go from the European coat of plates, brigandine, the Indian 'shirt of a thousand nails', or other non-European armours, and end up with something that sounds an awful lot like studded leather. Until you look closer.



The interesting question to me is this... given how limited research resources were in the 1970s, Gygax did pretty well picking Ffoulkes, Ffoulkes has some errors and is a bit dated in certain respects, but he is a good source, I used Ffoulkes.

What is odd to me is that in the 1980s, 1990s, even early 2000s, when more and more sources became available especially after the explosion of the internet in the mid 1990s, very few game designers ever bothered to do any research on this or any of the other famous glaring holes in the basic building blocks in the combat systems of these games.

How many RPGs, how many computer games, how many movies and Tv shows have repeated that old Studded Leather canard?

It's interesting to think about and extrapolate a little bit.

From what I recall, Gygax basically inherited a large book collection that was present in the house where he grew up and that he often consulted. That TSR had become a self devouring serpent during the 90s is no surprise given the politics of it all. The HR series (Historical Reference) is not too bad at all (and usually contains a reasonable suggested reading section), but stuff like the Arms & Equipment Guide is not only bad, but cut and pasted into the Baldur's Gate series, and we all know how popular that was! There is at least one hilarious exchange in Sage Advice that I enjoy quoting from time to time:


Q. I could not believe my eyes when I read your answer to the question about the cost of chain mail in issue #158. I, too, thought the prices had been misprinted. Your response that scale mail costs more to make than chain mail is idiotic and grossly unhistorical. Chain mail is made of wire (itself difficult and expensive to make) that is formed into links that are interlocked, then soldered or welded together. In the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., a Roman armourer, using techniques that remained essentially unchanged throughout the Middle Ages, could make four or five suits of chain mail a year. By contrast, scale mail uses metal plates ‘not wire’ that are simply sewn onto a leather shirt.

A. To reiterate, the base cost of chain mail in the AD&D 2nd Edition game is 75 gp, and the base cost of scale mail is 120 gp. Itemized breakdowns of the costs of manufacture for each type of armour are given on page 6 of the Complete Fighter’s Handbook. Your estimate of the construction time for chain mail agrees with the table in the Complete Fighter’s Handbook, where an unsupervised apprentice working in a properly equipped shop can make a suit of chain mail in 10 weeks (5.2 suits a year). However, two apprentices working under the same conditions take eight weeks to make a suit of scale mail (16 man-weeks in all). Scale mail requires more raw materials (60 gp worth) than does chain mail (38 gp worth); chain mail’s rings require less labour and metal than scale mail’s plates.

Note, however, that chain mail and scale mail come from two different historical periods. (See the Dungeon Master’s Guide, page 35, for a discussion of time periods in the AD&D game and their associated technology.) Scale mail, an ancient armour type, had all but disappeared by the time chain mail came into common use during the Middle Ages. Obviously, if you have a campaign set right on the borderline between the end of the Ancient period (when the DMG says chain mail doesn’t exist at all) and the beginnings of the Dark Ages, about 1100 A.D. or so, chain mail is going to be very expensive. There are several reasons for this. First, chain mail would represent the newest and best concept in body armour, keeping up with the latest developments is always costly. Second, the manufacturing techniques and advanced metallurgy that made chain mail economical to manufacture during the Middle Ages would not yet have been invented. Third, from a campaign standpoint, chain mail should be more expensive that scale mail; you can kiss your play balance goodbye if the best armour available isn’t also the most costly. You are free to set your own cost for chain mail in such a setting, but I recommend at least double (150 gp) and triple (225 gp) normal prices would not be unreasonable. Furthermore, chain mail in this setting probably would be made of iron, not steel, as the equipment list in the Player’s Handbook assumes. Such chain mail would weigh 50 lbs. instead of the listed 40 lbs., or 25% more (see DMG, page 38).

Speaking of the ‘unhistorical’: One does not have to have wire to make chain mail. The Romans used rings cut, punched, or drilled from sheets of metal. The Romans and ancient Chinese probably also had access to cast rings. Wire was pretty rare in medieval Europe, and most wire was gold, silver, or copper for use in jewellery and adornments. Medieval armourers almost certainly made their chain mail from rods that they forged themselves from ingots or bars; this is not as difficult as it sounds, especially when the armourer knew what he was doing and had his whole life to practice the skill. (Note that making a rod from a chunk of raw metal takes a lot less hammering than what would be required to make a flat plate out of the same piece of metal.) Furthermore, the chain mail currently preserved in museums and private collections is not soldered or welded, but riveted; in most cases, however, the rivets were hammered so carefully that the links appear to be welded. Finally, not all chain mail had its links fastened. Ancient armourers often simply linked the rings, as did their successors when they were in a hurry or wanted to cut costs. This generally made inferior armour, but Oriental armourers often made very good unriveted chain mail (as good as riveted mail) by using a superior alloy and by making each ring from two or three coils of rod.

For readers who are interested in learning more about the manufacture of chain mail and other types of armour, I recommend A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration, and Use of Arms and Armour, by George Cameron Stone. The book is uncommon but is available at better used book stores and at large libraries.


The mind boggles! To get a flavour of the books consulted, we can take a little look at the Bibliographies that do manifest from time to time:


Unearthed Arcana

Ashdown, Charles, Armour and Weapons in the Middle Ages (London
1925); British and Foreign Arms and Armour (London 1909)

Ffoulkes, Charles, Armour and Weapons (Oxford 1909)

Oman, C.W.C., A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages (two volumes,
London 1924)

Saxtorph, Niels, M., Warriors and Weapons of Early Times and Use of
Arms and Armor (New York 1934)

Encyclopedia Brittanica, Eleventh Edition (New York 1910-11)


Arms & Equipment Guide

Ashdown, Charles Henry. European Arms & Armour. Brussel & Brussel, New York, 1967.

Brooks Picken, Mary. The Language of Fashion. Funk and Wagnalls Company, New York, 1939.

Cassin-Scott, Jack. Costumes and Settings for Staging Historical Plays--Volume 2, The Mediaeval Period. Plays, Inc., Boston, 1979.

Duggan, Alfred. Growing Up in 13th Century England. Pantheon Books, New York, 1962.

ffoulkes, Charles. The Armourer and His Craft From the XIth to the XVIth Century. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1912 and 1988.

Gorsline, Douglas. What People Wore. Bonanza Books, New York, 1952.

Sichel, Marion. History of Men's Costume. Batsford Academic and Educational Ltd., London, 1984.

Stone, George Cameron. A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms and Armor in All Countries and in All Times. Jack Brussel, New York, 1961.

Tarassuk, Leonid, and Blair, Claude, editors. The Complete Encyclopedia of Arms and Weapons. Simon and Schuster, New York, 1979.

Yarwood, Doreen. The Encyclopedia of World Costume. Bonanza Books, New York, 1978.


So, there was additional research attempted by TSR, but it seems to have been very much a polyglot affair, to judge by the number of credited designers on the A&EG (which is not the case for the HR series).



Historical wargaming, while still around, has taken a seat at the back of the bus, with only Warhammer Ancients and Flames of War to compete with the Warhammer Fantasy, Warhammer 40K, Warmachine, etc.

Field of Glory has made a strong impression in recent years as well, but the basic dichotomy you are observing is that between "war gamers" and "fantasy fans", the latter being a much larger community than the former.

[Knaight]

I think Gary Gygax belonged to a different generation that was more historically minded. I can't find it right now, but I remember seeing an article online by Gygax that was about wargaming destroyer combat in the First World War. How many "mainstream" RPG designers would have the background to even tell you who the major participants were in WW1? The generation that followed had little to no interest in history, and didn't have any desire to understand and continue the historical groundwork that had laid the basis for the earliest fantasy roleplaying games. The result is that most fantasy rpg's gradually slipped away from those roots.

...

I think there is a general lack of interest in history, when compared to previous generations (I'm speaking about the US here specifically). Just look at old television series (Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett, lots of Westerns, Victory at Sea), and attempt to find any equivalent today.

As a member of the younger generation and thus a person best equipped to observe the generation as a whole in conditions liable to involve discussions of hobbies and interests, I'm inclined to disagree. Take your question about WWI, the vast majority of my peers, at least, know a fair few of the participants. Not all by any means, but the history is near universally known well enough to state that Germany invaded France through Belgium in a failed attempt to avoid a two front war, pitting them against England and Russia with allies in the Ottoman empire and Austria-Hungary. Canadian and Italian involvement throughout the war and the late U.S. involvement is also likely to be known, as is some of the historiography surrounding the war.

Beyond just the chosen example, some knowledge of history and interest in history is common. Sure, western folklore along the lines of Daniel Boone or Davy Crockett isn't seen as often, but the workings of European nobility in the late Medieval and early Renaissance era's is on the rise, along with pre-colonial New World cultures. Its not particularly accurate by any means, but its not as if Daniel Boone is much better. Furthermore interest in the early Mesopotamian cultures is on the rise, as well as interest in the Hittite Egyptian wars-though this must be credited at least partially to the dramatic increase in information on the Hittites after the 1960's.

You speak of the RPG market, and while the mainstream largely neglects history it is a small pool. D&D, White Wolf's products, and GURPS are the big three systems. Of the three, D&D is high fantasy so riddled with magic and superhuman ability that historical accuracy would be misplaced, White Wolf's products either take place in the modern area or are even higher fantasy than D&D (if not both), and GURPS is reasonably accurate. Looking at smaller games Burning Wheel does a very good job with realism, armor is extremely effective, some weapons are better than others at dealing with it without any making it anywhere near useless as appropriate to the era, and even the combat system isn't too fantastic. Riddle of Steel is comparable.

At the very least a pro-historical counterculture is emerging in regards to errors so often seen in fantasy. Claims of swords and axes weighing tens or hundreds of pounds are rightfully dismissed, poorly conceived terms like chainmail are being phased out, and the capacity of certain early renaissance or late medieval forces such as the Condoterri armies or Swiss phalanxes are being recognized amidst the downfall of notions of medieval primitiveness in warfare. The same is happening regarding sciences, economic systems, and other cultural movements.

All that adds up to an interest in history that has merely shifted, one supplemented by fantasy and myth without being replaced. It may even have increased. However, I have one more point to make, on a more personal note. I consider myself- and my diction in the post should provide evidence for this- a fairly average representative of my generation. I'll concede that my hobbies may include several that are not necessarily within the mainstream, but an interest in history isn't likely to be one of them.

EDIT: Given the number of intervening posts placed in the time it took to write this one, a few more points warrant address. The rise of fantasy fans seems to be taken as an indication of a decrease in historical interests, this is disingenuous at best. Looking at video games for evidence, as seems appropriate given the generation in question, several utterly absurd games are indeed popular. Look at Fire Emblem, a skirmish level game where wielding an axe with no shield somehow grants one an advantage against a mounted knight, where swords come with blades a decimeter or more wide, and where pikes with heavy slashing heads are wielded in one hand. One could take it as indication of the fall of historical interest. One could also take it as compartmentalization.

Coming back to myself as an example, having prior established my existence as a roughly average representative of my generation, I like those games. I know they are absurd, but I like them for what they are, its compartmentalization. Allowing unrealistic elements in fantasy is hardly turning my back on history, one might as well accuse the Hellenistic Greeks (as well as other era's) of having no historical interest given the feats assigned to mortal mythological figures.

[Crow]

Yeah right dude. You just go ask a bunch of high schoolers which country germany invaded france through. I thought yours was a joke post at first.

Good luck.

[Joran]

Yeah right dude. You just go ask a bunch of high schoolers which country germany invaded france through. I thought yours was a joke post at first.

Good luck.

The ignorance is likely to be staggering. I doubt it's confined to History though; the average high schooler is probably very ignorant about even current day events. There's always those very depressing surveys about X% of Americans can't find Iraq or Afghanistan on a map.


I'm not sure I buy that...there is enough interest to support multiple cable / satellite channels after all. Even if much of the programming is relatively poor quality. Point is, good programming or not, the interest is there.

Well, Pawn Stars, Ice Road Truckers, and American Pickers are apparently on the "History" Channel.

But I think Raum is right, there's interest, but it's sliced and diced. With the Internet and 300+ channels of cable TV, any interest can find a home. I think that's a problem in that people aren't liable to go outside of their interests anymore. They can just wallow in whatever obsesses them.

[fusilier]

I'm not sure I buy that...there is enough interest to support multiple cable / satellite channels after all. Even if much of the programming is relatively poor quality. :smallmad: Point is, good programming or not, the interest is there.

Cable and satellite channels have a much much smaller audience than the networks. As a result they can typically do things that are more "risque" or have smaller payoffs, as they can be tailored toward a specific audience. The fact remains that the network channels don't do this anymore. Such shows are not as popular. Also keep in mind that documentaries don't typically require the capital to produce that a historical drama requires.


There has been a move over the last couple decades towards faster / simpler play even at the expense of realism. Over the Edge may have been the first (I'm not certain) but there have been many games since which move away from trying to duplicate Newtonian physics. I suspect this correlates with how tied the industry leaders / publishers were to historical war gaming roots. Just a wild guess.

Realism isn't the issue here. It's knowledge of history, or interest in history, that I'm getting at. The Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett tv shows could probably not be called "true life historical dramas" -- and certainly not shows like Bonanza -- but they indicated that historical action/drama shows were popular and profitable.

[fusilier]

As a member of the younger generation and thus a person best equipped to observe the generation as a whole in conditions liable to involve discussions of hobbies and interests, I'm inclined to disagree. Take your question about WWI, the vast majority of my peers, at least, know a fair few of the participants. Not all by any means, but the history is near universally known well enough to state that Germany invaded France through Belgium in a failed attempt to avoid a two front war, pitting them against England and Russia with allies in the Ottoman empire and Austria-Hungary. Canadian and Italian involvement throughout the war and the late U.S. involvement is also likely to be known, as is some of the historiography surrounding the war.

Don't really know what you mean by "younger generation." All my references were to tv series that were well before my own time, and at best I saw in re-runs, or simply knew of their existence.

However, many of my friends would also know details of WW1 -- but that's not to say my friends are a representative sample of my generation. I encounter many people who know very little, and remember high school history classes where students could get the date of the American Civil War off by a century (I'm not kidding).




You speak of the RPG market, and while the mainstream largely neglects history it is a small pool. D&D, White Wolf's products, and GURPS are the big three systems. Of the three, D&D is high fantasy so riddled with magic and superhuman ability that historical accuracy would be misplaced, . . .

Let me interrupt you right here. This is exactly the attitude that I'm talking about. Read some of the other posts, look at the detailed historical discussion that went into determining the prices of armor! That's what eroded over time. D&D was not simply "high fantasy so we ignore everything about history": it's roots were strongly grounded in a deep historical understanding, on top of which a fantasy world was produced. It's not so much that the details were right or wrong -- it was a general attitude when approaching game design. Also the game designers seem to have assumed some understanding of history among their game players, or at least liked to point out the historical justification for some of their decisions. It's not that they were out to create a historically accurate rpg, but that their knowledge of history (and the knowledge of history that the players had) influenced how they created and designed games.

[Mike_G]

Realism isn't the issue here. It's knowledge of history, or interest in history, that I'm getting at. The Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett tv shows could probably not be called "true life historical dramas" -- and certainly not shows like Bonanza -- but they indicated that historical action/drama shows were popular and profitable.

Braveheart, Kingdom of Heaven, Ladyhawk, Princess Bride, the hundred or so Three Musketeers adaptations, Troy, Rob Roy, The Patriot, Gettysburg etc.

Not all very realistic, but at least as good as Davy Crockett or Errol Flynn as Custer or John Wayne as Ghenghis Khan, god help us.

[SoC175]

The ignorance is likely to be staggering. I doubt it's confined to History though; the average high schooler is probably very ignorant about even current day events. There's always those very depressing surveys about X% of Americans can't find Iraq or Afghanistan on a map. Well, given who is teaching (http://dirkriehle.com/humorous-takes/fun-photos/ch-according-to-cnn.html) them (http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/ellroon/syriaasafghanistan.jpg) nowadays, that's understandable :smalleek:

[fusilier]

Beyond just the chosen example, some knowledge of history and interest in history is common. Sure, western folklore along the lines of Daniel Boone or Davy Crockett isn't seen as often, but the workings of European nobility in the late Medieval and early Renaissance era's is on the rise, along with pre-colonial New World cultures. Its not particularly accurate by any means, but its not as if Daniel Boone is much better. Furthermore interest in the early Mesopotamian cultures is on the rise, as well as interest in the Hittite Egyptian wars-though this must be credited at least partially to the dramatic increase in information on the Hittites after the 1960's.

I wanted to respond quickly to this.

Ok, so where's all the tv series set in Ancient Egypt, or Renaissance Genoa, or whatever? There might be a miniseries from time-to-time on HBO, but once again we're back to cable. There is certainly nothing like the glut of Westerns that flooded the networks 50 years ago. During my own time, the only series *remotely* historical in nature that I can recall would be Hercules/Xena which were far more fantasy than history, and . . . sigh . . . Doctor Quinn Medicine Woman. That's literally all I can think of, except for the British imports that would show up on PBS from time-to-time, but those were rarely long running series.

[fusilier]

Braveheart, Kingdom of Heaven, Ladyhawk, Princess Bride, the hundred or so Three Musketeers adaptations, Troy, Rob Roy, The Patriot, Gettysburg etc.

Not all very realistic, but at least as good as Davy Crockett or Errol Flynn as Custer or John Wayne as Ghenghis Khan, god help us.

Oh yeah. There are movies. But I was referring to TV series. For that matter, my impression is that historical movies have become less common.

[Joran]

I wanted to respond quickly to this.

Ok, so where's all the tv series set in Ancient Egypt, or Renaissance Genoa, or whatever? There might be a miniseries from time-to-time on HBO, but once again we're back to cable. There is certainly nothing like the glut of Westerns that flooded the networks 50 years ago. During my own time, the only series *remotely* historical in nature that I can recall would be Hercules/Xena which were far more fantasy than history, and . . . sigh . . . Doctor Quinn Medicine Woman. That's literally all I can think of, except for the British imports that would show up on PBS from time-to-time, but those were rarely long running series.

How about ancient Rome with Spartacus and Rome (on paid cable channels)?

The problem with network TV is that it has to pander to the least common denominator. So, procedural dramas (doctors, lawyers, police officers) are exceedingly popular and easy to sell in syndication. Throw in the glut of cheap, easy to make reality shows and there's not much space for a Western.

On the movie screen, every year, there's at least 1-2 very good Westerns. What used to be made up in quantity is now made up in quality. There are probably fewer Westerns but they tend to be VERY good.

The interest in history can actually be seen in video games. Assassin's Creed (Renaissance Italy), Civilization, the Total War series are all very popular and take place in the past.

[fusilier]

How about ancient Rome with Spartacus and Rome (on paid cable channels)?

The problem with network TV is that it has to pander to the least common denominator. So, procedural dramas (doctors, lawyers, police officers) are exceedingly popular and easy to sell in syndication. Throw in the glut of cheap, easy to make reality shows and there's not much space for a Western.

Right! The least common denominator would rather watch the umpteenth variant of CSI, than a Western, or series about Daniel Boone, or a decent sci-fi show like Babylon 5. Whereas, in the past Westerns and Daniel Boone could thrive on the networks. Which indicates that fewer people have an interest in such shows now as they did then.


On the movie screen, every year, there's at least 1-2 very good Westerns. What used to be made up in quantity is now made up in quality. There are probably fewer Westerns but they tend to be VERY good.

I would agree with this in general. Typically when a historical or western movie is done now, they are much better productions. On the other hand, that doesn't mean they fair well at the box office. And sometimes they are still pretty bad (Flyboys).


The interest in history can actually be seen in video games. Assassin's Creed (Renaissance Italy), Civilization, the Total War series are all very popular and take place in the past.

