PDA

View Full Version : Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VII



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

averagejoe
2010-09-14, 06:37 PM
This thread is a resource for getting information about real life weapons and armor. Normally this thread would be in Friendly Banter, but the concept has always been that the information is for RPG players and DMs so they can use it to make their games better.

As far as I can tell, the previous threads don't exist any more, except Version V (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80863) and Version VI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124683). This is Version VII.

A few rules for this thread:
This thread is for asking questions about how weapons and armor really work. As such, it's not going to include game rule statistics. If you have such a question, especially if it stems from an answer or question in this thread, feel free to start a new thread and include a link back to here. If you do ask a rule question here, you'll be asked to move it elsewhere, and then we'll be happy to help out with it.
Any weapon or time period is open for questions. Medieval and ancient warfare questions seem to predominate, but since there are many games set in other periods as well, feel free to ask about any weapon. This includes futuristic ones - but be aware that these will be likely assessed according to their real life feasibility. Thus, phasers, for example, will be talked about in real-world science and physics terms rather than the Star Trek canon. If you want to discuss a fictional weapon from a particular source according to the canonical explanation, please start a new thread for it. :smallwink:
Please try to cite your claims if possible. If you know of a citation for a particular piece of information, please include it. However, everyone should be aware that sometimes even the experts don't agree, so it's quite possible to have two conflicting answers to the same question. This isn't a problem; the asker of the question can examine the information and decide which side to go with. The purpose of the thread is to provide as much information as possible. Debates are fine, but be sure to keep it a friendly debate (even if the experts can't!).
No modern real-world political discussion. As the great Carl von Clausevitz once said, "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means," so poltics and war are heavily intertwined. However, politics are a big hot-button issue and one banned on these boards, so avoid political analysis if at all possible (this thread is primarily about military hardware). There's more leeway on this for anything prior to about 1800, but be very careful with all of it, and anything past 1900 is surely not open for analysis. (I know these are arbitrary dates, but any dates would be, and I feel these ones are reasonable.)
No graphic descriptions. War is violent, dirty, and horrific, and anyone discussing it should be keenly aware of that. However, on this board graphic descriptions of violence (or sexuality) are not allowed, so please avoid them.

With that done, have at, and enjoy yourselves!

Endarire
2010-09-14, 06:42 PM
Let's assume I'm wearing a plated gauntlet made of steel that protects my entire hand. How much flexibility do I have in my fingers? Can I individually move my fingers?

Karoht
2010-09-14, 07:57 PM
Let's assume I'm wearing a plated gauntlet made of steel that protects my entire hand. How much flexibility do I have in my fingers? Can I individually move my fingers?
If it's made properly and isn't a show piece? Yes, totally.

Norsesmithy
2010-09-14, 10:09 PM
Responding to Fusilier's post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9355347&postcount=2631) in the previous thread, the reason why revolvers are mechanically more complex than semiautos (in general) is that a revolver needs a mechanism to advance the cylinder, but generally a semiauto feeds a round by virtue of the slide pushing a bullet up a ramp. Comparing a 1911 to a Smith and Wesson Model 10, the 1911 has 59 parts, 14 of which are either extraneous to the function of the weapon and not moving, whereas the model 10 has 81 parts, 11 of which are extraneous to the function of the weapon.

Now, newer semiautos, like the Glock, have fewer parts than the 1911, but newer revolvers have not made the same gains when it comes to reducing mechanical complexity.

Zaq
2010-09-14, 11:29 PM
My apologies if this has come up before.

Is there a generally agreed-upon explanation for why the sword is the de facto standard weapon in fantasy and (more interestingly) legend? I know that certainly not every legend has a sword in it, but to my (totally) untrained eye it seems like the number of legends in which swords feature prominently kind of outstrips the prominence of the sword as a historical weapon (compared to, say, polearms or bows). I repeat, there's plenty of exceptions, but it's still a pretty common thing, so far as I know. Is there anything at all that we can reasonably point to as a major contributor to this trend?

Daosus
2010-09-14, 11:44 PM
Well, the sword has gotten associated with the knightly class in Europe, and since they're the sort that get legends written about them....

There's also the fact that it's a prestige weapon. It's very expensive and requires specialized knowledge to make. As such, if you could afford it, you were an important dude. Whereas if you could afford an axe or a spear, well, you were a dude.

It is also a weapon that is quite deadly, quite versatile, and quite small (for the most part). That last bit means that unless you were expecting battle, your sword and dagger are likely the only weapons you might be carrying on a daily basis.

Kelb_Panthera
2010-09-15, 12:36 AM
My apologies if this has come up before.

Is there a generally agreed-upon explanation for why the sword is the de facto standard weapon in fantasy and (more interestingly) legend? I know that certainly not every legend has a sword in it, but to my (totally) untrained eye it seems like the number of legends in which swords feature prominently kind of outstrips the prominence of the sword as a historical weapon (compared to, say, polearms or bows). I repeat, there's plenty of exceptions, but it's still a pretty common thing, so far as I know. Is there anything at all that we can reasonably point to as a major contributor to this trend?

There's also the fact that, unlike so many other weapons, the sword's sole purpose is to act as a weapon against other humans. Axes, hammers, and even spears are all adaptations of tools, whose original purpose was something else. The sword is the weapon of warriors.

Fhaolan
2010-09-15, 01:06 AM
Let's assume I'm wearing a plated gauntlet made of steel that protects my entire hand. How much flexibility do I have in my fingers? Can I individually move my fingers?

Yes.

There were several styles of plate gauntlets. Mostly they had flexible fingers in order to grip weapons and the like. There were a few that didn't, but they tended to be late period jousting-as-a-sport equipment where they locked around reigns and the like.

Outside of those, plate gauntlets divided into a few broad groupings:

Demi-gauntlets: these didn't bother to plate over the fingers, just using reasonably heavy leather gloves to protect the fingers. I include this just for completeness.

Mitten gauntlets: These had a vaguely articulated set of plates that covered all the fingers at the same time. The plates were usually not actually attached to all the fingers, but either only a few or to straps that ran under all of them so that while the plates did articulate somewhat with the fingers you still had dexterity. Cheaper to make than other full plate gauntlets, but the somewhat crude plates just didn't cover quite as well as could be hoped.

Fingered gauntlets: These has more articulations, and individually plated each finger. Difficulty being, each individual finger plate was quite a bit lighter and thinner than the heavier mitten plates. So you'd get far more dexterity, and while each finger was 'guarenteed' protection, with lighter plates it was easier to damage all those articulations.

Hybrid gauntlets: These were mitten gauntlets, but the fingers also had small scales sewn to them, or in the case of the *really* expensive stuff it was fully articulated fingered gauntlets with heavy mitten plates added on top for extra protection. While more protective than the other styles, the added weight on your hands does wear you out faster.

And finally, there were several schools of thought where finger and hand protection was moved to the weapon rather than the armour. Basket hilts and it's cousins, 'sword gauntlets' and other odd devices came about from this line of reasoning.

For comparison for dexterity, it's very similar to wearing heavy leather gloves. It's as difficult to pick up a coin lying flat on a table in plate gauntlets as it is in heavy gloves, providing the gauntlets are of reasonable quality are are actually fitted properly to you.

Joran
2010-09-15, 01:09 PM
My apologies if