This may be fair. But you have to consider that video games are a decidedly different medium -- and I am still unsure about how they fit in with popular media. Also, I would contend that, proportionally, you probably saw more interest in history in video games 15-20 years ago than you do now. On the other hand, games like Assassin's Creed don't hinge their popularity on their historical setting, but also are comfortable adopting a historical setting. So perhaps there will be swing in this direction.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

The interest in history can actually be seen in video games. Assassin's Creed (Renaissance Italy), Civilization, the Total War series are all very popular and take place in the past.

I would agree that the Assassin's Creed series offers an insight into the youth of today's interest in history - it has a large number of little facts about the various places explored within (at least the second and third titles do) - but I would worry about using it as a shining example, as playing with history is very much at its core.

Still, it has driven me to learn more about the history of the era (the foci of my studies had been Bonaparte era France and Herodotus' and Thucydides' histories) so I have a question for you all - what books would be good to read if one were interested in learning about the renaissance, preferably from primary sources? I would of course need translations, and are there any particularly bad translators for works of this period (Fagles' translations of Homer's epics spring to mind) that I should avoid?

[Matthew]

In an attempt to short circuit the direction the discussion is heading now, I just wanted to mention a bit about Greek Fire I was browsing today in A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder (http://books.google.com/books?id=fNZBSqd2cToC&printsec=frontcover&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false), particularly pages 10-32.

[fusilier]

In an attempt to short circuit the direction the discussion is heading now, I just wanted to mention a bit about Greek Fire I was browsing today in A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder (http://books.google.com/books?id=fNZBSqd2cToC&printsec=frontcover&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false), particularly pages 10-32.

The pages are blocked on the preview. What exactly did you want to mention about it? I think I'm with you on trying to change the direction of the discussion. :-)

[Kalaska'Agathas]

The pages are blocked on the preview. What exactly did you want to mention about it? I think I'm with you on trying to change the direction of the discussion. :-)

But I really would like to read actual history books about renaissance Italy! Can we at least continue the topic in that direction, for a little bit?

[Matthew]

The pages are blocked on the preview. What exactly did you want to mention about it? I think I'm with you on trying to change the direction of the discussion. :-)

There is a lot of interesting titbits, but I particularly enjoyed reading about Arab naptha throwers with special non-flammable suits, and the idea of guys with hand pumps shooting fire from behind metal shields.



But I really would like to read actual history books about renaissance Italy! Can we at least continue the topic in that direction, for a little bit?

Sounds interesting. If anybody has any recommendations they should certainly make them!

[fusilier]

But I really would like to read actual history books about renaissance Italy! Can we at least continue the topic in that direction, for a little bit?

I was looking for some a couple months ago, and wasn't terribly impressed with what I saw. The Medici series on PBS (Medici: Godfathers of the Renaissance - ?) was pretty good, and piqued my interest in the era. For information on Condottieri I would suggest "Mercenaries and their Masters", by Michael Mallet. It's a bit rambling, but had a lot of information in it. I was rather disappointed with the Osprey book on Condottieri after having read Mercenaries and their Masters. Hopefully someone else will chime in with better and more general recommendations.

[Karoht]

/rant
I have a friend who worked at the Glenbow Museum of Calgary, Heritage Park, and now the Military Museum of Calgary. Common observation of all 3?
Teachers treat field trips and visits to such sites the same way parents treat dropping kids off at school. It's babysitting. Teachers literaly treat the museum/park staff like a bunch of babysitters. They dump the kids in their lap and then go outside and have a smoke. Really.
/rant off

On the other hand, when the teachers are actually engaged and involved in any of the demonstrations or discussions at the museum, the kids are usually 100% more attentive. Especially if it involves the teacher getting dressed up in something like bomb squad body armor, or having to act out a scene with someone else. The one all the kids like, is when the military official treats the teacher like they're in basic training. And the teacher is doing silly things like pushups. Of course, right after this, the military official typically involves the kids and makes them march or something.
/demi-rant off

Oh well. History is really cool. It's a shame more people don't see it that way, or have perhaps had it poorly presented to them.

[AslanCross]

Oh well. History is really cool. It's a shame more people don't see it that way, or have perhaps had it poorly presented to them.

Alas, this is true. In this country, history is often treaded as extended classes of meaningless memory exercises. :smallsigh:

[Galloglaich]

There has been a move over the last couple decades towards faster / simpler play even at the expense of realism. Over the Edge may have been the first (I'm not certain) but there have been many games since which move away from trying to duplicate Newtonian physics. I suspect this correlates with how tied the industry leaders / publishers were to historical war gaming roots. Just a wild guess.

Faster and more realistic are not in opposition, in FRPGs or Wargames. That is one of the fundamental fallacies which has been plaguing the industry for the last several years.

G.

[Galloglaich]

At the very least a pro-historical counterculture is emerging in regards to errors so often seen in fantasy. Claims of swords and axes weighing tens or hundreds of pounds are rightfully dismissed,(snip).

I think you are right to some extent, thanks partially to the internet and threads like this one and a few other sites, and the albiet limited success a handful of quasi-historical or quasi-realistic computer games (medieval total war, mount and blade), the rise in the entertainment world of MMA (and to some extent it's eclipsing fake wrestling a little bit), and some folks like several people in this thread who have been proselytising the HEMA / WMA gospel to gamers and spreading the Good News of Ewart Oakeshott. :P

I think you are a more rare type of kid than you realize, like the others said, the average American high school student probably isn't sure what country they are in, but I agree there is starting to be a little bit of a counterculture which appreciates the potential of History and even realism in all forms of entertainment. All I wanted to do with the codex and the work I did with TROS was to help carve out a niche, I really don't care if people want to play candyland and call it DnD, so long as there is a little room for me to play these games the way I want to. And the truth is, there is a little room now.

G.

[Knaight]

Yeah right dude. You just go ask a bunch of high schoolers which country germany invaded france through. I thought yours was a joke post at first.

I am to use your term, a highschooler. I can guarantee, that, at least among my direct colleagues in academia there is not one person who would get that question wrong.

Regarding the points brought up as to the dearth of material on several of the subjects mentioned, they were largely confined to a single medium, that is to say TV. While I'll be the first to admit that the plural of anecdote is not data, looking at several sources of a more literary type even in the relatively small city I live in creates a slightly more positive spin. The local public library, for instance, is frequented even by other high school students -academic research is part of that, but not all. Among the areas frequented is the nonfiction section, most notably historical and bibliographical texts. Again, it must be stated that some portion of this is history, but given how frequently the nonfiction books are checked out, and how popular the library is even in the backwater I live in. It may be indicative of a greater trend, or perhaps not; the former strikes me as somewhat more likely. I'll acknowledge the possibility that I'm a hopeless optimist regarding the state of the average person.

Rerailing into historical discussion of weaponry and surrounding culture, there is a relatively low end book that spends some time on Condoterri. Machiavelli: The Politics of Power, by an author I no longer remember. The title rather explicitly lays out the content, but the Condoterri played a very large role in the military plotting Machiavelli was behind. It should at least be easy to find.

[Raum]

Faster and more realistic are not in opposition, in FRPGs or Wargames. That is one of the fundamental fallacies which has been plaguing the industry for the last several years.You might note that I didn't state they were in opposition. Whether they are or not is probably better left to a different thread.


In an attempt to short circuit the direction the discussion is heading now, I just wanted to mention a bit about Greek Fire I was browsing today in A History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder (http://books.google.com/books?id=fNZBSqd2cToC&printsec=frontcover&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false), particularly pages 10-32.Regarding Greek fire, has there been any consensus on what it consisted of? The book you reference appears to offer several possible ingredient lists...and then shoot them down. Granted, I've only read a few of the pages you pointed at - as fusilier mentioned several are blocked.

The mechanism used also interests me. How far would a man powered siphon have been able to spray a liquid / gel? It looks like the middle east used earthenware pots instead of a siphon / sprayer mechanism.

[Knaight]

The mechanism used also interests me. How far would a man powered siphon have been able to spray a liquid / gel? It looks like the middle east used earthenware pots instead of a siphon / sprayer mechanism.

There are several historical images regarding the use of a flamethrower as a ship to ship weapon by greek forces. I'll dig it up if possible, though I'm having little luck with the internet currently.

[J.Gellert]

http://a697.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/95/l_0af4f290b950b705d7349dfe6055eed0.jpg

Middle-eastern "Greek fire" had likely nothing to do with Byzantine Greek fire.

[Galloglaich]

Well, Pawn Stars, Ice Road Truckers, and American Pickers are apparently on the "History" Channel.


What they do now with Cable is establish a brand, like "Music Television" or Discovery or the Learning Channel or the History Channel, and then once people are used to thinking of the channel as having certain programming, after that they can show any crap they want ... subconsciously I was still expecting music videos on MTV and History on the History channel for years after they quit having such content.

But I agree it does indicate that there is or was an interest in History, it's just been expensive and / or difficult to produce or incorporate into other entertainment products. History or archeology shows are complicated to run, you have to deal with academic experts, travel to distant locations, secure rights to display artifacts, build models, make CGI etc. It's cheaper to show reality shows about hoarders or whatever.

Similarly, I think, with RPGs.

G

[Salbazier]

Alas, this is true. In this country, history is often treaded as extended classes of meaningless memory exercises. :smallsigh:

True here as well. When I was younger, my brother came back from overseas bringing a Prentice Hall history book (for what grade I don't know). Oh man, I spend days reading that book and it still fun to me even now to read that book again. So many precious insight.

Compared to my school textbook, Oh my God. The subject is very boring and the books are very boring. Worse, the curiculum repeats. Dunno how they do it other countries, but this always a pet peeves of mine. By the time I was in senior highschool, I was learning something that has been taught twice before at Elementary and junior high, just with added tidbits and a some world history mixed in. At least current curriculum has move away from the days where student must memorize dates.

Still, the boring presentation really doesn't help in cultivating interest in national history. Looking back, there is sooo many things they can do to make it interesting.

Sorry, if my rant is rather off-topic or helping in that direction :smalltongue:.

[Psyx]

I definitely remember the watershed article for me, though, which appeared during the 3.0 run on the WotC website disavowing any historical pretence for weapons in favour of "fantasy"; a kind of Papal Infallibility clause.

Kinda like the way the L5r team always used to shout 'this is not medieval Japan' whenever someone questioned the absurdity of something. Then they all chorused 'look it up in a book on Medieval Japan' whenever there was a query on culture or description of weaponry or similar.


Faster and more realistic are not in opposition

Bingo. Elegance should be the goal of system design. Detailed critical tables are not required to make a realistic combat system.

[Mr White]

But I agree it does indicate that there is or was an interest in History, it's just been expensive and / or difficult to produce or incorporate into other entertainment products. History or archeology shows are complicated to run, you have to deal with academic experts, travel to distant locations, secure rights to display artifacts, build models, make CGI etc. It's cheaper to show reality shows about hoarders or whatever.

Similarly, I think, with RPGs.

G

I don't agree with the bolded part. I'll agree that history may be out of the comfort zone of game designers but rectifying that situation isn't more expensive than an internet connection, a library card and the will to get things right. You can see writers do it, why would it be any different for game designers?

I have dozens of comics (French-Belgian) with extensive footnotes or at least acknowledgements towards experts. Where's the difference with RPG's?

[Psyx]

As someone who designs games for kicks, I can say that it's got a LOT easier over the last ten years to do the research. Prior to the common availability of both the Net and modern well-researched historical texts, a lot of the research material was either hard to come by or a mix of opinion and citations from 80 year old texts which are absurdly wrong by today's standards.

Historical RPGs should be getting more accurate, not less accurate.

[J.Gellert]

As someone who designs games for kicks, I can say that it's got a LOT easier over the last ten years to do the research. Prior to the common availability of both the Net and modern well-researched historical texts, a lot of the research material was either hard to come by or a mix of opinion and citations from 80 year old texts which are absurdly wrong by today's standards.

That brings back memories, of going to the library to find stuff to read. Back then I thought Google was a funny word. Different times.


Historical RPGs should be getting more accurate, not less accurate.

"Should" as in "it makes sense" or "they must"? Because not everything historical cares much for history, historically :smalltongue:

--Edit (off-topic)--
As for History channel, don't forget the Nostradamus Effect... Argh! Come on!

[Psyx]

That brings back memories, of going to the library to find stuff to read. Back then I thought Google was a funny word. Different times.


I spent three years in a country with no accessible public libraries, one half-decent book shop and where the internet was illegal trying to do research and write games to make up for not getting to play any! Researching a Sengoku Period semi-historical game was not very productive.

In fact, 'gamer' research is often rather difficult, because the things that gamers 'need' to know when writing games are not things that are often well documented. Not in any one easy-to-get tome at any rate. It must be said that after several years of looking for good gaming source material, by far the most useful reference was the 'Sengoku' RPG!

[Sarakos]

This deviates from the current discussion a bit. But Its relevant to a campaign to know how quickly could the average 13th-14th century crossbowman reload and fire?

[Mike_G]

This deviates from the current discussion a bit. But Its relevant to a campaign to know how quickly could the average 13th-14th century crossbowman reload and fire?


That all depends on the crossbow. The very light hand spanned crossbows could probably shoot every 6-10 seconds. Once you are using a cranequin or windlass, to span it, you're probably talking 30 seconds or more, depending on weight.

[Spiryt]

Second half of thepage 26 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168432&page=26).

Taking into account, that things like windlasses or cranequins were not present in 13 -14, so you would have hand span, belt hooks, goat's foot, (or simpler stuff like wippe).

[Galloglaich]

What is the difference between a wippe and a goats-foot?

G.

[Spiryt]

Maybe that was not the best way to put it - it seems that wippe is just lever, similar to goats foot, that pushes string to span it, instead of pulling it.


Page 12 (http://oldenbolts.com/crossbows.net/IFBOC-2nd.pdf) from http://crossbows.net/ifboc.php


Wippe (http://users.utu.fi/sjsepp/paja/making_a_wippe/making_a_wippe.html)

[Galloglaich]

Thanks, that is very helpful... I never did understand what the difference was exactly. So a Wippe is basically a simpler version of a goats-foot probably suitible for slightly weaker crossbows.

One thing people don't realize about mechanical spanning devices is that even for weapons you can span without a device, it helps to have these if you are shooting over and over, so you don't wear yourself out... which will happen quickly if you are spanning even a 200 -300 lb weapon over and over.

G.

[Psyx]

It is indeed worth pointing out that spanning a crossbow is hard work, unless some form of ratchet is involved, or the crossbow is low powered. The idea that anyone can pick up a massive crossbow and repeatedly fire it without exerting themselves is a bit of a myth.

[Spiryt]

Thanks, that is very helpful... I never did understand what the difference was exactly. So a Wippe is basically a simpler version of a goats-foot probably suitible for slightly weaker crossbows.
G.

Or suitable for the same crossbows, making reloading more challenging, as it indeed looks like more tricky way to reload, and less efficient.

However, it looks as a bit quicker process than goats foot reload, although I'm not really sure.

[Sarakos]

Thanks for the replies on the crossbows. The main reason I asked was I was thinking of homebrewing some rules for gunpowder weapons. Specifically the muskets and rifles of the late 18th- early 19th century and was thinking I would use the reloading rules of crossbows for guns as well.

Thus, a pistol would use the reload times of a hand crossbow, a musket would reload as quickly as a light crossbow and rifles use the reload time of a heavy crossbow. I know since a round is only 6 seconds it's unrealistic that someone could fire a gun so quickly but it's just as unrealistic that a 20th level ranger with rapid shot and manyshot could fire 10+ arrows in the same 6 seconds and, depending on gear and ability scores, reliably hit with all 10+

Against one of these guns I think I'd rule that only half of your armor bonus from wearing armor counts towards deciding whether the bullet hit. This is to represent the bullets ability to punch through medieval armor though still maintaining the possibility that the bullet may be deflected by something like a curve in the armor rather than absorbing the full brunt of it.

Finally, to balance this out I was going to add a homebrewing armor enhancement called Bulletproof that allows the owner of the armor to add his full armor bonus to AC against the gun. This is to represent the advanced forging techniques that came out once guns were invented to make armor tough enough to reliably stop a bullet.

I know I'm fudging my history a bit here as "bulletproof" armor was designed to handle 16th-early 17th century guns and a musket from the early 19th century had the power to punch through such armor but in the interest of balance I'm planning to handle things this way lol

Edit: since the average soldier could fire about 2-3 shots a minute and a veteran soldier could fire up to 4, and in rare cases 5 shots a minute i also think I'd allow feats such as rapid reload to apply to firearms and maybe improved critical as well and fluff it as the gun being custom made with improved sights

[Spiryt]

I know I'm fudging my history a bit here as "bulletproof" armor was designed to handle 16th-early 17th century guns and a musket from the early 19th century had the power to punch through such armor but in the interest of balance I'm planning to handle things this way lol

No reason to 'streamline' it like that - some 16th century muskets were powerful guns launching big bullets, 19th century ones weren't necessarily really more powerful, in fact opposite was often true - as they weren't really expected to face much armor at all.

Development and evolution didn't really go in simply 'more power' way.

[Karoht]

That reminds me, someone was going to watch the movie Paschendale. I forget who. Really really accurate movie according to all the veterans and the people at the museum. Was curious if that description rings true or not.

[Yora]

That reminds me, someone was going to watch the movie Paschendale.
That time they were certainly going for "more power". It proved you can wipe an entire town off the face of the earth without any traces left with conventional shells. You just have to keep the guns fireing for months.

[Myth]

Hey guys, I went to the UK for the holidays. I've been there before, and I have visited the Royal Armories at Leeds.

I now had more time in London and went to observe the Wallace Collection (my poor Eastern European pocket rejoiced at the free admission :smallredface:). There were some great German suits of full plate from the 1500s as per usual (I find them more appealing than Italian/Spanish suits) but one thing that really caught my eye was a beast of a two hander... It was absolutely huge... :smalleek:

There was a reference book, it said it was an "exceptionally large two handed sword from around 1580 and of Germanic origin." nothing more. Pretty sure it's this one (http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMuseumPlus?service=direct/1/ResultLightboxView/result.t1.collection_lightbox.$TspTitleImageLink.l ink&sp=10&sp=Scollection&sp=SfieldValue&sp=2&sp=3&sp=2&sp=Slightbox_3x4&sp=0&sp=Sdetail&sp=0&sp=F&sp=T&sp=4#), I remember the number being around 470 and there's no larger sword than this one in the results around that number.

Now if I had seen this in a movie I'd have rejected it as a typical Hollywood exaggeration. Seems I was wrong. Have you guys seen such large blades? How tall would a man have to be to wield one without trouble?

[Psyx]

^Link has expired.

A lot of massive swords were parade items and never intended for warfare. Do you know the weight of the blade, as that would be indicative.

Free museums rock.




Really really accurate movie according to all the veterans and the people at the museum.

I don't think there are any surviving veterans of the period are there?

[Salbazier]

How long it took to make a sword? (back then in the past, not now)

[Myth]

^Link has expired.

A lot of massive swords were parade items and never intended for warfare. Do you know the weight of the blade, as that would be indicative.

Free museums rock.

Go to http://www.wallacecollection.org/ and put "A473" in the search field. You will see the beast.

[Psyx]

Thanks.

At a little over 2.5kg and at 135cm this is still a very usable blade. It's really not that heavy and would easily be wielded by someone of non-extraordinary size.
remember that the wielder can shift a hand to above the quillions [guard] for greater control, if required.




How long it took to make a sword? (back then in the past, not now)


That depends on what you're asking, and in what period.

Getting hold of the iron and smelting it is stage one of the process, of course.
Any blade of a composite structure would then be made and worked by a smith. these are the type of blades that would take the greatest amount of time, as two types of iron would be amalgamated into a single blade.

Whereas by the time we got around to making steel blades, I understand that it was more of a multi-stage process with a lower over-all production time, as they were first created as steel 'blanks' before being worked by smiths into actual blades, prior to being sold to cutlers who fitted the furniture.

[Salbazier]

Well, generally I think of Europe medieval times, but I like to know about other region/time periods as well.

[Myth]

Thanks.

At a little over 2.5kg and at 135cm this is still a very usable blade. It's really not that heavy and would easily be wielded by someone of non-extraordinary size.
remember that the wielder can shift a hand to above the quillions [guard] for greater control, if required.

135cm of blade is basically shoulder length for an average sized man. Certainly not your average sized German (Northern European blood is strong and tall), but even he would be about 1.80 on average. So his sword is slightly shorter than himself. Sounds to me this will be used mainly as a spear with half-swording techniques. Swinging that thing around is too much for me to imagine, although some practitioners can tell us otherwise.

[Spiryt]

This sword?

http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMuseumPlus?service=DynamicAsset&sp=SU5mxm4Yx%2FVbg9LVP7MZLDqo6z5lhONBxez%2FYx5EhVS CZjU0bcvvsnPxkoLiFJnF9QzRY98OZwV1b%0AfnOjhdzPJCrGy %2BOIZxfXys9Yi8S8yOJjS%2FUfD2x%2FDJqlPqbqrNmy&sp=Simage%2Fjpeg

The data is a bit unclear, but even if 135 cm and 40 cm "button to quillons" means it's 175 cm in overall, it's not really that long for a two hander.

In Gliath (http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/Goliath_part2.htm) you can see people fighting with swords that would reach at least their necks.

[Yora]

135cm of blade is basically shoulder length for an average sized man. Certainly not your average sized German (Northern European blood is strong and tall), but even he would be about 1.80 on average.
Today. In the past people were much shorter. Even around here. Just 200 years ago, people were 15 cm shorter.

[Salbazier]

^Is that something like a Flamberg? Wasn't such swords was used to break infantry or something like that (vague memory...) Anyway, it wasn't for 'normal' swordfighting purpose wasn't it?

[Yora]

No, flammbergs are blades with wave-shaped edges instead of the nomal straight edges.

[Spiryt]

Today. In the past people were much shorter. Even around here.Just 200 years ago, people were 15 cm shorter

Not really. People were much shorter around 18 - 19th century, due to climate changes, illnesses, poor nutrition, pestilences and such stuff.

Well fed, active people like many knights weren't really much shorter than we're today.


135cm of blade is basically shoulder length for an average sized man. Certainly not your average sized German (Northern European blood is strong and tall), but even he would be about 1.80 on average. So his sword is slightly shorter than himself. Sounds to me this will be used mainly as a spear with half-swording techniques. Swinging that thing around is too much for me to imagine, although some practitioners can tell us otherwise.

Check "John C. demonstrates an
intermediate greatsword
florysh"

here (http://www.thearma.org/Videos/TPVideos.htm)

[J.Gellert]

Today. In the past people were much shorter. Even around here. Just 200 years ago, people were 15 cm shorter.

Which doesn't mean that 400 years ago, people were 30 cm shorter.

Height hasn't changed that much since ancient times. It just jumped recently. That's all. People in the past were not midgets.

So yeah, a big sword back then would be a big sword now.

[Yora]

I looked it up. Height seems to be quite consistent, except for a massive drop during the 17th and 18th century. Urbanization and (proto-)industrialization were not kind to people's health.

[Spiryt]

Height hasn't changed that much since ancient times. It just jumped recently. That's all. People in the past were not midgets.



Like I said, most importantly, it decreased significantly during around 1700 - 1900 among poor people, peasants etc.

Basically due to complete separation from beneficial, natural human diet and environment, without advanced medicine and stuff yet.

[Spiryt]

This gentleman here (http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=47005&st=53) had collected few accurately measured armors.

Here few articles (http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=47005&st=5)

[Psyx]

Today. In the past people were much shorter. Even around here. Just 200 years ago, people were 15 cm shorter.

Henry VIII was I believe 6' 2", for reference.

Remember that when speaking of the panoply of war for the nobility (such as weapons like this), the nobility were not malnourished, nor vastly shorter than ourselves.



Wasn't such swords was used to break infantry or something like that (vague memory...) Anyway, it wasn't for 'normal' swordfighting purpose wasn't it?

Pike blocks, allegedly.

When you compare the weight of this blade to any pole-weapon, you can see that it's not that monstrous, if wielded correctly.

[Yora]

What I never understood is how you get a good swing without getting stabbed. Just pull your spear or pike back 40 cm and when the guy with the sword is close, you and four of your friends stab him at the same time.

Most probably not how it actually went, but I can't figure it out.

[Spiryt]

What I never understood is how you get a good swing without getting stabbed. Just pull your spear or pike back 40 cm and when the guy with the sword is close, you and four of your friends stab him at the same time.

Most probably not how it actually went, but I can't figure it out.

This doesn't take account into how they can get good stab if they are already pulling spears back and then have to thrust, how the guy is opposing it by closing the distance still, and how guy has breastplate, so they shove quick stabs till the judgment day, if they want.

Basically way to simple view, like a guy who entered longsword fencing competition once, saying "I'll force the high parry then enter with kick, and I win". He hasn't won once, of course. :smallwink:

[Myth]

I've seen three pieces of plate that belonged to the infamous Henry VIII. He was a big guy and athletic around age 22. He then got wider later on, but is still a big boy by any standards. No giant or anything but definitely would stand out today.

The flourishes that John C is doing are with a smaller sword than the one I observed if I'm not mistaken. Seriously I might be wrong on the specific one (remembering the number only vaguely). If there is anyone from London here, go to the Wallace Collection, it's in the center on Manchester Square and tell us the exact number and measurements. To me it seemed massive. Perhaps It wasn't so off, but there were other two handers and they were all smaller.

[Spiryt]

Have seen this article (http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html)?

Shows how swords as long as wielder can be used well.

They were big, indeed, so had to be used appropriately, but nothing really weird about it. Relatively long handles are giving many options, if required.

Many longer pole weapons were swung effectively, and they weren't even built similarly to swords.

[Myth]

Seen the article naturally, but the part where we don't have any instructions on how to wield them makes me think that everything we are doing today is speculation or adaptation of styles for smaller swords.

BTW whilst we are talking about massive polearms, you won't believe the size of a glaive i saw there. Let me look it up and show it to you guys.

edit: here it is: # A950

It's huge, but processional makes me think it's just for show.

[Maclav]

Here is some newer work on "really big swords"

Ilkka Hartikainen's take on Marozzo's Primo Assulto, Spada du Mano. He repeats it a few times in the video. The last starting at minute 4 he is using a weapon 6 feet in length. Note there is a bit of one handing and grappling even with this giant weapon.

http://www.marozzo.com/blog/


You tubes from Scott Brown doing some work with the Montonte. http://www.youtube.com/user/dakaodo#g/a

[Maclav]

Seen the article naturally, but the part where we don't have any instructions on how to wield them makes me think that everything we are doing today is speculation or adaptation of styles for smaller swords.

There are a number of sources for really big swords, see above for some interpretation of Marozzo's Spadone and Figueiredo's Montante.

[J.Gellert]

Like I said, most importantly, it decreased significantly during around 1700 - 1900 among poor people, peasants etc.

Basically due to complete separation from beneficial, natural human diet and environment, without advanced medicine and stuff yet.

Yeah, you shinobi'd me there :smalltongue: I get distracted easily even as I type.

[Spiryt]

There's also mentioned Goliath - also obviously big swords.



Seen the article naturally, but the part where we don't have any instructions on how to wield them makes me think that everything we are doing today is speculation or adaptation of styles for smaller swords.

BTW whilst we are talking about massive polearms, you won't believe the size of a glaive i saw there. Let me look it up and show it to you guys.

edit: here it is: # A950

It's huge, but processional makes me think it's just for show.


Yeah, 7.5 kg of blade alone doesn't leave much doubts.

[Galloglaich]

Not really. People were much shorter around 18 - 19th century, due to climate changes, illnesses, poor nutrition, pestilences and such stuff.

Well fed, active people like many knights weren't really much shorter [in the Medieval / Renaissance period] than we are today.

What he said, and repeated for emphasis. They just pubished some more data on this from towton. Average height in 1470 England was apparently only 4 cm shorter than today (1.6 inches). People in Germany where there were more middle class people were actually taller still.

Most* of the "nasty brutish and short" cliches we associate with the Middle Ages; witch burnings, lack of bathing, poor sanitation, starving peasants, are really more applicable to the 17th - 18th Centuries and conditions actually decreased for most people from those times into the early Industrial age in the 19th.

G.

* the one exception is the Bubonic Plague which really did wipe out half of Europe in the 1340s, though that existed before the Medieval period and continued for long after.

[Autolykos]

Yeah. If you're a medieval nobleman and your serfs are starving and sick, they won't work very well - and there goes your main source of income. If you're a factory owner, you just hire new guys if the old ones can't work anymore.

On the topic of varying quality of history lessons: While only learning facts and dates without any background is only moderately useful and pretty boring, you'll at least know the facts. In Germany, we have quite the opposite problem: The history lessons mainly consist of whining about the tough life of various minorities and other oppressed people (has probably something to do with us trying for re-admission to the human race after WW II ...). So it's not only boring, but you learn next to nothing about history. Pretty much all I know about history is cobbled together from books of various quality, TV documentaries and the Internet.

[Yora]

History classes in Germany are pretty bad, as I see it. But then, most kids in school really couldn't care less about history and almost none will ever have any need or use for such knowledge.
Those who do can learn about such things on their own.

But that's probably true for most of german school. Here at university most people say the first thing they were told when they started was "Forget about everything you learned at school. We start back at square one and now we do it right."
That every of the 16 states can decide what is taught in their schools, and few students go to university in the state where they went to school, probably helps a lot.

[Psyx]

History classes in Germany are pretty bad, as I see it. But then, most kids in school really couldn't care less about history and almost none will ever have any need or use for such knowledge.

I thought that at school too.

I now realise that history is excellent at teaching us lessons that are VERY useful today ('Never start a land war in Asia' is a flippant but true one, of course). Basically, history shows us how humans and society reacts. If you want to know how the population will react to political change, then the answer isn't simply with sociology, but history. It teaches us enormous amounts about humanity, and should be required study for every politician.

If more of our leaders studied history, they'd make a lot less mistakes.

After all: Military colleges do not teach young officers military history for no reason. They teach it because it is full of very useful, very valuable lessons.

[Galloglaich]

That every of the 16 states can decide what is taught in their schools, and few students go to university in the state where they went to school, probably helps a lot.

I thnk you are right, in fact that is probably far more valuable than you even realize. I suspect Germany is a lot better off a bit more decentralized in that way, in the past cultural and ethnic diversity was actually one of it's greatest strengths. I wish it was a bit more like that here, our immigrant nation is becomming increasingly homoginized.

I thnk better understanding of history across the language barriers would have a lot of influence on our society, (for the US especially of European history) which could be very valuable, if only because it gives us so many different ways to look at our problems. I think there is a huge amount of subconscious yearning for understanding of our cultural heritage as warriors etc., just think for a moment how many video games, movies, TV shows and even TV commercials today prominently feature people fighting with swords, weapons that haven't had a really significant role on the battlefield for (arguably) 300 years or more. At a really deep level in our shared international pop-culture, I think we have a craving to know more about this part of our past, some of us are consciously aware of that, most of the general public isn't. But it still clearly resonates. It sells.

We tend to think of European history in this very cliche way, a combination of Walt Disney, Monty Python, Tolkein and King Arthur stories, as translated by TSR during their 'golden' years (in spite of the honest efforts of EGG), and re-broadcast by American, British and Japanese pop culture to the rest of the world. I think Europe today knows itself more through it's distorted reflection in Hollywood or the BBC than from it's own local sources, though hopefully that is starting to change a bit. Our perception of our ancestral heritage is therefore all wrapped up in this cliche of a nasty brutish and short life, Chivalrous knights and muddy peasants, and Europe as one big homogenous Ren Faire with straw on the floor, pastel clothing with rope belts and that same bad lute and flute music they play on every movie and TV "Medieval" feast scene.

In other words, boring, simplistic and kind of depressing. (and if you push a little harder all you get to are those dry dates and names which leave you blinking..) So people are deflected from the History and shunt over to the Anime, WoW, LARP, Capitol One Barbarians and the like.

On a deep cultural level, we really have no idea about Medieval Free Cities, about such things as the Swiss Confederacy or the Hussites or the Hanse, about Venice, about the idea of European Martial Arts, the impressive reality of Renaissance arms and armor, the nuanced story of the Vikings, the Romans, the Goths, the Celts. These are all the sorts of things that we are exploring here of course... I want to see that disseminate outward more, because the implications are significant, and if that strange invisible wall gets a bit more of a breach through it, especially as I said crossing those language barriers a bit, a truly fascinating and valuable treasure trove of knowledge is unleashed. The internet, for the time being, is very helpful for this I think. Who knows how long that will last ... I want to make the most of it while it's available in this form.

G.

[Galloglaich]

I thought that at school too.

I now realise that history is excellent at teaching us lessons that are VERY useful today ('Never start a land war in Asia' is a flippant but true one, of course). Basically, history shows us how humans and society reacts. If you want to know how the population will react to political change, then the answer isn't simply with sociology, but history. It teaches us enormous amounts about humanity, and should be required study for every politician.

If more of our leaders studied history, they'd make a lot less mistakes.

After all: Military colleges do not teach young officers military history for no reason. They teach it because it is full of very useful, very valuable lessons.

Well put. Repeated for emphasis!

G.

[Galloglaich]

In Germany, we have quite the opposite problem: The history lessons mainly consist of whining about the tough life of various minorities and other oppressed people

This is how it is here on the University level now.

G.

[Yora]

Handling education locally was a good idea, especially back in the late 40s. But today it has become a completely chaotic system and the ones who really suffer because of it are the pupils. Lots of people here move every couple of years and our states are generally quite small, so you can end up in schools and universities in four or five states easily. And I'm probably biased comming from an academical class family, but most of the countries long term problems are caused by bad education.



History is always a fictional story inspired by actual events. Lot's of historians would probably violently deny that, but in certain areas it can be very well shown that historians had no interest at all in researching how things were, but creating a past they liked to have existed.
We got someone from the university in Austin at our university for a week, who spoke about the early history of buddhism. And he really explained very well how in recent years it became evident that western historians never had an interest in discovering the history, but only in finding proof that their own view of philosophy is in fact thousands of years old. And they even convinced scholars in India and China to believe this story. But now it's easier to get access to original manuscripts and find a good translator, and historians today are more interested in what the lay people did everyday and no longer in what the theologians thaught in theory to their students. And the image you get from this is a completely different one.
It might only be a single case, and could possibly be an exceptional one, but I'm very sure all historians, archeologists, and ethnologists have done this since all time to some degree. And in a few decades the methods and motivations of today will be considered rediculous.

A person just has to think back 5 or 10 years, and how good TV and movies where, and how much greater the quality of the music was. And psychologists have discovered that only a fraction of our memories are actual memories and the rest is purely made up to fill the massive gaps. And if we can't ever remember correctly what happened to ourself a few years ago, it's just completely impossible to get an accurate image of how things were generations or centuries ago on the scale of entire societies.
Not to say that all history is futile, but one just has to realize that the whole scientific field is highly speculative and fluid. Getting an accurat image of the past is impossible. But it can still be worthwhile to think about the possibilities and even analyze very contorted images to get some insight in how people behave under certain circumstances.

[endoperez]

Here is some newer work on "really big swords"

Ilkka Hartikainen's take on Marozzo's Primo Assulto, Spada du Mano. He repeats it a few times in the video. The last starting at minute 4 he is using a weapon 6 feet in length. Note there is a bit of one handing and grappling even with this giant weapon.

http://www.marozzo.com/blog/

Wow, that's a beautiful vid, and nice swordwork!


Also, isn't this whole school system both off-topic AND veering close to politics? Let's talk about something else instead. Like, I don't know... War elephants? Horse armour?

[Yora]

History is very much a subject of this discussion. We were talking about techniques using old weapons, and "rediscovering" them is plain historic research.

But yeah, apparently we offended someone by talking over the dreaded P-topic by mentioning school systems. Seems like we were reported, even though the mods diddn scrub out posts. (Edit: My mistake. That had been for mentioning the dreaded S-subject. Still, the mods here are very Warning-Happy when it comes to such things.)

But back to the main subject at hand: Everyone always seems to be crazy only about swords, and apparently there are not that many people interested in spears beside me.
But is there any good material on the net regarding the actual use and efficiency of other weapons? There's some stuff about bows, but what about axes, maces, and other polearms? If people used it on any meningful scale, it means it did it's job well. But except for naginata tournaments (which I assume have as much to do with real fighting as olypmpic fencing with actual sabres) I've never seen anyone showing the use and techniques of more uncommon (i.e. less cool) weapons.

[endoperez]

But back to the main subject at hand: Everyone always seems to be crazy only about swords, and apparently there are not that many people interested in spears beside me.
But is there any good material on the net regarding the actual use and efficiency of other weapons? There's some stuff about bows, but what about axes, maces, and other polearms? If people used it on any meningful scale, it means it did it's job well. But except for naginata tournaments (which I assume have as much to do with real fighting as olypmpic fencing with actual sabres) I've never seen anyone showing the use and techniques of more uncommon (i.e. less cool) weapons.

Use, as in flourish or forms, is relatively common. Seeing somewhat rare weapons in sparring or partner-training is quite rare. I've been collecting weapon demonstration vids for a while, and I've got some nice links from these threads.

Arme Antica is always very good source of videos, and they sometimes do rare weapons such as sickles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6UumBR7Fzc) (based on Mair) or umbrellas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfcwUkb7kWI). There are videos about peasant flail (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ef9Xuzu3aa0) (also Mair).

Nikos3000 (http://www.youtube.com/user/Nikos3000) has videos with spears, like (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8RWLxlzTiM) so (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_IIHlFOEiI), and there's some very cool pollaxe stuff on the youtube: techniques (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTVC25hYJaY), choreographed play in armor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjDjoqjaaKE), friendly bout of sparring (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVBTRFQqKGA) - these were just some of the first results. There are all kinds of staves used, so search with different terms to find different styles: quarterstaff (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXvvyep5ilA), bo staff, jo staff, kettukari etc. If you accept Wushu plays the spear is perhaps the most common weapon seen in those. Halberd and other specific polearms are quite rare, or perhaps I just haven't looked since this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmNTKy8LJiY)is the first result in Youtube.

Maces are quite rare, but they're sometimes seen in kalari performances (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba832LWf9Ec)

If you're interested in Chinese weapons and weapon demonstrations without fights, check out Alex Tse's channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/alextse4) on Youtube. He can't possibly be able to use all of the weapons in an actual fight, since there are so many of them, but the forms probably imply something of how they could be used. Here's one of the few technique demonstrations, two big knives against a spear (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsrlvobjvrg).

He has demonstrated mace-like weapons, like garn (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXm0gnyFvYc) (blunt wooden or metal stick), killing pen of the hell judge (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEQHBv_Q3cE) (mace with a spike), and more. If you want to see combat techniques from the Chinese styles, try putting "applications" after the keyword, and you usually find something.

[Galloglaich]

That is a pretty good start.

There is a lot of interest in Spear fighting among HEMA circles and a recognition of the Spear as a first rate weapon. The sword in it's various incarnations (longsword, arming sword, dussack, rapier, foil, epee, saber, messer, etc.) is probably the most prominent in the fechtbucher and later era fencing manuals, and the longsword, messer, smallsword or rapier are usually emphasized first and foremost as a means to teach the principles used with the other weapons in many manuals... but as endoperez shows, many other weapons are also in there and HEMA practitioners are starting to branch out into those directions somewhat more seriously now.

So we have spear showing up particularly in the harnischfechten sections, and various spear-like weapons such as the partisan which is prominent in Marozzo and many others. And the lance in the mounted combat sections of several manuals.

We have the poleaxe which has it's own entire manual, the French Jeu Du La Hache.

We have the flegel (two handed flail), scythe, sickle, war club, morgenstern and other peasant weapons showing up in Paulus Hector Mair and several other 16th Century manuals.

We have several manuals dealing with the staff.

We have numerous different versions of the dagger very ubiquitous in almost all the manuals (the dagger is probably the most underrated weapons in RPGs, the spear or the javelin would maybe be next in line after that).

And I think that is about it for European manuals that I can think of off the top of my head, though I'm probably missing something. But they are finding new books all the time.

In Europe you also have living traditions for many weapons, though mostly different versions of staves or sticks.

In India there are various remnant martial arts, I know in Sikh Gatka which is a huge martial sport they use some exotic weapons including a type of spinning net, though they are most focused on swords. But there are numerous MA in India which cover a variety of exotic weapons.

In Africa you have Zulu stick fighting which is based on Iklwa spears (half-spears) and various forms of club fighting which are like maces.

In the Philippines I know they have whip fighting as part of the various knife and short sword systems around Kali / Arnis / Eskrima, and I think a variety of other weapons as well though I don't know the details very well.

In the Polynessian Islands you have some survivals numerous forms of hardwood club-fighting some of which are like halberds, some like spears, some like axes, some like swords.

And in Chinese and Japanese MA of course you have all kinds of weapons from polearms to sai.

G.

[Galloglaich]

I keep it brief not to stray off topic too much...


Handling education locally was a good idea, especially back in the late 40s. But today it has become a completely chaotic system

Well, it's always a trade off. There is no perfect system. But looking at History, I think the German people were a lot better off in the "chaotic" Holy Roman Empire than they ended up in the very centralized States of the late 19th and early to mid 20th Centuries. There is something to be said for having a lot of different points of view even if it does disrupt things a bit (and you can work around that, look at Switzerland)



History is always a fictional story inspired by actual events.
(snip)
We got someone from the university in Austin at our university for a week, who spoke about the early history of buddhism. And he really explained very well how in recent years it became evident that western historians never had an interest in discovering the history, but only in finding proof that their own view of philosophy is in fact thousands of years old. And they even convinced scholars in India and China to believe this story.

I think that is indeed very, very common in Academia.... but on the other hand....



But now it's easier to get access to original manuscripts and find a good translator

You nailed it. Forget the rest of it, withe internet right now you have so much more immediate, easy access to primary source documents than you ever had before, you can skip the Academic interpretations which are frankly often useless for anything beyond getting some idea of the basics elements, and go strait to the primary sources.

If all you did was read the Classical historians and scholars, Herodotus, Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle, Tacitus, Seutonius, Caesar, Marcus Aurelius, etc., for all their faults, for all their propaganda and lies and spin, you would know more about the world today and it's languages, laws, religions, cultures, wars, politics and economies than 90% of the people in it do.

G.

[Galloglaich]

Wow, that's a beautiful vid, and nice swordwork!


Yes it's exquisite. The Spada a Due Mani in Marozzo is about 5 feet long, longer than a Medieval Longsword but shorter than a Zweihander, but the techniques are applicable and probably at least partly derivative from what was used with the Zweihander, though there are some differences such as the large parrying lugs on the Zwiehanders.

He is beginning to look at the other Marozzo stuff now too which includes a variety of staff weapons.

G.

[Yora]

Nikos3000 (http://www.youtube.com/user/Nikos3000) has videos with spears, like (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8RWLxlzTiM) so (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_IIHlFOEiI)
That's something I never understood: What's the advantage of the "high stance"? I've seen it quite a few times, and while it seems useful for supprise stabs above the defenders defense, it seems a rather unintuitive way of holding a spear.

[Autolykos]

I haven't seen any "high stance" in the vids (or you mean something else with it than me) - while he sometimes raises his right hand over his head, the thumb is always facing the tip, so it is still the underarm grip.
I can see two uses for the overhead grip (with the thumb to the back end of the spear): If you want to be able to throw your spear quickly, or to reduce your range once the enemy has closed in. In the first case you're probably not fighting with your spear anyway, and in the second you're probably better off to get the hell out of the way IMHO.

[Yora]

I mean like this: http://www.shaolin.com.au/Weapon/RedEagleSpear22.jpg

[Maclav]

I mean like this: http://www.shaolin.com.au/Weapon/RedEagleSpear22.jpg

End position of deflecting a low thrust or attack. You cover from point high to point low which deflects their point off line. It seen in Bolognesse spear work and in Greg Melee's "common spear". A similar position in seen in Italian and German armoured spear as well.

[endoperez]

I mean like this: http://www.shaolin.com.au/Weapon/RedEagleSpear22.jpg

There seem to be some specific techniques (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8QzjoYaJXQ) that use that pose. At least in this style and in this instance, the speartip starts low and is moving up.

[Yora]

But in lots of the videos I've seen they keep the spear in that position even though there's a short pause and both fighters stand well outside the others reach for several seconds. Given the speed of a spear, there shouldn't be a problem getting the rear hand back down unless you want to start your next attack from that position.

There seem to be some specific techniques (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8QzjoYaJXQ) that use that pose. At least in this style and in this instance, the speartip starts low and is moving up.
These guys have a lot of really nice videos. Lots of techniques I've never seen before. (And from an unskilled eye, they look practical and really effective.)

[Psyx]

Tangential, but interesting: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827920.600-getting-medieval-the-first-firefights.html

[Incanur]

The late sixteenth-century English author George Silver provides the most complete perspective on how different weapons compared with one another. He gave staff weapons odds against everything else for single combat in the open. He explained how the short staff, an eight to nine foot weapon with sharp points on each end, would defeat two men with swords and daggers. While some of Silver's hierarchy seems dubious, the assessment of long weapons resonates across time and space but especially with contemporary sources. The seventeenth-century English sailor Richard Peeke supposed defeated three Spaniards armed with rapier and dagger using a halberd shaft. Rapier enthusiast Joseph Swetnam gave the spiked staff odds against rapier and dagger. Both Swetnam and Silver left detailed instructions for how to wield the staff against various opposing weapons.

[Fhaolan]

But in lots of the videos I've seen they keep the spear in that position even though there's a short pause and both fighters stand well outside the others reach for several seconds. Given the speed of a spear, there shouldn't be a problem getting the rear hand back down unless you want to start your next attack from that position.

These guys have a lot of really nice videos. Lots of techniques I've never seen before. (And from an unskilled eye, they look practical and really effective.)

That pose shows up in several places with spear, greatsword, and other long weapons.

As a horseperson, I can attest that holding a short lance overhand gives you a much larger arc of attack because you've got this big horse's head in the way right in front of you that keeps intefering with an underhand grip. When going spear and shield, holding the spear high has the same effect with respect to the shield rather than the horsehead.

Once you've gotten used to the idea of holding the spear high, and you switch to a longer, heavier weapon it's pretty natural to fall into a two-handed variant pose like the high guard you illustrated. My time as a pikeman in a train'd band reinforced this stance as it's very similar to where you end up as a second-row pikeman.

[Yora]

You really just have to look at what times, places, and in what numbers spears and other polearms were used, compared to any other weapon.
It's one of the oldest weapons known to humans (probably developed only after the sharp rock and the club) and in the form of the lance was used by european armies until the early 20th century. And before rifles became the primary weapon for all soldiers, spears had that role virtually everywhere in the world since armies first appeared.
Low production costs were probably a factor, but soldiers never use weapons that don't get the job done as well as possible.

[Psyx]

The late sixteenth-century English author George Silver...

In some Japanese martial thought too, spear beats sword.
They're fine weapons, and under-rated in most game systems.

WFRP gives me a chance to use them without penalising myself by doing so!

[Galloglaich]

The late sixteenth-century English author George Silver provides the most complete perspective on how different weapons compared with one another. He gave staff weapons odds against everything else for single combat in the open. He explained how the short staff, an eight to nine foot weapon with sharp points on each end, would defeat two men with swords and daggers. While some of Silver's hierarchy seems dubious, the assessment of long weapons resonates across time and space but especially with contemporary sources. The seventeenth-century English sailor Richard Peeke supposed defeated three Spaniards armed with rapier and dagger using a halberd shaft. Rapier enthusiast Joseph Swetnam gave the spiked staff odds against rapier and dagger. Both Swetnam and Silver left detailed instructions for how to wield the staff against various opposing weapons.

You can find the techniques to deal with multiple opponents using a Staff in the Iberian Montante manuals, and it survives in the Jogo Do Pau system still in fairly wide practice in Portugal. In this clip vs. three opponents, you can see how the system uses simple guard and footwork transitions to keep up with multiple enemies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY5LOGtefAc&feature=related

Here is the one-on-one version from a closer view

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSDSsereOdg

It's almost identical to what is in the 16th Century Portuguese fencing manuals for the Montante (greatsword) except a little simplified. I was in a class last year where Matt Galas taught us a moulinet which includes those guard transitions... this is part of it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMoZeXQIs4Y

One of the top Jogo Do Pau instructors, Luis Preto, will be teaching a class on Jogo Do Pau at the upcoming Fechtschule America HEMA tournament in Houston this March.

G.

[Spiryt]

To be honest even as show off it doesn't look too convincing - anyone can see at least few moments when at least on of the tree could whack or tackle the guy.

Middle distance running is the best art against 3 opponents. :smallwink:

[fusilier]

I was visiting a WW1 reenactors forum. There's a topic on "interesting" discussions/comments with the public. I can't help but to share a few gems that I think will be appreciated by some members on this forum.


"Which came first, World War One or World War Two?" another was "I did not know there was a World War One!"

However this one is probably my favorite.


My personal favourite however came from a friend who used to do Wars of the Roses reenacting, he was helping a blacksmith making nails...

Public: "They didn't have nails then!"

Blacksmith: "Quite right sir, they gaffer-taped our lord to the cross"

:-) Ok, this is really only tangential to the purpose of this forum, unless someone retroactively asks a question about the history of nails. So I'll leave it at that.

[Mayhem]

I mean like this: http://www.shaolin.com.au/Weapon/RedEagleSpear22.jpg

It's a defensive stance, pretty useful 1-on-1. It's also really useful in a shield wall so you can stab over your friends.

Source: I did steel weapon fighting(medieval reenactment) for a while, would still be doing it but there's no group in the region I'm currently in.

[Fhaolan]

I was visiting a WW1 reenactors forum. There's a topic on "interesting" discussions/comments with the public. I can't help but to share a few gems that I think will be appreciated by some members on this forum.

I've had some very good questions asked during demos/shows, but I've had some real doozies as well.

I've had one lunatic attempt to bull-charge head-butt me when I was in full 15th century Itallian harness. He bounced off and squirmed around on the ground holding his head while I stood there mentally stunned at his stupidity.

[Spiryt]

If we're at it, some bad quality, but enjoyable videos.

Spear 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=708swpqSos8)

Spear 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ3j9ByKA0k&feature=related)

With somewhat safe points, the point (:smallannoyed:) is to stab the other guy, without aiming to the head.

Short haired guy could have improved his cardio though. :smalltongue:

[Mayhem]

Thanks.
*snip*... as two types of iron would be amalgamated into a single blade.

Whereas by the time we got around to making steel blades, ..*snip*

Ah.. no, iron is an element and steel is an alloy. Thus iron weapons were never made, the refined product always contained carbon and various other elements with the iron.



135cm of blade is basically shoulder length for an average sized man. Certainly not your average sized German (Northern European blood is strong and tall), but even he would be about 1.80 on average. So his sword is slightly shorter than himself. Sounds to me this will be used mainly as a spear with half-swording techniques. Swinging that thing around is too much for me to imagine, although some practitioners can tell us otherwise.
Nah, I've seen swords of that size used, actually I've seen bigger, they're used the same as any other two-handed sword. It is a bit excessive, but not unreasonably so. They were'nt used as a spear, they were used by elite shock troops. Supposedly to cut polearms, but I doubt it since wood is pretty solid and flexible.

[fusilier]

Ah.. no, iron is an element and steel is an alloy. Thus iron weapons were never made, the refined product always contained carbon and various other elements with the iron.

Generally speaking there is a certain percentage of carbon that must be present in the metal before it is considered steel and I believe this definition can be different depending upon who you talk to (somebody else here I'm sure will know this better than I). Otherwise, it's just iron with carbon impurities. ;-) If you apply the "x is an element" too strictly to your definitions, then almost all metals in use will be "alloys."

[Galloglaich]

If we're at it, some bad quality, but enjoyable videos.

Spear 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=708swpqSos8)

Spear 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ3j9ByKA0k&feature=related)

With somewhat safe points, the point (:smallannoyed:) is to stab the other guy, without aiming to the head.

Short haired guy could have improved his cardio though. :smalltongue:

Hahahah that is some safety last action right there :) I love East-European re-enactors they are rowdy as hell.

My $.02 on the spear, it's a valuable weapon because it usually lets you strike first, and that is very important in warfare. For less trained guys a fight is often going to come down to one strike, so if you have to wait to go second you are in trouble. Reach is almost never given the importance it should have in RPG's.

Staves did famously win-out in some fights against rapierists such as the case with the English sailor in Spain mentioned above.

That said, a moderately experienced sword and shield guy and usually hold his own with a spear guy. A highly skilled longsword guy can as well, the best tactic is to get a bind with an absetsen or a krumphau and grab the spear-haft with your hand. But it's still a very dangerous fight especially out in the open.

Spear by itself is a strong one on one weapon system, spear with shield is a bit less flexible and more suited to fighting in formation (Brad Pitt's Trojan War film notwithstanding) a spear and shield vs. a shield and another smaller weapon like an axe or a sword is at a disadvantage, because shields defend well achieve binds easily and on the inside the shorter weapon wins out, though of course that is where your seax or your dagger come into play.

Spears with hooks, and your various polearms, are even more dangerous because they can be used to hook shields, blades or hafts of other weapons, behind knees etc. We used to have a bill before Katrina we would pull people off their feet all the time with it.

We still have a sparring-spear, I'll try to film a little spear vs. sword stuff this weekend if i remember to bring our spear out.

G.

[Galloglaich]

Speaking of East-European re-enactors, I kind of like this film (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sej5Sf153Y8&feature=related)... the music is a bit Euro-techno disco for my taste but it looks like they are having fun, and the girl archer is very cute.



G.

[fusilier]

A highly skilled longsword guy can as well, the best tactic is to get a bind with an absetsen or a krumphau and grab the spear-haft with your hand. But it's still a very dangerous fight especially out in the open.

H. H. Angelo's mid 19th century bayonet training plates (unfortunately I've only seen the plates, and not the text), show a dismounted swordsman using basically the same technique against a bayonet armed infantryman. Here, he appears to be deflected the bayonet thrust with the saber from right-to-left, then grabbing the muzzle of the musket (just behind the bayonet) with his left hand, and stepping in to attack. Angelo also shows an unusual "guard" position where the musket is held very far back before thrusting (right arm completely extended back, the bayonet at chest level, and the gun upside down). My guess is that this is to "lure" the opponent much closer than he would normally approach. As the reach of a musket/bayonet can be quite surprising. The gun must be rotated 180 degrees (around the axis of the barrel) during a thrust (i.e. so that it ends right-side up . . . uhh . . . upside-up . . . downside down?? Lockplate facing to the right!).

[Yora]

If we're at it, some bad quality, but enjoyable videos.

Spear 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=708swpqSos8)

Spear 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ3j9ByKA0k&feature=related)
I think I could beat them. And I never had a spear in my hands in my entire life. :smallbiggrin:

[Galloglaich]

Ok one last Polish re-enactor video... Music on this one is vastly better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGupr_ISDtc&feature=related


Anyway, back to topic. Here is some three quarters speed spear vs. spear HEMA sparring from GHFS Sweden, one of the top HEMA groups:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30HKQmqn9B0&feature=related

here from a Finnish group, a nice Lichtenauer KDF technique progression demo including some good harnischfecten spear techniques (Starts at 1:41)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8dky4r3nOA&feature=related

Notice they are using both ends of the spear, this is fundamental in any real killing system.


Finally, here is your guy "Nikos300" (that is Nick Thomas, one of the Thomas brothers from the Academy of Historical Fencing (http://historicalfencing.co.uk/rev/) in Bristol in the UK) doing sword and shield (sword is a light sidesword, almost a rapier) vs. Spear. Nick and Mike are both good fencers and have both won tournaments and several 'Martial Challenges' as well. In this clip Nikos is the one with the sword and like the song says he "doesn't like to lose". I think you can kind of see what I was referring to upthread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3J-10KfRe8&feature=related

The truth is though that none of us in the HEMA world are very experienced yet with either larger shields or with spears, even though both weapons do exist in the Fechtbucher. We simply haven't had enough time to branch out into all the weapons yet, we are still getting a grip on longsword, messer, rapier and dagger.

And of course, you can't assume too much from that clip. For one thing Nick is the instructor and Jake is a student. And who knows, if Jake had been using some of the more sophisticated techniques from the KDF spear progression above (like making better use of both ends of his weapon once in "krieg" range, or keeping a knife ready as a backup weapon) he might have had a better chance after the first bind. Right now it's hard to say.

People are starting to look seriously at a whole lot of other weapons though. I think we'll have a much clearer picture of all this in another 2 or 3 years.

G.

[Galloglaich]

This is another nice little video from an Austrian group showing some spear and shield techniques for Viking Age weapons adopted (I am almost certain) from Talhoffers (15th Century) Dueling Shield stuff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI_yH-8swXQ

Note how the girl uses the seax knife at short range. Holding a sword with a spear is seen frequently in the fechtbucher.

EDIT: Here they are sparring with spears and axes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8040O1SAMs&feature=related

G.

[Galloglaich]

Here is some HEMA based stage combat with spears, maces, all kinds of weaponss. It's not professional Hollywood or anything but notice how different it looks from the lame Capitol One Barbarian fighting you usually see on the History Channel or the Hong Kong Fu you usually see in Hollywood. Maybe one day we'll see some movies with these kinds of techniques in them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0tgNEu9ddI&feature=related

G.

[Matthew]

Second link in prior post is meant to be this, I think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fHOh7uxFIU

[Galloglaich]

Second link in prior post is meant to be this, I think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fHOh7uxFIU

Actually I meant to link the first of the two but this one is good as well, thanks!

I went back and fixed the other one.

G.

[Matthew]

Ha! Oh yeah, I thought that first link was part one. Duh! :smallbiggrin:

[Mayhem]

Oh god a flood of links :smalleek:

[Galloglaich]

They are all good, don't worry.

G.

[Yora]

The truth is though that none of us in the HEMA world are very experienced yet with either larger shields or with spears, even though both weapons do exist in the Fechtbucher.
I expect to stay in Japan for quite some time in a few years. I hope to find a place where a foreign guy in his late 20s with bad Japanese can get Naginata classes.
And maybe I get a chance to learn some basics in european spear fighting techniques when I transfer to a different university for my Master later this year. Might be highly interesting to see what is the same and what parts could possibly integrated into the other style.

[Galloglaich]

Sounds interesting. I bet they are quite similar, the fencing certainly is.

It's probably weird and cool as hell to be in Japan, make the most of it.

G.

[Yora]

weird and cool as hell
That's about the motivation of all of us, who returned to the Japanese language class for the third semester. :smallbiggrin:

[Spiryt]

I think I could beat them. And I never had a spear in my hands in my entire life. :smallbiggrin:

Hmmm... Why? How?

Is there some joke I don't get?

[Galloglaich]

I ran across something interesting I thought I should share here, I hope it is ok.

Ever wonder what that tedious Aussie song 'Waltzing Matilda' was about?

It was about the years that a craftsman spent on the road traveling from town to town, learning the nuances of their trade, before they could become a Master. Usually this lasted for three years and a day. The medieval tradition never entirely died out in Germany (though the Nazis banned it for a while) and it is still practiced by carpenters, and is making a revival today and spreading somewhat to other trades.

These guys are dressed in the traditional clothing you have to wear, and once you start the journey you are not allowed to go within 50 miles of your home town until you have completed your voyage.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/Gesellen1.jpg/220px-Gesellen1.jpg

Check out the wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journeyman_years

Now I wonder, did men like Lichtenauer, Fiore, Ringeck, Joachim Meyer, go on journeys for three years and a day, traveling from town to town, learning the nuances of their craft ?

Here is perhaps the most titilating bit. While on their journeyman years, a young compagnon carried a traveling book called a Wanderbuch which would be stamped in each town he visited, and would be a kind of journal of their travels. Supposedly this practice went back to the Medieval period.

I think it would be pretty cool to find one of those for a journeyman fencer seeking to become a Master.

I also think that three year journey for a young Fiore or Talhoffer would make for a damn good movie.

G.

[Eldan]

I've never heard of fighters, soldiers, duelists or so on doing it, but here in Switzerland, you still see the occasional carpenter. They get to use the busses and trains for free while wearing the traditional guild uniforms (of course the guilds themselves no longer exist in the old form. Now it's called a union :smalltongue:)

The Wikipedia article mentions the secret handshakes: a weird tradition still around today. Interestingly, other than the carpenters, the only other people still doing it, as far as I know, are Freemasons. Who used to be mason guilds, more or less, in their early years.

Guilds are an interesting topic in any case. Here in Zurich, the Guild houses are, after the churches, the largest old buildings you will find. They are huge, dwarfing such buildings as the arsenal or town hall, which are also pretty impressive.

[Psyx]

Ah.. no, iron is an element and steel is an alloy. Thus iron weapons were never made, the refined product always contained carbon and various other elements with the iron.

I was simplifying as it was OT the the poster's query. However, I feel it would be rather incorrect to label the raw materials for a pattern-welded blade as 'steel'. 'Iron' would be far more correct in the circumstance.


Reach is almost never given the importance it should have in RPG's.

It depends which ones! :)


...can get Naginata classes.

You might be the only guy there! :smallbiggrin:



Public: "They didn't have nails then!"

They certainly didn't... in Japan. Kurasawa once famously demanded a set rebuild 'properly' without nails in.

[Psyx]

(of course the guilds themselves no longer exist in the old form. Now it's called a union :smalltongue:)

Worth a look. London still uses guilds in ceremonial form:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livery_Company

[Gavinfoxx]

Hey, I'm curious -- which specific boosts, strikes, counters, and stances in Tome of Battle can specifically be likened or explained as a *named* move in some legitimate historic weapon based martial art? What is similar to what?

[Eldan]

Worth a look. London still uses guilds in ceremonial form:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livery_Company

Ah, yes. I meant over here in Switzerland.

[Yora]

You might be the only guy there! :smallbiggrin
Someone has to be the first. That's how emancipation works. :smallbiggrin:
But I think it's not really a women exclusive sport, just one in which women are greater in numbers.
Not that it would bother me, at my classes at university we often have 80% and more women, and I think I think me and my brother were the only pre-teen boys who could ride. (Riding is the ultimate pink, frilly, girl hobby around here.)

[Galloglaich]

HEMA is going mainstream

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/medieval-fight-book-5366/Overview#tab-Overview

[Matthew]

Looks interesting. Here is hoping it amounts to more than a sensationalist History Channel style production in post production. :smallbiggrin:

[Galloglaich]

Some video clips

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/medieval-fight-book-5366/Overview#tab-Videos/09512_00

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/medieval-fight-book-5366/Overview#tab-Videos/09511_00

[Matthew]

Hmmn. Well, looks like a decent budget, but also like the viewer is going to have to do a lot of his own interpreting as usual! Still, I had sworn off television history recently, but I will probably give this a go. :smallwink:

[Yora]

And I thought "Hey, he looks like Teryy Jones" :smallbiggrin:

[Psyx]

Hmmn. Well, looks like a decent budget, but also like the viewer is going to have to do a lot of his own interpreting as usual! Still, I had sworn off television history recently, but I will probably give this a go. :smallwink:

Yeah: I'm learning far more watching The Kerdishans...

[Yora]

Short Question: I looked up the term "Armsman" on google and apparently all results are related to MMOs. However Wikipedia has a redirect to Men at Arms, where it is listed as an alternative term.
Did the term actually exist in a historical context, or was even used outside fantasy games?

I only want to use it as a name for a "sword and board elite soldier" archetype in an RPG, so it doesn't matter it's not completely accurate. I just want to avoid getting people constantly telling me "that's not what Armsman means!" :smallbiggrin:

[Maclav]

Short Question: I looked up the term "Armsman" on google and apparently all results are related to MMOs. However Wikipedia has a redirect to Men at Arms, where it is listed as an alternative term.

Probably the best you'll get.

man-at-arms   [man-uht-ahrmz]
–noun, plural men-at-arms.
1. a soldier.
2. a heavily armed soldier on horseback, esp. in medieval times.

Origin:
1325–75; ME
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011.

[J.Gellert]

I only want to use it as a name for a "sword and board elite soldier" archetype in an RPG, so it doesn't matter it's not completely accurate. I just want to avoid getting people constantly telling me "that's not what Armsman means!" :smallbiggrin:

Man-at-arms/armsman doesn't seem to refer to any specific weapon configuration (other than the horse and armor) on Earth, but maybe it does on a fantasy world. Otherwise just play it safe and go with swordsman. Or call it something else, shields were not so uncommon as to be restricted to a certain archetype, so you won't find fancy names for shield-bearers. Other than the ancient Greek ones. :smallsmile:

[Galloglaich]

The only one I can think of off hand for sword and shield man is rotellero, but that has a specific time and place meaning. I'm sure there are others though. Did the Scots have a name for their sword and targe guys?

G.

[Fortinbras]

two questions.

first, would anybody like to chime in on the old longbow vs crossbow debate?

second, what are some good sources on Norse society specifically social organization, culture, daily life, and warfare. (I'm aware that these categories overlap.)

[firechicago]

Short Question: I looked up the term "Armsman" on google and apparently all results are related to MMOs. However Wikipedia has a redirect to Men at Arms, where it is listed as an alternative term.
Did the term actually exist in a historical context, or was even used outside fantasy games?

I only want to use it as a name for a "sword and board elite soldier" archetype in an RPG, so it doesn't matter it's not completely accurate. I just want to avoid getting people constantly telling me "that's not what Armsman means!" :smallbiggrin:

The only case I'm aware of where "armsman" has a specific meaning is in Lois McMaster-Bujold's Vorkosigan books, where it denotes a specific position within the futuristic feudal society of Barrayar, and they are much more likely to be armed with stunners and plasma arcs than any medieval equipment. So I think you're safe.

(A quick google also suggests that it's a possible literal translation of samurai, but I'll let someone who actually understands Japanese confirm or deny that.)

[JaronK]

Short Question: I looked up the term "Armsman" on google and apparently all results are related to MMOs. However Wikipedia has a redirect to Men at Arms, where it is listed as an alternative term.
Did the term actually exist in a historical context, or was even used outside fantasy games?

I only want to use it as a name for a "sword and board elite soldier" archetype in an RPG, so it doesn't matter it's not completely accurate. I just want to avoid getting people constantly telling me "that's not what Armsman means!" :smallbiggrin:

My understanding is that it just meant a soldier. However, the implication was probably a more generic soldier (as opposed to an elite) but I think you're still probably fine.

JaronK

[Fhaolan]

first, would anybody like to chime in on the old longbow vs crossbow debate?

This is a pointless debate, as the terms 'longbow' and 'crossbow' cover a huge range of weapons of varying quality and users of varying levels of training. It's like asking 'which is better, a spoon or a fork?' without any context.

Crossbows vary from light hunting bows to team-serviced weapons that blur the line between crossbow and balista.

The term 'Longbow' currently means a D-profile selfbow but they can be of varying size and pull, and even then the term is usually misplaced onto any bow with long staves regardless of it's actual construction.

Without exact parameters for the discussion, there is no discussion. Just people comparing apples and oranges.

[AslanCross]

(A quick google also suggests that it's a possible literal translation of samurai, but I'll let someone who actually understands Japanese confirm or deny that.)

The character for "samurai" is more like "servant" or "retainer" than any martial connotations, actually.

[Fortinbras]

This is a pointless debate, as the terms 'longbow' and 'crossbow' cover a huge range of weapons of varying quality and users of varying levels of training. It's like asking 'which is better, a spoon or a fork?' without any context.

Crossbows vary from light hunting bows to team-serviced weapons that blur the line between crossbow and balista.

The term 'Longbow' currently means a D-profile selfbow but they can be of varying size and pull, and even then the term is usually misplaced onto any bow with long staves regardless of it's actual construction.

Without exact parameters for the discussion, there is no discussion. Just people comparing apples and oranges.

Good point, in general then, what are the comparative advantages of bows and crossbows (assuming a light, one man crossbow)

[Karoht]

I vote fork as better. For everything. Even soup. Especially brothy soup. Especially gassified brothy soups.


If we're going to compair bow and crossbow, could we not do so by draw weight? Say a bow of 50 lb draw and a crossbow of similar draw?
Or perhaps by speed of projectile? Take a bow and a crossbow that both fire an arrow/bolt at 150 ft per second?

Also, for christmas, I got my fellow medieval enthusiasts the catapults and trebuchet's from thinkgeek.com
Hopefully some tales of siege weapon related tomfoolery will ensue. I'll keep you all posted.

[J.Gellert]

Which reminds me!

I am "homebrewing" (re-adjusting) weapons while trying (somewhat) to keep an eye (one eye) towards historicity (hopefully)... And I was wondering.

Is "shortbow" even a real word? If not, is it an acceptable way to describe >50% of military bows? Or did they just pick that for RPGs (Googling "shortbow" brings up Guild Wars, but I don't trust Google any more, plowing stupid customized search results) because it contrasts "longbow"? Could you just say "bow, short" and "bow, long"?

And on the (roughly) same topic, what's a better word for a spear without reach? short spear? shortspear? halfspear? I want to avoid calling it a hasta...

--Edit--
I realize I can just use "war bow" or "military bow" and be done with short bows, but isn't that implying that longbows aren't used for war? :smalltongue:

[Myth]

I vote fork as better. For everything. Even soup. Especially brothy soup. Especially gassified brothy soups.


If we're going to compair bow and crossbow, could we not do so by draw weight? Say a bow of 50 lb draw and a crossbow of similar draw?
Or perhaps by speed of projectile? Take a bow and a crossbow that both fire an arrow/bolt at 150 ft per second?

Also, for christmas, I got my fellow medieval enthusiasts the catapults and trebuchet's from thinkgeek.com
Hopefully some tales of siege weapon related tomfoolery will ensue. I'll keep you all posted.

here (http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/crossbow/cross_l_v_c.html). Consider that, however, the compared bow has a draw weight of a moderate (even by modern standards) 68 lbs. The weapons used for war duing the Middle Ages could reach 150 lbs., while I've not heard of a crossbow that has a weight exceeding 800 lbs.

[Matthew]

Which reminds me!

I am "homebrewing" (re-adjusting) weapons while trying (somewhat) to keep an eye (one eye) towards historicity (hopefully)... And I was wondering.

Is "shortbow" even a real word? If not, is it an acceptable way to describe >50% of military bows? Or did they just pick that for RPGs (Googling "shortbow" brings up Guild Wars, but I don't trust Google any more, plowing stupid customized search results) because it contrasts "longbow"? Could you just say "bow, short" and "bow, long"?

And on the (roughly) same topic, what's a better word for a spear without reach? short spear? shortspear? halfspear? I want to avoid calling it a hasta...

--Edit--
I realize I can just use "war bow" or "military bow" and be done with short bows, but isn't that implying that longbows aren't used for war? :smalltongue:
Authentic weapon nomenclature is pretty hopeless for this sort of stuff, since the terms "bow", "sword", and "spear" were generally used to describe the types most commonly used at the time. If most bows were "long" and somebody saw a "short" version they might call it a "short bow" and the same logic holds the other way round. However, if it makes you feel any better the terms "short sword, short bow, short spear, long sword, long bow, and long spear" are all authentic in Japanese. :smallwink:

Living outside the cultures and times that we seek to represent in play this sort of "ready" nomenclature is extremely useful in my opinion. The sorts of adjectives that typically come up (aside from appearance relative to other specimens) are things like method of use and place of origin, so for instance Welsh Bow, Horse Bow, Turkish Bow, [I]etcetera.

[J.Gellert]

...However, if it makes you feel any better the terms "short sword, short bow, short spear, long sword, long bow, and long spear" are all authentic in Japanese. :smallwink:

It does. It means that naming them in this way is plausible in a fantasy universe. But I kind of already knew that from Greek... Spathi is "sword", spatha is just "big sword". :smalltongue:


The sorts of adjectives that typically come up (aside from appearance relative to other specimens) are things like method of use and place of origin, so for instance Welsh Bow, Horse Bow, Turkish Bow, etcetera.

Interestingly, that's what Conan D20 is doing, but it's not really helpful if you have 10 cultures and 2 uses for such weapons and only 2 varieties of the weapon rules-wise (low damage/range, high damage/range).

[Matthew]

It does. It means that naming them in this way is plausible in a fantasy universe. But I kind of already knew that from Greek... Spathi is "sword", spatha is just "big sword". :smalltongue:

Not sure about that, but semi-spatha is certainly "little sword", and turns up in Vegetius. :smallbiggrin:

[J.Gellert]

Not sure about that, but semi-spatha is certainly "little sword", and turns up in Vegetius. :smallbiggrin:

I'm sure! Can't stand corrected on my Greek :smalltongue: I don't know about Vegetius, but in his context "spatha" was something specific, as in "big straight sword we Romans are using". So he probably used semi-spatha to mean "smaller sword that we Romans are using, and not the gladius, or anything curved, etc".

So anyway... "Bow, short" and "Spear, short" it is.

[Matthew]

I'm sure! Can't stand corrected on my Greek :smalltongue: I don't know about Vegetius, but in his context "spatha" was something specific, as in "big straight sword we Romans are using". So he probably used semi-spatha to mean "smaller sword that we Romans are using, and not the gladius, or anything curved, etc".

So anyway... "Bow, short" and "Spear, short" it is.

Oh Greek! Right, I was thinking Latin, of course. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, when Vegetius was writing he probably had in mind the pre-migration era cavalry swords that we commonly call "spatha" nowadays. If I recall correctly he uses three terms: Gladius (sword generally), Spatha (a specific sword), Semi-Spatha (a shorter sword than the Spatha).

Josephus also distinguishes between "long" and "short" sword when he describes the Roman army, but it has been a while since I looked at that passage, so I do not recall the words he used. I have a feeling it was either some variant on xiphos (ξίφος) or makhaira (μάχαιρα). Not that I have more than a passing familiarity with Ancient Greek, mind. It has been more than ten years since I last studied it!

[Galloglaich]

here (http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/crossbow/cross_l_v_c.html). Consider that, however, the compared bow has a draw weight of a moderate (even by modern standards) 68 lbs. The weapons used for war duing the Middle Ages could reach 150 lbs., while I've not heard of a crossbow that has a weight exceeding 800 lbs.

Cranequin and windlass crossbows in the Middle Ages went up to 1200 lbs.

That link has been around a while it is pretty dated at this point, though they revised it a little bit.

G.

[Deadmeat.GW]

Actually, did tyhey not say something in the original link we discussed a while back concerning crossbows and arbalests that the 1200 lbs pull one was an original arbalest and that it was likely a lot more powerfull when it was new and in mint condition then it is now, 300+ years and poor maintenance later?

I vaguely remember something being said that it was likely to have had a pull exceeding 1500 lbs.

[Force]

Pretty sure this isn't the right thread, but thought I'd ask, as it's a real world MEDIEVAL (pre-1500s) politics-related question, and there are probably some medieval history buffs in here...

There's a discussion going on elsewhere in the forum on D&D nation vs. modern world armies. If the D&D nation in question had a feudal government similar to that of the medieval society that D&D attempts to portray, the nation was soundly conquered (all field armies destroyed, modern army demonstrated ability to lay siege to most fortifications and break them with ease, whatever else is required), and the king/higher ranking nobles agreed to surrender to the newcomers, what chance is there of organized guerilla warfare? Would such a surrender by the king cause the rest of the nobility and/or political structure to "fall in line" or would guerilla warfare begin?

[Mike_G]

Pretty sure this isn't the right thread, but thought I'd ask, as it's a real world MEDIEVAL (pre-1500s) politics-related question, and there are probably some medieval history buffs in here...

There's a discussion going on elsewhere in the forum on D&D nation vs. modern world armies. If the D&D nation in question had a feudal government similar to that of the medieval society that D&D attempts to portray, the nation was soundly conquered (all field armies destroyed, modern army demonstrated ability to lay siege to most fortifications and break them with ease, whatever else is required), and the king/higher ranking nobles agreed to surrender to the newcomers, what chance is there of organized guerilla warfare? Would such a surrender by the king cause the rest of the nobility and/or political structure to "fall in line" or would guerilla warfare begin?

In a feudal system, probably very little chance for guerilla warfare. The peasants are peasants. They don't give a rat's who's flag flies from the tower.

Guerilla warfare relies on the support of the populace, or at least a large enough segment of the populace. True feudal systems were not designed to maximize the loyalty of the masses.

Now, if the conquerors were awful enough to stir up the resentment of the populace, then maybe. but feudalism tends to concentrate both privilege and martial ability in the landed gentry, who would have already caved in your scenario. They are the ones with the skills to fight, but they'd be most likely to be co-opted or eliminated, and unlikely to enjoy huge popular support if they tried to fight a guerilla campaign.

Google the rebellion of the Jacquerie in France after the French army was defeated at Poitiers, and see how little support a few defeated nobles would get for their continuing struggle against the invader.

[pendell]

I was wondering where this thread went ...

In other news, I note that a new stealth fighter (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-J-XX-Prototype.html) is being field-tested outside the US, which up to now has had a monopoly on the technology.

My question is: What happens to air war when two air forces clash when both have stealth fighters?

Does this take us back to pre-1941, where we dispense with early warning radars and search for the bad guys with optics?

Is dogfighting between aircraft in visual range once again a likely possibility, since you can forget about BVR engagement?

Does this mean that manned fighters just got a new lease on life, since onboard pilots will still have greater situational awareness than a ground-controlled/onboard AI UAV?

Does this mean that any area within range of one of these fighters just became a no-go area for a high value asset, such as an aircraft carrier, because they're much harder to intercept but can still carry carrier-killing weapons in the internal bay?

Just pondering the implications. Even if this turns out to be a plywood mockup, someone's going to figure out stealth technology sooner or later, and these questions will come up again.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Matthew]

If you want examples of guerilla warfare against feudal masters, you need look no further than Wales, Scotland, and to some extent immediately post-conquest England. The drawback to these as examples is that none of them were really feudal to begin with (to the extent that "feudal" is a word that even has much currency in modern academic discourse without endless caveats and subdefinitions). Rebellions were common enough in the medieval period, not to mention bandits and other lawless types operating from remote areas of the wilderness. If you are looking for unified national patriotic feelings to the displacement of feudal overlords, though, you are probably out of luck. That said, language and a feeling of "alienity" will suffice to generate enough sense of "us and them" (again Scotland and Wales are prime examples).

[Mike_G]

If you want examples of guerilla warfare against feudal masters, you need look no further than Wales, Scotland, and to some extent immediately post-conquest England. The drawback to these as examples is that none of them were really feudal to begin with (to the extent that "feudal" is a word that even has much currency in modern academic discourse without endless caveats and subdefinitions). Rebellions were common enough in the medieval period, not to mention bandits and other lawless types operating from remote areas of the wilderness. If you are looking for unified national patriotic feelings to the displacement of feudal overlords, though, you are probably out of luck. That said, language and a feeling of "alienity" will suffice to generate enough sense of "us and them" (again Scotland and Wales are prime examples).


I agree with what you say, but again, Scotland and Wales weren't feudal in any real sense of the word.

Looking at France, I'd say no way. Switzerland could maybe pull it off, but they were the most un-feudal place in Medieval Europe.

[Rion]

If you want examples of guerilla warfare against feudal masters, you need look no further than Wales, Scotland, and to some extent immediately post-conquest England. The drawback to these as examples is that none of them were really feudal to begin with (to the extent that "feudal" is a word that even has much currency in modern academic discourse without endless caveats and subdefinitions). Rebellions were common enough in the medieval period, not to mention bandits and other lawless types operating from remote areas of the wilderness. If you are looking for unified national patriotic feelings to the displacement of feudal overlords, though, you are probably out of luck. That said, language and a feeling of "alienity" will suffice to generate enough sense of "us and them" (again Scotland and Wales are prime examples).
Another example might be Vlad Tepes' battles against the Ottomans.

Also, this might depend on whether you require guerilla warfare to be performed by peasants. Raids, , ambushes and trying to accomplish your goals without a field battle was the norm for medieval warfare from what I understand.

[Matthew]

I agree with what you say, but again, Scotland and Wales weren't feudal in any real sense of the word.

Looking at France, I'd say no way. Switzerland could maybe pull it off, but they were the most un-feudal place in Medieval Europe.

I think a lot of it comes down to who is doing the invading as well. I have not given much thought to this, but how about Spain as an example? Seems like the kind of place where it could happen, and the religious and ethnic element would allows for enough friction. Anybody know of any specific instances?



Another example might be Vlad Tepes' battles against the Ottomans.

Also, this might depend on whether you require guerilla warfare to be performed by peasants. Raids, ambushes and trying to accomplish your goals without a field battle was the norm for medieval warfare from what I understand.

Indeed; parameters, parameters. :smallbiggrin:

[Norsesmithy]

I was wondering where this thread went ...

In other news, I note that a new stealth fighter (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-J-XX-Prototype.html) is being field-tested outside the US, which up to now has had a monopoly on the technology.

My question is: What happens to air war when two air forces clash when both have stealth fighters?

Does this take us back to pre-1941, where we dispense with early warning radars and search for the bad guys with optics?

Is dogfighting between aircraft in visual range once again a likely possibility, since you can forget about BVR engagement?

Does this mean that manned fighters just got a new lease on life, since onboard pilots will still have greater situational awareness than a ground-controlled/onboard AI UAV?

Does this mean that any area within range of one of these fighters just became a no-go area for a high value asset, such as an aircraft carrier, because they're much harder to intercept but can still carry carrier-killing weapons in the internal bay?

Just pondering the implications. Even if this turns out to be a plywood mockup, someone's going to figure out stealth technology sooner or later, and these questions will come up again.

Respectfully,

Brian P.
Stealth doesn't mean undetectable, it means less detectable, and not all stealth is created equal.

A powerful enough radar, either fighter mounted (bad idea, really) or AEW platform mounted (AWACs, etc, good idea) will detect a steathy aircraft, and so will a multi-receiver multi-transmitter setup with a lot of processing power and very good differentiation code.

But the first rule of radar in combat is that the enemy will detect it before you detect them, assuming they aren't using their own radar for you to detect, and that's why it's a bad thing to put a powerful radar on your fighters and make regular use of it.

So future fighter battles will consist of very powerful airborne radar platforms each sweeping the skies for sign of the enemy, and directing their fighters accordingly.

If you can destroy your enemy's AEW or force it to shut down it's radar and flee, you've essentially won, because after that point, you have one airforce playing as a team and acting in a coordinated manner against opponents they have an easy time seeing, vs another airforce that is either flying blind or giving away their own positions as readily as man searching a warehouse by flashlight.

Over sea, very powerful ship born radar platforms (like AGEIS cruisers) make stealth less dominant, because they have wattages far higher than even dedicated AEW birds, and a crapload of very good missiles.

Now the next big threat to carrier groups is going to be something like the terminally guided and maneuverable IRBM that China is trying to get into production, though such a missile would be easy meat for the SM-3 space interceptor missile, but with the ratification of the START treaty, we're consigning that one to the dustbin of history.

[Karoht]

I was wondering where this thread went ...

In other news, I note that a new stealth fighter (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-J-XX-Prototype.html) is being field-tested outside the US, which up to now has had a monopoly on the technology.

My question is: What happens to air war when two air forces clash when both have stealth fighters?

Does this take us back to pre-1941, where we dispense with early warning radars and search for the bad guys with optics?
Modern stealth technology (including stealth employed on the F-22 raptor, which this craft is very similar to) is counterable by double layer radar or over the horizon radar. There is a very good entry on wiki regarding modern stealth craft and their drawbacks, worth a read.

[Karoht]

In a feudal system, probably very little chance for guerilla warfare. The peasants are peasants. They don't give a rat's who's flag flies from the tower. Seconded, with the notion as well that peasants were working incredibly long days doing back breaking labor (or so the stereotype goes), and they had to or else they didn't eat. Or didn't produce enough to pay taxes or levy's or tithes or anything else. In other words, I wouldn't expect the peasants of those times to have the time or energy to mount any kind of guerilla campaign worth mentioning. Doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Doesn't mean it didn't happen. But it might explain why we don't have record of it in that the local magistrate of the day might have been more than enough to deal with the situation without having to involve higher powers such as the local knights under the Baron or other such titled landowner of those lands.



Guerilla warfare relies on the support of the populace, or at least a large enough segment of the populace. True feudal systems were not designed to maximize the loyalty of the masses.Also bear in mind that for enough peasants to assemble to be an actual threat would have been highly noticable.



Google the rebellion of the Jacquerie in France after the French army was defeated at Poitiers, and see how little support a few defeated nobles would get for their continuing struggle against the invader.I'm about to do just that, thanks for the suggestion.

[Crow]

Modern stealth technology (including stealth employed on the F-22 raptor, which this craft is very similar to) is counterable by double layer radar or over the horizon radar. There is a very good entry on wiki regarding modern stealth craft and their drawbacks, worth a read.

Absolutly. Most people don't realize that operating stealth aircraft requires an elaborate campaign involving the neutralization of key radar installations which allow the stealth aircraft to "ignore" other ones. For instance, some radar gives a better read against an aircraft flying perpendicular to the source, while others give a better read against aircraft flying directly towards or away from the source.

You certainly can't fly "Point A to Point B" from base to target. At least not in the early stages of a campaign.

[Galloglaich]

I don't think most parts of Europe were quite as feudal as people think, most people think of it as one giant Ren Faire with straw on the floor and some flute music playing, grubby peasants digging in the mud from Monty Python and etc.. It was a bit more complex than that.

I will agree that in heavily feudal areas you wouldn't find too much effective resistance, serfs don't fight very well.

But there are several very good Medieval examples of extended guerilla warfare against odds which are hard to imagine could be worse.

The Russians were partially conquered by the Mongols in the 13th Century but continued active and passive resistance, in spite of routine massacres on a huge scale. In one exchange in 1380 the Russians wiped out an army of 150,000 Mongols and Turks from the Golden Horde (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kulikovo), two years later in 1382 another Mongol Army under a different general besieged Moscow and killed 24,000 people after it surrendered. But the Muscovites remained 'difficult'. This went on and on for another 100 years until the Mongols finally backed down (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_standing_on_the_Ugra_river) rather than face another nasty fight with the Russians during the reign of Ivan III (father of Ivan IV 'the Terrible', the first independent Russian Czar).

In Hungary there was similar resistance to first the Mongols, then the Ottomans. Specifically Skanderbeg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skanderbeg) and John Hunyandi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hunyadi) are worth looking at during the latter period. And of course Vlad Tepis in Romania.

In Lithuania they had to deal with the Mongols on one side and the German Teutonic Knights and Livonian Knights on the other side. One particularly good example is Samogitia. This tiny spit of land, a Primeval forest called The Grauden, was invaded over 300 times in the course of 200 years. The invaders were repeatedly caught in ambushes and wiped out, including the infamous Crusading Order of the Sword Brothers which was broken in 1239 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Saule) and the Livonian Order which was crippled in 1259 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Skuodas). The Baltic people who lived there were called the Samogitians (http://samogitia.mch.mii.lt/ISTORIJA/samogit.en.htm), sort of Baltic Vikings. They never surrendered, in spite of being sold-out by their own allies in Lithuania 3 times. They were the last European people to convert to Christianity, in 1413 AD!!, and retained their own form of government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Skuodas) called a 'Tribal Eldership' through the 15th Century. They were basically left alone to mind their own business until the 19th Century.

Lithuania in general is a good example of Guerilla resistance because they were facing higher technology with much lower-tech, the Germans had plate armor, armored warhorses, giant warships, cannon, crossbows, and guns; the Tartars had horse archers and all kinds of special weapons, as well as a truly modern command and control capability. But the Lithuanians defeated them both using mostly light cavalry armed with javelins and spears, and all kinds of tricks like ambushes and hornets nests and running people into bogs and deadfalls, i.e. clever use of terrain.

I have also held forth probably enough on here already about the Bohemians, who also fended off both the Germans and the Mongols successfully and fought any number of guerrilla and open war campaigns to defend their land.

Another good example in Europe that most people never heard of is the Dithmarshen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dithmarshen#History), a swampy region in Saxony (northern Germany). They resisted something like 7 or 8 full scale invasions from Denmark and Germany between the 11th and 16th Centuries, for example an army of Saxon peasants won a major battle there in 1500 AD, defeating several thousand heavy cavalry and mercenaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hemmingstedt).

There was a nearly identical situation in nearby Frisia. Look up Gross Pier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pier_Gerlofs_Donia).

People have already mentioned Scotland and Wales upthread, Ireland could be added to that in spite of being conquered they performed an on again off again guerrilla campaign from the arrival of the Normans until the time of Oliver Cromwell, again using very simple low tech weapons like darts and javelins and heavy infantry in chainmail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallowglass) armed with two-handed swords and axes against sophisticated Elizabethan English armies which had guns and heavy cavalry etc.

The Swiss of course, founded their State on exactly this type of resistance.

Another region of a great deal of this type of activity was the Pyrennes mountain range between France and Spain, going back to the Bronze Age, there were many examples where lower tech or less well organized people fought off more sophisticated and better equipped invaders, going back to the Romans.

Basically there are hundreds of historical examples, if I had more time I'd list a few more but I gotta run.

G.

[Eorran]

I was wondering where this thread went ...

In other news, I note that a new stealth fighter (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-J-XX-Prototype.html) is being field-tested outside the US, which up to now has had a monopoly on the technology.

My question is: What happens to air war when two air forces clash when both have stealth fighters?

Does this take us back to pre-1941, where we dispense with early warning radars and search for the bad guys with optics?

Is dogfighting between aircraft in visual range once again a likely possibility, since you can forget about BVR engagement?

Does this mean that manned fighters just got a new lease on life, since onboard pilots will still have greater situational awareness than a ground-controlled/onboard AI UAV?

Does this mean that any area within range of one of these fighters just became a no-go area for a high value asset, such as an aircraft carrier, because they're much harder to intercept but can still carry carrier-killing weapons in the internal bay?

Just pondering the implications. Even if this turns out to be a plywood mockup, someone's going to figure out stealth technology sooner or later, and these questions will come up again.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I asked a similar question (theorizing F-22 with AWACS vs F-22 with AWACS) a while back, and it was suggested that this might parallel submarine warfare, with each side using passive systems to try to locate the other.

Others have commented better than I could on how this would affect air-to-ground.

[fusilier]

Aren't there examples of rebellious/renegade lords that basically lead guerilla style warfare from time to time? I just can't think of any specific examples at the moment. I think condottiere from time to time set themselves up as bandit lords from some stronghold, and conducted guerilla style raids.

[Galloglaich]

Aren't there examples of rebellious/renegade lords that basically lead guerilla style warfare from time to time? I just can't think of any specific examples at the moment. I think condottiere from time to time set themselves up as bandit lords from some stronghold, and conducted guerilla style raids.

Yes there plenty of those too. In the post above I mentioned Skanderbeg, Vlad Tepis (Vlad the Impaler) and John Hunyandi ... all three of them were nobles who led successful guerrilla resistance campaigns against the Ottomans.

A few of the many other Aristocratic / upper class Guerrilla or 'underdog' military leaders through history:

The Greek patrician Xenophon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophon) who led 10,000 Greek mercenaries out of the Persian Empire.

The Visigothic warlord Pelayo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagius_of_Asturias) who led a guerrilla campaign against the Arabs and started the reconquista.

Alfred the Great (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_the_Great#Early_struggles.2C_defeat_and_fli ght), the Saxon King of Wessex was defeated by the Vikings, had to flee into the swamp with a few dozen personal retainers, led a guerrilla campaign against the Great Viking Army and eventually reformed a Saxon army and won victories against them, ultimately making a treaty which divided Britain between a Saxon and Danish section (the Danelaw) thus saving the English monarchy.

King Robert the Bruce and William Wallace (both Knights) everyone has heard of, but there was also The Black Douglas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Douglas,_Lord_of_Douglas) another Lord who was a successful guerrilla leader.

There were several famous Aristocrat-Geurrillas in Brittany, perhaps the most interesting was Jeanne De Clisson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_de_Clisson) a noblewoman who became a notoriously successful guerrilla and pirate leader after her husband was killed by the French.

G.

[a_humble_lich]

It has been a while since I read Xenophon, but while he was an upper class underdog, I'm not sure I'd classify him as a guerilla. His army seemed to follow fairly standard hoplite tactics, and they generally did not have support of the country side. Some of his foes, however, defiantly used guerilla style tactics.

[Eldan]

By clicking random a few times, I just re-found this comic from SMBC this comic. (http://www.smbc-comics.com/?db=comics&id=1804#comic) I think it's relevant to this thread. And some people might not have seen it yet.

[Galloglaich]

It has been a while since I read Xenophon, but while he was an upper class underdog, I'm not sure I'd classify him as a guerilla. His army seemed to follow fairly standard hoplite tactics, and they generally did not have support of the country side. Some of his foes, however, defiantly used guerilla style tactics.

Well, true, but it's kind of an underdog story so I thought I'd throw it in. The others are bona fide guerrillas though.

G.

[Jon_Dahl]

My question is about shooting a bear with a pistol. Can you kill a bear with one shot and how likely is it to succeed?

To be more specific:
Person A has .40 Glock 18. He has excellent marksmanship and has plenty of combat experience.
As a surprise attack 400 lbs black bear runs at him. It's a surprise attack and the bear has absolutely no intention of giving up, 'cause it's on full berserk.
Person A has few seconds to react and clear line of view.

I know there's plenty of info about handgun hunting in the web, but maybe people here have better info than all that commercial "buy this gun!" text in the 'net...

[Yora]

If it can penetrate the skin, a single shot can always be leathal, no matter what you're up against. It really depends the most where you hit the target. If you hit the brain or an artery, death can come very quickly. If you miss anything important the target may not even slow down noticeably for several minutes, even after several hits.

I'm not an expert on this, but I think unless it's a hit to the brain or the heart, death will almost alway be caused by blood loss. However, there's also a chance for the target to suffer a shock or simply falling to the ground from the scare of realizing they have been shot. How long it takes to fall unconscious from blood loss depends on the size of the wound. When shot through an artery in the leg or the neck, this can be relatively quick. But even in such situations it will probably take at least a few seconds, in which an animal can still seriously injure you or a person has time to return fire. Larger bullets tend to create greater wounds that bleed more, so it usually is quicker than a hit in the same loction with a smaller round would be.

While a single bulet can be enough to kill a bear, you have to get a very good hit to do so. And aiming at a moving target that is about to kill you is really difficult. If you fire one shot and it drops, lucky for you. But even when you have an extremely good aim, it would be suicidal to count on getting such a perfect hit.
So if shoting is the only option left, empty the entire magazine on the bear. Don't shot just once and wait a few seconds to see if you hit something and then try it again. You wouldn't have that time and every additional bullet in its body increases your chance that it will collapse before it can kill you.

[Spiryt]

Eh, it hugely depends on what type of bullets are you firing, from what distance does bear attack, etc....

Anyway, if guy really has "plenty experience" he can kill the bear with well placed bullets quite reliably.

If he can't, it will be probably 'double kill' as while bullets from short gun won't stop really aggressive bear from mauling the dude, it most certainly won't survive 15 + wounds in its body.

[Maclav]

History, news, ect are fill with cases where someone rightfully dead continues on for seconds or minutes, sometimes killing the very person that dealt the lethal blow.

How many times have you heard of a good rifle shot to a dear in the heart, where that dear took off and ran 300 yards before finally tripping on something and having the grace to die?

Guy with the gun is screwed, even if the bear dies - eventually.

[Telok]

If you're packing for bear encounters get a shotgun or hunting rifle. If you're using a pistol on a bear remember to file the sights off first, so it won't hurt so much when he shoves it up your nose.

I live in Alaska, the wildlife cones into town and kills people on a semi-regular basis. These things are not uncommon topics of discussion, or experience. People here don't usually worry about the black bears, they're quite skittish unless it's a sow with cubs. Running away works fine for those. We worry about the brown bears, they know that they are the biggest predator around and are willing to argue the point with you.

That being said I have heard tell of some North Slope natives hunting polar bear with .22 pistols. Take it with a big grain of salt but a shot just under the center of the rib cage will paralyse the diaphragm, causing the bear to suffocate in a couple of minutes.

File this under "not a folk tale" I have read several news reports over the years of bears (mostly brown, but a few black) having several handguns emptied into them and still mauling people before either wandering off or dying from blood loss half an hour later. I also remember one encounter where a brown bear was shot, brain and spine, by a high powered bear-hunting rifle and still managed to cover the last 10 to 15 meters to give the hunter thirty stitches and some broken ribs.

If you're packing for bear encounters get a shotgun or hunting rifle and learn to not use it. Education and bear etiquette are cheaper, safer, and more effective.

[fusilier]

Yes there plenty of those too. In the post above I mentioned Skanderbeg, Vlad Tepis (Vlad the Impaler) and John Hunyandi ... all three of them were nobles who led successful guerrilla resistance campaigns against the Ottomans.

<snip>

G.

Thanks,
I came in late on this discussion and most of what I read seemed to revolve around peasants as guerrilla fighters, which just seemed odd to me. On the logistics front: having the support of the countryside really comes down to whether or not the peasants hide their food before an armed force shows up in the area. ;-) Hostile peasants can be a problem, but typically any armed force in the area meant that the local populace could expect some deprivations.

[Galloglaich]

Thanks,
I came in late on this discussion and most of what I read seemed to revolve around peasants as guerrilla fighters, which just seemed odd to me. On the logistics front: having the support of the countryside really comes down to whether or not the peasants hide their food before an armed force shows up in the area. ;-) Hostile peasants can be a problem, but typically any armed force in the area meant that the local populace could expect some deprivations.

Well, it's not really that odd at all it just depends on the "peasants" (an overly broad term I think) having access to terrain they can hide in (and hide supplies in) which being cunning and suspicous by nature, they often do a pretty good job of. Obviously if it's some great big valley in central France where all the land is cleared for miles in every direrction and made into farms already, peasants have a hard time fighting guerilla style. In the south of France where they have the maquis it's a bit easier.

But the really successful "peasant" guerrilla movements took place in zones where there was really rough terrain that they could hide in (and hide their supplies in secret caves, hidden caches etc.) like the Pyrrennes, the Carpathians, the Alps, the marshes and bogs of Saxony, Frisia, and Lithuania, the great forests like the Grauden, the Shwarzwald, the Ygfon in Transylvania etc., or the tricky estuaries of Venice or Brittany. For the locals this difficult terrain is their "briar patch", for invaders, a maze-like hell.

In the Dithmarshen for example the 'peasants' were famously using pole-vaults to leap over bayous and run rings around their opponents, and then they broke open a dyke and flooded the terrain, trapping the invaders, who were subsequently slaughtered. In Switzerland they caught the invading Hapbsurgs in a narrow pass where they knew they could achieve local superiority, dropped logs behind them and moved in to wipe them out with crossbows and halberds. The Bohemians fought off the Mongols the same way, catching them in a narrow pass.

Like I'm always saying... forget the Ren Fair / Sci Fi channel version of pre-industrial history. Reality is far more interesting.

G.

[Galloglaich]

Regarding the earlier conversation about non sword fighting techniques, this new video from Hamabourg is pretty cool

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k8ybRyD4eU

[Norsesmithy]

My question is about shooting a bear with a pistol. Can you kill a bear with one shot and how likely is it to succeed?

To be more specific:
Person A has .40 Glock 18. He has excellent marksmanship and has plenty of combat experience.
As a surprise attack 400 lbs black bear runs at him. It's a surprise attack and the bear has absolutely no intention of giving up, 'cause it's on full berserk.
Person A has few seconds to react and clear line of view.

I know there's plenty of info about handgun hunting in the web, but maybe people here have better info than all that commercial "buy this gun!" text in the 'net...

First, the Glock 18 was only ever available in 9mm. I suppose you could instead say that the person has a Glock 22 with a Drop In Auto Sear, a fairly rare and expensive accessory (that will convert any glock into a fully automatic machine pistol, but is registered as a machinegun itself, so the average person can't go and buy a new one, but must instead buy one of the small number of DIASs made and registered prior to 1986).

Second, if the person has "a few seconds" he can empty the magazine out of a standard non-full auto Glock with ease, and perhaps with more precision than a person with a full auto Glock, even if he's carrying a high capacity (22 round) magazine instead of the standard capacity 15 round mag.

Third, there are so many variables here it's ridiculous. A man in Colorado three years ago shot a 500 lb brown bear once in the eye with a Ruger MK II in .22 LR, killing it instantly.

A man in Alaska 5 years ago shot a 800 lb brown bear 11 times with a 7MM Ultra Mag rifle (he shot the thing at 200 yards, and had time to reload the gun TWICE as it charged at him), and had the bear die at his feet.

I know a hunter who shot a 300 lb black bear 8 times with a .30-06, and still had to track the damn thing because it stopped charging and ran away off into the woods.

So bigger bears have been killed instantly with single hits from a far less powerful round, and smaller bears have taken multiple hits from far more powerful rounds, and still traveled enough distance that they could have killed you in your scenario.

All I'll say is that I don't trust .40 Smith and Wesson to have enough mass and penetration to do the job with anything approaching reliability, I'd want a 10mm, .45 Super, .41 Mag, .44 mag, .460 Rowland, .50 AE, .460 Ruger, or .500 Smith and Wesson for a handgun, and would feel a lot better with a rifle like a Marlin Guide Gun in .45-70 or a Model 70 Safari in .458 Winchester Magnum.

[Karoht]

Bear VS Pistol:
If I had a pistol and a bear was bearing down on me, I'd be doing something other than shooting. If I'm shooting the pistol at all, it might be turned on myself rather than the bear. Quicker that way.
No, there are better ways out of the situation than drawing a sidearm and shooting.

But say for a second I was for some reason compelled to shoot the bear. For hypothetical arguement's sake, we'll say the cause of such compulsion is mind control, by aliens.
Rear legs, where the leg meets the hip, is about where I'd aim. Lots of good arteries in there to hit, might damage the leg and slow the bear down, maybe even damage the hip there.
Also, the skin there would be folded inward with the joint (just like on your body) therefore not pulled tight like the rest of the body. Bullet has a much better chance of penetrating that. And that particular joint is a fairly large target area, one I would feel comfortable aiming at with a pistol. But even that... yeah I doubt that would work. Even with a shattered pelvis or an injured leg I'd still wager a bear could outrun me.


EDIT:
@Norsesmithy
HOLY CRAP! Reloaded twice? Yeesh. I knew bears were crazy tough but wow! That's amazing.

EDIT 2.0:
Assume in my hypothetical that I also empty the 'clip' of whatever weapon we are talking about, into said target area. Again, hypothetical, alien mind control and whatnot.

[Knaight]

Bear vs. Pistol.

The one shot argument is irrelevant, because the person isn't taking one. There are two main scenarios, someone panics, and presumably empties the entire weapon, or someone doesn't panic, realizes they are being charged by a bear, and empty their entire weapon. Bears are touch, and if there is one charging at you you really don't want to take chances.

[Crow]

Dude, you're lucky to get a wild pig down in one shot with a pistol, let alone a frigging grizzly bear.

edit: My bad, missed the part about it being a black bear...still, good luck! Same rules apply as with humans for the most part. Only a direct hit to the CNS can give you a reliable chance of anything.

[J.Gellert]

EDIT:
@Norsesmithy
HOLY CRAP! Reloaded twice? Yeesh. I knew bears were crazy tough but wow! That's amazing.

Crazy tough, or crazy slow? :smalltongue:

[Galloglaich]

Another mixed weapon HEMA video, dussack, longsword, spear, sword and shield

HEMA inspired stage combat, from Bohemia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPfLZFHcNv4

I particularly like the dussack work.

G.

[Hanuman]

Bear vs. Pistol

Bear > Pistol

It can swing both ways, but I'd put my money on the bear.

[Spiryt]

Another mixed weapon HEMA video, dussack, longsword, spear, sword and shield

HEMA inspired stage combat, from Bohemia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPfLZFHcNv4

I particularly like the dussack work.

G.

Huh, too bad they have worse camera work and quality than some guys, as the fact that they present it at much greater speed than most makes it definitely impressive.

[J.Gellert]

Another mixed weapon HEMA video, dussack, longsword, spear, sword and shield

HEMA inspired stage combat, from Bohemia

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPfLZFHcNv4

I particularly like the dussack work.

G.

Heh, awesome, finally a demonstration that's not in slow-motion.

[AugustNights]

Question: In the Sherlock Holmes movie starring Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law, there is a strange weapon introduced in the opening scene. (Strange as in I am unfamiliar with it) Lord Blackwood provokes Dr. Watson into attacking him, while holding a thing spire of spun glass, that is difficult to see. Is there any history or background information on this weapon, or is it purely the work of movie-fiction?

[Spiryt]

Question: In the Sherlock Holmes movie starring Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law, there is a strange weapon introduced in the opening scene. (Strange as in I am unfamiliar with it) Lord Blackwood provokes Dr. Watson into attacking him, while holding a thing spire of spun glass, that is difficult to see. Is there any history or background information on this weapon, or is it purely the work of movie-fiction?

Why not embed scene on Youtube, or something? At least I can't really visualize it from your description, and I don't remember that scene.

Also, this movie was poor fun with good dose of * wink, wink *, that made it very enjoyable, so I would suspect it could be easily made up.

[AugustNights]

Youtube hates my computer, so here's an image.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_qeg1OcClj7U/S-fMZ62Z3OI/AAAAAAAADYo/6fKfQcl5amU/s400/sholmes2.jpg

[Crow]

What, the club?

[Joran]

Why not embed scene on Youtube, or something? At least I can't really visualize it from your description, and I don't remember that scene.

Also, this movie was poor fun with good dose of * wink, wink *, that made it very enjoyable, so I would suspect it could be easily made up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uAGmNsbMZw

Starting around 1:22. It's basically a monofilament wire strung across the room, I think.

Edit: I've seen the movie at least three times, first time I've ever noticed that it was a pointy glass thing rather than a wire.

A similar tactic was used in WWII where guerrillas would string piano wire across roads to behead or kill soldiers riding in jeeps.

http://forum.mythbustersfanclub.com/index.php?topic=11055.0

[Spiryt]

Youtube hates my computer, so here's an image.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_qeg1OcClj7U/S-fMZ62Z3OI/AAAAAAAADYo/6fKfQcl5amU/s400/sholmes2.jpg


So the thin piece of glass?

Doesn't look sensible at all as a weapon (or what was it's purpose?), and I haven't heard of anything like that.

[tyckspoon]

So the thin piece of glass?

Doesn't look sensible at all as a weapon (or what was it's purpose?), and I haven't heard of anything like that.

I'm reasonably certain it's movie fiction. He was intending to provoke Watson into impaling his face on a danger he couldn't see; other than that, such an item would be horribly pointless as an actual weapon (if you watch the scene, you'll notice that the needle is almost entirely invisible until Sherlock tips it out of plane so it reflects better.)

[J.Gellert]

I remember when watching the movie, I couldn't tell if it was supposed to behead someone who ran into it, or just a tripwire for another trap.

[Yora]

From the sound it makes when it shatters, I say its a very thin cristal needle, pointed directly at his eye, so he wouldn't see it from his angle.
Would probably snap very easily, but when you get it in the face, it will still make a very effective distraction.

That is IF such a thing would exist. :smallbiggrin:

[Eldan]

It could be poisoned, perhaps. Otherwise, it seems to brittle to be of much use.

[Telok]

From the sound it makes when it shatters, I say its a very thin cristal needle, pointed directly at his eye, so he wouldn't see it from his angle.
Would probably snap very easily, but when you get it in the face, it will still make a very effective distraction.

That is IF such a thing would exist. :smallbiggrin:

I have a glass bead making kit that I use to make glass magical effects for my minis. I have one "wand zap" bit that is around 4cm long, 0.5mm wide, and reasonably straight. It is a bit thicker at the base where it is melted to a needle for handling and installing. Of course mine is made of dark purple glass with gold glitter in it, not so good for hiding.

So they can be made. It would take lots of practice and probably better tools than I have (which reminds me that I need to buy more gas), but a 10cm or 15cm clear glass pokey thing with a sharp point is quite doable.

[AugustNights]

Ah, pants. Movie-fiction, I was hoping there was some sort of research I could do on it, or at least some name help. I'm trying to brew a more practical version of it up, and was hoping to come up with a better name than 'glass dagger' or 'glass spike.'

[Karoht]

If I'm not mistaken, Holmes also notes that it probably has some kind of poison on it.

It's basically the same logic as placing a dirty syringe somewhere, like inside a pop vending machine where you have to put your hand. All kinds of traps have worked that way. Glass has the added dis/advantage of the fact that it breaks off and remains jagged, possibly in several pieces. Someone of Watson's medical knowledge would certainly appreciate the difficulty of removing a piece of glass like that from his face, much less appreciate the irony of having to have someone else remove it from his face.
Had he walked into it as he was about to, he would have likely caught it either in the sinus or eye, or possibly the neck. That would have been extremely difficult to remove from any of those places, and likely would have left perminant scarring, no matter how good the surgeon was.


As for historical accuracy, probably not so much. It was likely an art piece that the villian decided to repurpose. Likely a letter opener, again, repurposed.

PS-Loved that movie. I have a feeling it isn't as true to the period as my imagination likes to believe, but I thought they did a decent job in attempting some level of accuracy. Except with Holmes and his fighting for money.

[Stephen_E]

Broken glass is much harderer to remove from a wound.

IIRC the majority of weapon metals are ferous and can be searched for my a magnet even in small shards.

Trying to extract glass fragments from a wound is a nightmare from what I've read, but our paramedic would probably no more about this.

Stephen E

[Karoht]

Broken glass is much harderer to remove from a wound.

IIRC the majority of weapon metals are ferous and can be searched for my a magnet even in small shards.

Trying to extract glass fragments from a wound is a nightmare from what I've read, but our paramedic would probably no more about this.

Stephen E

And back then would have been even harder, I'm sure.

Also, by the looks of the image, the glass blade looks to be triangular. I recall someone once telling me that triangular shaped blades were eventually banned due to the fact that wounds caused by them were remarkably difficult to suture closed.

...one wiki search later, I certainly feel dumb.
"The triangular bayonet, contrary to an old urban legend, was not designed to create stab wounds "that were difficult to stitch when attended to by a medic, as it is more difficult to stitch a three-sided wound than a two-sided one, thus making the wound more likely to become infected".[citation needed] This quote ignores the reality of surgery, in that surgeons have sewn up jagged wounds using more stitches when needed, since time immemorial."

Well I learned something.

[Galloglaich]

Heh, awesome, finally a demonstration that's not in slow-motion.

Us HEMA-istas like the ones in slow-motion because you can make-out the techniques, but it is also fun sometimes to see them at full-speed, or even a bit more than full-speed like in this excellent demonstration from a Czech HEMA group.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln94E9AGYTc

I haven't seen anyone sparring with quite that degree of precision and speed yet, but we have come much closer to that in the last few years. If you squint your eyes a bit you can now start to see what blossfechten really looked like circa 1470. Very scary, brutal. I want to see this in a movie.

G.

EDIT: Slovakian not Czech

[Spiryt]

May add something non scripted to join the flow.

Obviously, when something competitive and not for "presentation" it doesn't look quite as nice, but has some other valors. :smallwink:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91BbFQHSsl4

[J.Gellert]

Us HEMA-istas like the ones in slow-motion because you can make-out the techniques, but it is also fun sometimes to see them at full-speed, or even a bit more than full-speed like in this excellent demonstration from a Czech HEMA group.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln94E9AGYTc

I haven't seen anyone sparring with quite that degree of precision and speed yet, but we have come much closer to that in the last few years. If you squint your eyes a bit you can now start to see what blossfechten really looked like circa 1470. Very scary, brutal. I want to see this in a movie.

G.

EDIT: Slovakian not Czech

I appreciate slow-motion because it's clearer, obviously. Still if I had to choose one or the other, I'd pick fast because I can always pause-play-pause-rewind if I don't catch something.

Also great video, and heh, Witcher music :smalltongue: That was a game with ...interesting sword moves!

[Yora]

Reminds me quite a bit of kendo tournaments.

It seems to me (as someone not inside the historical fencing scene) that people still put a very huge emphasis on reproducing the stances and moves in the manuals. While I think it's a useful activity to understand what people did in the past, it won't tell us exactly how everything was done, only some fragments of it. That's the nature of both traditional and experimental history (which is what these people and groups seem to do in my eyes). But I think people should also become more willing to dare taking the additional step of expanding on this fragments of knowledge.
It won't be "the real thing" or "historically accurate", but I think lots of people are not primarily interested about such "book science", but to revive a living tradition that had mostly been drifted into obscurity. But people have made changes to traditional customs all the time and expanded and improved them. To revive european fencing, people have to become willing to accept that new schools and masters arise. I don't know any of these people personally, but the one snapshot I can get is that youtube has a tonne of vidoes of people showing of the stances and movements from the manuals, but there are very few in which people showcase the ways they developed to link them together into an actual fighting system that could be persued in a competitive way.
The things you see in a kendo tournament are very different from what happened on an actual japanese battlefield 500 years ago, but I don't consider kendo to be a stupid imitation because of this. I do not deny the usefulness of researching historic manuals, but I really would like to see a new competitive sport emerge from the knowledge gathered in them.

[Galloglaich]

May add something non scripted to join the flow.

Obviously, when something competitive and not for "presentation" it doesn't look quite as nice, but has some other valors. :smallwink:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91BbFQHSsl4

Yes, excellent stuff there. Also Axel Petterson from Sweden fighting on of the same guys from Fecthschule Gdansk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr9Mtc4kveA

G.

[Galloglaich]

Ok please forgive a typical Galloglaich rant as this is a subject near and dear to my heart.


Reminds me quite a bit of kendo tournaments.

It seems to me (as someone not inside the historical fencing scene) that people still put a very huge emphasis on reproducing the stances and moves in the manuals. While I think it's a useful activity to understand what people did in the past, it won't tell us exactly how everything was done, only some fragments of it.
Actually, given the number of books we have and the size and in-depth detail of many of them, (Talhoffers 1467 is over 300 pages for example) and the number of people working on figuring them out for the last 10 years, we actually can figure out what they did and how they did it. These are not fragments, they are complete systems written out in fully intact how-to manuals, with in many cases dozens of manuals covering the same material in slightly different ways.


That's the nature of both traditional and experimental history (which is what these people and groups seem to do in my eyes). But I think people should also become more willing to dare taking the additional step of expanding on this fragments of knowledge.

The Masters actually advocate that in the Fechtbucher, and I have no doubt we will one day. Nobody in the world today is anywhere near good enough of a fencer yet to do that though.



It won't be "the real thing" or "historically accurate", but I think lots of people are not primarily interested about such "book science", but to revive a living tradition that had mostly been drifted into obscurity.

It's coming back from obscurity precisely because of the discovery of these books and the proven efficacy of the techniques in them.


But people have made changes to traditional customs all the time and expanded and improved them. To revive european fencing, people have to become willing to accept that new schools and masters arise.

There is no one stopping them. We don't have to accept them, they can show up, beat everybody, and then they will prove they are better than the Masters of 500 years ago. I won't hold my breath though. So far nobody has come even close. All else being equal, just knowing the basic historical guards and stances (which takes about 3 months of training) gives you about a 4-1 advantage over someone who doesn't know them.


I don't know any of these people personally, but the one snapshot I can get is that youtube has a tonne of vidoes of people showing of the stances and movements from the manuals,

We are very interested in those because we have learned from experience that they are the key to winning real fights.


but there are very few in which people showcase the ways they developed to link them together into an actual fighting system that could be persued in a competitive way.

Yeah, this is a very familiar argument, and if you will forgive me for being blunt I think you are completely missing the point. The "the stances and moves in the manuals" as you put it, are often criticized by LARPers, SCAdians and re-enactors who prefer to learn by trial and error. That is ok, nobody is telling them to change what they do, but the bottom line is really, really really simple:

The HEMA fighters already hold open tournaments, there are about 15 per year now in Europe, there are already 4 annual tournaments that I know of in the US. In these tournaments there are bare minimum of rules: you can kick, punch, throw people, stab, cut, slice, use the weapon to trip people or for armlocks or disarms, anything you like. The only rule is you either stop when someone is hit significantly and then start over again until one opponent gets a certain number of 'kills', or you fight for a given period of time and they count who got hit the most.

Here is the first important part. Anybody can and does come to these tournaments and try out their skillz. SCA people, Kendo people, Olympic style fencers, Eskrima / Arnis people, Kung-Fu people, karate people. Anyone who thinks they can fence and is willing to accept a few bruises (because you will have a few bruises). In fact most HEMA fighters today come from one or more of the above backgrounds.

Here is the second important part. So far, the techniques from the books are what enable people to win in no-holds barred tournaments. People who can do those techniques the most accurately are the ones who win. Not, to date, people who make stuff up on their own (and believe me, those people do try). That is what makes the books so exciting to us and is the number one point a lot of the critics coming from the re-enactment scene can't seem to grasp yet.


The things you see in a kendo tournament are very different from what happened on an actual japanese battlefield 500 years ago, but I don't consider kendo to be a stupid imitation because of this. I do not deny the usefulness of researching historic manuals, but I really would like to see a new competitive sport emerge from the knowledge gathered in them.

The problem with kendo is that in order for the techniques to work, you have to play within a certain very restrictive set of rules. You basically go back and forth in a strait line, you don't target most parts of the body. People play to those rules. I fought a kendo guy last year in a HEMA tournament who was a more experienced fencer, in better shape, and probably faster, I beat him because I was using historical techniques which were designed for fighting without a lot of rules and he stuck too much to fighting in a strait line. It's the same with collegiate style fencing etc. I don't think there is any denying (at least to me) that a HEMA fencing match like the ones posted above or the one on my sigline are more interesting to watch than a collegiate sport epee match because in the latter they are only trying to score points, it's a game, it's not really anything like a fight. It might as well be badmitten.

So the answer to your question is, there is a sport emerging, but it's going to me more like MMA with weapons than like kendo.

The bottom line though is, I know all kinds of foreign words and weird old drawings and cryptic phrases are a bit off-putting to a lot pf people. I think if you are only casually interested, you can still enjoy watching highlights from tournaments as well as Historically derived stage combat like I posted up-thread which you will be seeing in movies soon.

But in places like this thread devoted to understanding subjects such as how people really kill with swords and knives and spears, this WMA / HEMA thing is the answer. Maybe reality is a little more complex than some people want to deal with (understandably), which is why LARP and Deadliest Warrior and everything else is out there. But if you really want to know, today you can actually see the real techniques. That wasn't available when I was a kid.

G.

[Mike_G]

Broken glass is much harderer to remove from a wound.

IIRC the majority of weapon metals are ferous and can be searched for my a magnet even in small shards.

Trying to extract glass fragments from a wound is a nightmare from what I've read, but our paramedic would probably no more about this.

Stephen E

As far as the glass rapier goes, glass can be very sharp, and is a real pain to get out of wounds. It's invisible on x-rays, doesn't respond to magnets, and is hard to see, since it's transparent, so even direct visualization isn't easy. Today, we mostly see it in car accidents where you get glass in your scalp, or if someone puts a fist through a window, usually as a result of testosterone poisoning.

Victorian medicine's only answer would be to dig around and hope to find the shards.

As a nasty surprise, walking into a glass spike would suck. It would make a nasty wound, and would be a great way to introduce some kind of poison. The proverbial sharp stick in the eye will take anyone out of a fight.

As a weapon, it would be crap. It wouldn't hold up to actual fighting at all, and it simply wouldn't be strong enough to give a fatal wound, especially in the head, since the brain is very well protected. No way are you going to put a piece of glass through the skull, even at the back of the eye socket. Hitting a big artery is a possibility, but a spike that thin wouldn't sever one, just poke a hole, and the fragment itself would seal it. Even if you miraculously direct it between the ribs and hit the heart, it won't make a big enough wound to stop someone quickly.

[Mike_G]

Ok please forgive a typical Galloglaich rant as this is a subject near and dear to my heart.


The bottom line though is, I know all kinds of foreign words and weird old drawings and cryptic phrases are a bit off-putting to a lot pf people. I think if you are only casually interested, you can still enjoy watching highlights from tournaments as well as Historically derived stage combat like I posted up-thread which you will be seeing in movies soon.

But in places like this thread devoted to understanding subjects such as how people really kill with swords and knives and spears, this WMA / HEMA thing is the answer. Maybe reality is a little more complex than some people want to deal with (understandably), which is why LARP and Deadliest Warrior and everything else is out there. But if you really want to know, today you can actually see the real techniques. That wasn't available when I was a kid.

G.

I have to second most of this, which I cut for length.

When I was in college in the '80's, I took fencing and was a competitive fencer for quite a few years. I took it because it was the closest I could find to swordfighting. I love the sport, and it's a blast, but it is playing tag with car antenas.

Nobody was doing HEMA, I'd never heard of it. There were some SCA groups, but their style of fighting is every bit as unrealistic and bound by silly rules, and the fencing team had hotter girls. All that lunging gives you great legs and a nice tight butt. Quoting Holy Grail and speaking in a faux English accent while belting one another with rattan, not so much.

I'd have leapt at a historical fighting group, but it didn't exist. I have tried some historical guards in Olympic style fencing, and they make sense. If you consider the weight of a real sabre as opposed to a modern fencing sabre, the hanging guard makes a lot of sense.

I don't doubt that studying manuals written by people who actually wanted techniques to keep steel out of them and put it in their enemies would probably give better results than any of the "tag, you're it! Hey that didn't count, it was below my knee!" kind of styles that epitomize the non-HEMA alternatives.

[Galloglaich]

One comment, to be fair, there are actually some people in the WMA scene who don't like the idea of tournaments and think that fighting should be judged based on how close it is to Historical technique. This was a big debate for a while between different HEMA factions. Certain people (mostly in North America, I'm ashamed to say) felt that if we didn't put some kind of authenticity test on it, that HEMA would turn into a sport and / or become dominated by either just the most athletic people or people from other Martial Arts. They thought people would just make up tricks to win, to 'beat the system'.

The group of people I'm part of, represented by HEMAC in Europe and HEMA Alliance and Western Martial Arts Coalition in the US, felt that if we kept the tournaments full-contact, minimal rules, the Historical techniques would win out. Two years ago nobody was sure how this would turn out or what faction within the HEMA world was right. I think at this point it's fair to say that we were right. What everybody ultimately wants to see is real fencing, real sword-fighting, not Sci Fi channel garbage or larp games or car aerials.

And I think now with people like Axel Petterson and Anders Linnard, Jan Chodkiewicz, Jake Norwood, even my guy Henry Rhodes, we are starting to see the real thing begin to emerge. Yes people are starting to become more athletic and spending more time on working out and fitness, but that isn't a bad thing really is it? The pressure (and pain) of full contact fighting with realistic weapons has helped streamline our techniques and people are making really rapid strides now, most importantly the folks who do the techniques most like what we see in the books are the ones who are winning. By a long shot. And that speaks volumes.

Four years ago people would have thought it was insane to do a HEMA blossfechten tournament with live steel weapons, now we have 3 annual tournaments, we know how to do it safely. With sparks.

G.

[Yora]

In that case it's really mostly a perception bias, as I was kind of suspecting. Thanks for enlightening me.
Somehow the demonstrations I saw mostly reminded me of Kung Fu, were people also seem to take a very high pride in showing off their forms, but to the untrained observers it looks more like gymnastics. Imagine my suprise when I saw two people using Tai Chi at full speed against each other at full time. :smallbiggrin:

[J.Gellert]

And I think now with people like Axel Petterson and Anders Linnard, Jan Chodkiewicz, Jake Norwood, even my guy Henry Rhodes, we are starting to see the real thing begin to emerge. Yes people are starting to become more athletic and spending more time on working out and fitness, but that isn't a bad thing really is it? The pressure (and pain) of full contact fighting with realistic weapons has helped streamline our techniques and people are making really rapid strides now, most importantly the folks who do the techniques most like what we see in the books are the ones who are winning. By a long shot. And that speaks volumes.

It's great to know that the winning moves are the authentic ones. Other similar tournaments boil down to "Alright, you won, but you'd still be dead if it was a real weapon."

[Spiryt]

So a little question:


They were, moreover, excellent archers, using bows nearly three cubits long and arrows more than two cubits. When discharging the arrow, they draw the string by getting a purchase with the left foot planted forward on the lower end of the bow. The arrows pierced through shield and cuirass, and the Hellenes, when they got hold of them, used them as javelins, fitting them to their thongs. In these districts the Cretans were highly serviceable. They were under the command of Stratocles, a Cretan.

It's from "Anabasis" by Xenophon, desribing road trough the lands of Karduchi, who were attacking Greeks with some nasty archery.

I know thing or two about bows, and the most sensible explanation to me is that someone saw how Karduchi were putting the strings on the bow, in manner that they didn't know, and mixed everything pretty bad.

Other than that, the only way in which foot would be useful for drawing a bow:

- bow is highly asymmetrical - as, obviously, shooting ~1.5 m bow with foot on one arm is not doable, even if you're 140 cm tall.
- and thus, they were stomping the very end of the long arm, to make it work a bit less, or whatever.

None of this really makes much sense, especially for powerful bow, that would require feet surely planted on the ground, but people on one forum are wondering what it all means.

[Fhaolan]

So a little question:


First annoying thing is the cubit measurement, as it changes fairly significantly throughout time and place, and varies between 1 cubit = 1.5 feet to 1 cubit = 4 feet. Early Greek cubit is supposedly on the smaller 1.5 feet size, but apparantly some Roman writers used the bigger 4 foot cubit. So these bow staves could be as small as 4.5 feet long with arrows of 3 feet long or so. Which as far as I can tell is fairly average for ancient-world bows.

However, the way it's phrased makes it sound like the writer intended it to sound impressive in size. With the bigger measurement, these things could have bow staves of 12 feet long, with arrows of 8 feet. This seems a bit ridiculous to me.

The description is also very odd as it sounds almost like the Asian back-bow, where you lie on your back, feet on the stave, and using both hands to draw. Basically your body becoming the stock of a large crossbow. But you'd think he'd mention the archers lying on their back.

[Matthew]

I would imagine Xenephon is using the 1.5 Feet = 1 Cubit measurement. As you say, it is possible he is not, but I think that is the most probably answer. As to the foot aspect, yeah, not sure. A method of stringing the bow seems the most credible solution, and that may come down to the translation. I imagine Firkraag could give us some answers, if we can find the original Greek (should not be too hard, once the reference is located).

[Spiryt]

Yes, most people whose posts I've seen agree on the cubit that's at most ~55 cm, so it would give rather large bow for Greek standards, and definitely huge arrows.

Still, even 170 cm or so bow would be impossible to shoot with feet on the lower arm, if it was symmetrical.

Not to mention that drawing powerful bow basically standing on one feet could be damn challenging. :smalltongue:

It's Xenophons "Anabasis" book 4, second part, if anybody really want to bother with greek.

[J.Gellert]

Found it, the reference to Stratokles was really useful for a quick-search :smallbiggrin:

So... No idea if this text will show up properly...

ἄριστοι δὲ καὶ τοξόται ἦσαν· εἶχον δὲ τόξα ἐγγὺς τριπήχη, τὰ δὲ τοξεύματα πλέον ἢ διπήχη· εἷλκον δὲ τὰς νευρὰς ὁπότε τοξεύοιεν πρὸς τὸ κάτω τοῦ τόξου τῷ ἀριστερῷ ποδὶ προσβαίνοντες. τὰ δὲ τοξεύματα ἐχώρει διὰ τῶν ἀσπίδων καὶ διὰ τῶν θωράκων. ἐχρῶντο δὲ αὐτοῖς οἱ Ἕλληνες, ἐπεὶ λάβοιεν, ἀκοντίοις ἐναγκυλῶντες. ἐν τούτοις τοῖς χωρίοις οἱ Κρῆτες χρησιμώτατοι ἐγένοντο. ἦρχε δὲ αὐτῶν Στρατοκλῆς Κρής.

It's the same as the translation. They drew the string when shooting, with the left foot planted towards the lower end of the bow. :smalltongue: Weird!

[Ogremindes]

It's the same as the translation. They drew the string when shooting, with the left foot planted towards the lower end of the bow.

Could that simply mean a bow so tall that the lower end is next to the shooter's foot?

[Fhaolan]

Could that simply mean a bow so tall that the lower end is next to the shooter's foot?

Another thing I was thinking of is that it simply means shooting in a left-foot forward stance, and we're getting confused by some kind of coloquialism.

[Lateral]

Am I correct in assuming that railguns only work when powered by direct current?

[Dead_Jester]

Theoretically, yes, as a railgun is simply 2 conductive rails with opposite polarities and a conductive projectile in the middle, the projectile being propulsed by the effects of the magnetic field that is created by current passing through the first rail and into the second rail by usually passing through the projectile.

Also, a gauss gun (or coilgun) could theoretically function with both, as long as the projectiles moved fast enough to reduce the effects of reversing the polarity of the magnet. It would however be much less efficient than a coilgun functioning with DC current.

However, in both cases, a capacitor is used instead of directly feeding the current into the weapon, as the most effective way of producing great acceleration in a confined space is to have an immense surge of power immediately instead of a steady flow of power. A capacitor can be charged with either AC or DC current.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

...the projectile being propulsed by the effects of the magnetic field that is created by current passing through the first rail and into the second rail by usually passing through the projectile.

I thought it was propelled by the Lorentz Force, which isn't strictly magnetic.

[Dead_Jester]

From what I understand, the right hand rule for magnetic field would dictate that the particular settup would create a repulsive force (which would be the Lorentz force, but with an actual object instead of being applied to a Point Particle) directed straight forward, like in a solenoid.

I might be wrong, but practically, the effect are the same.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

From what I understand, the right hand rule for magnetic field would dictate that the particular settup would create a repulsive force (which would be the Lorentz force, but with an actual object instead of being applied to a Point Particle) directed straight forward, like in a solenoid.

I might be wrong, but practically, the effect are the same.

You're right (or at least, my sleepy brain thinks you are) I'm just tired and therefore a bit nit-picky.

Edit: And because of my tiredness, I forgot to add my apologies for picking nits.

[J.Gellert]

Could that simply mean a bow so tall that the lower end is next to the shooter's foot?

No, the verb means on the bow... But it might simply mean that they would step on it in order to string it, not every time when shooting.

So maybe just a typical longbow. It's only one sentence on this, from what I see, and not very specific.

[Yora]

But it might simply mean that they would step on it in order to string it, not every time when shooting.
That was my first thought as well. If they used such an unusual way to fire their bows, there would probably have been a bit more description. But when he mentions it just once, he probably assumed the readers would know instantly what he was meaning. And if I remember correctly, Xenophon was a soldier himself, so he'd know which things are interesting and which not.

[Spiryt]

No, the verb means on the bow... But it might simply mean that they would step on it in order to string it, not every time when shooting.

So maybe just a typical longbow. It's only one sentence on this, from what I see, and not very specific.

So it's only to string the bow?

English and polish translations suggest rather strongly, that they do it when they shoot.

I guess that translators weren't really good with the bows. :smalltongue:

And that theory is indeed most probable from the beginning.

Considering that AFAIK, most period greek bows were relatively short (retro)reflexives, that were strung somehow like that:

http://www.greek-islands.us/ancient-greek-coins/crete-kydonia-coins/silver-stater.jpg

That Karduchi method might have seemed unusual.

[a_humble_lich]

So it's only to string the bow?

English and polish translations suggest rather strongly, that they do it when they shoot.

I guess that translators weren't really good with the bows. :smalltongue:
....


Looking at the Greek, the verb he uses (τοξεύω) means "to shoot or aim a bow." The dictionary doesn't really give any examples of it meaning to string the bow. And the rest of the sentence really seems to imply he's talking about people shooting bows.

I have no idea what they are saying :smallsmile:

[Matthew]

Found it, the reference to Stratokles was really useful for a quick-search :smallbiggrin:

So... No idea if this text will show up properly...



ἄριστοι δὲ καὶ τοξόται ἦσαν· εἶχον δὲ τόξα ἐγγὺς τριπήχη, τὰ δὲ τοξεύματα πλέον ἢ διπήχη· εἷλκον δὲ τὰς νευρὰς ὁπότε τοξεύοιεν πρὸς τὸ κάτω τοῦ τόξου τῷ ἀριστερῷ ποδὶ προσβαίνοντες. τὰ δὲ τοξεύματα ἐχώρει διὰ τῶν ἀσπίδων καὶ διὰ τῶν θωράκων. ἐχρῶντο δὲ αὐτοῖς οἱ Ἕλληνες, ἐπεὶ λάβοιεν, ἀκοντίοις ἐναγκυλῶντες. ἐν τούτοις τοῖς χωρίοις οἱ Κρῆτες χρησιμώτατοι ἐγένοντο. ἦρχε δὲ αὐτῶν Στρατοκλῆς Κρής.


It's the same as the translation. They drew the string when shooting, with the left foot planted towards the lower end of the bow. :smalltongue: Weird!
Sweet as. :smallbiggrin:



Another thing I was thinking of is that it simply means shooting in a left-foot forward stance, and we're getting confused by some kind of coloquialism.

Yeah, that would be good! I remember in Josephus it says that the Romans wore their "long swords" on the left and their "short swords" on the right, which really had us confused on RomanArmyTalk, until I suggested the solution that this meant those who wore long swords (spatha) did so on the left and those who wore short swords (gladius) did so on the right, rather than that the Romans wore their gladius on the left and pugio on the right! That said, I have seen even modern historians get confused on the issue of swords, one even saying that the knight drew his sword from the right (I am going to have to go and find that reference now, aren't I?). :smallbiggrin:



Considering that AFAIK, most period greek bows were relatively short (retro)reflexives, that were strung somehow like that:

That Karduchi method might have seemed unusual.

True. A good place to look for bows might be Herodotus' list of the Persian army, now that I think about it, as he gives some interesting details there. I think there are even 6' "reedy" long bows mentioned, but that is another thing I would have to look up...

[Spiryt]

True. A good place to look for bows might be Herodotus' list of the Persian army, now that I think about it, as he gives some interesting details there. I think there are even 6' "reedy" long bows mentioned, but that is another thing I would have to look up...

This is, in fact, complicating things a bit, as Xenophone, was after all, returning from wars in Persia, hired by Cyrus, so if Persian archers from various those regions were using six foot bows, sight of Karduchi, their bows, and stringing methods wouldn't be exactly so new to Xenophone...

On the other hand though, there seems to be nothing in description that suggests that Karduchi were doing something new too viewer...

[Ragitsu]

Would an RPG-7's (or closest equivalent) round exploding near a 2 1/2 ton truck, in motion, really cause it to tip on it's side, potentially causing a rollover?

[J.Gellert]

Tοξεύω can be "launch an arrow using a bow" or even "wound somebody with an arrow". Still I am not sure how closely one should be reading this. In general, when it comes to language, whichever meaning makes more sense is correct :smalltongue:

The thing is, there is a small distinction between οπότε (can mean "after), and όποτε (can mean at the same time, or every time). Guess which one is used :smallsmile:

I'd just read τοξεύω as "use a bow" and take the whole sentence to be about "not something they did at the same time as firing, but something they did to use the bow".

Of course then I presume to know what Xenophon is talking about, which I don't, because I don't have one such bow in front of me. But the more I think about it, the more I am convinced it's about the way they prepared it.


On the other hand though, there seems to be nothing in description that suggests that Karduchi were doing something new too viewer...

This too. Again, I am not in Xenophon's head, but I am pretty sure he just wants to point out the power of it, not the strangeness. "The arrows can pierce shields and armor."

[Storm Bringer]

Would an RPG-7's (or closest equivalent) round exploding near a 2 1/2 ton truck, in motion, really cause it to tip on it's side, potentially causing a rollover?

in and of itself? not sure. would depend on the exact truck, and how top heavy it was when the round went off.

can it cause the driver to serve enough to roll the truck? hell yhea.

[Karoht]

Kata's.
Or at least, thats the word used in asian martial arts.
Where one goes through a sequence of moves, for repetition and practice, more oriented towards form or flow.

I'm trying to find something similar for Western European, particularly swordfighting. I've made up a few of my own, one of which came in particularly handy for shooting a commercial a few weeks back. But again, these are Kata's I've made up. I've had others critique them, to tighten them up, tricks for increasing speed or improving flow or footwork. In the process of working on them, I've decided that I at least enjoy doing them, even if they are repetitious and possibly pattern inducing. I like them for winter training, as I can do this indoors for a half hour and still be working on my swing, my footwork, etc.

Can anyone point me to a few good ones? Kendo material would be fine as well, I can adapt some of it easily enough. And I wouldn't mind being able to demonstrate the differences between an asian style and a european style. I can find lots of youtube videos but nothing step by step.

PS-The studio informed me that they are almost done editing the commercial, I'll be linking that plus some of the raw takes as soon as I have access to it (and permission of course).

[fusilier]

Tοξεύω can be "launch an arrow using a bow" or even "wound somebody with an arrow". Still I am not sure how closely one should be reading this. In general, when it comes to language, whichever meaning makes more sense is correct :smalltongue:

<snip>


I don't have anything to add directly to this conversation, but I just remembered a curious fact about writing in Xenophon's time. Spaces weren't used between words, and there wasn't really anything in the way of punctuation. Parsing of written sentences were tricky, so they were read aloud (phonetically), and sometimes different "readings" were possible. In fact reading silently was a very uncommon ability.

This adds to various other transcription errors, so if our version of Xenophon was filtered at some point by a scribe who wasn't familiar with bows, then it's possible that it became corrupted.

[Ragitsu]

in and of itself? not sure. would depend on the exact truck, and how top heavy it was when the round went off.

can it cause the driver to serve enough to roll the truck? hell yhea.

Oh, it's a given that the driver can attempt to swerve out of the way, and so facilitate the truck's rollover.

However, my question is about concussive force: would an RPG-7's round, hitting near the driver or passenger side tire, cause a truck moving at 50+ MPH to tip over, thanks to the explosion alone?

[a_humble_lich]

I don't have anything to add directly to this conversation, but I just remembered a curious fact about writing in Xenophon's time. Spaces weren't used between words, and there wasn't really anything in the way of punctuation. Parsing of written sentences were tricky, so they were read aloud (phonetically), and sometimes different "readings" were possible. In fact reading silently was a very uncommon ability.

This adds to various other transcription errors, so if our version of Xenophon was filtered at some point by a scribe who wasn't familiar with bows, then it's possible that it became corrupted.

Good point, but looking for transcription errors in the text is far beyond my (admittedly small) level of Greek. I read it as a statement about the stance the archers used, but I really like the explanation of how they would string the bows.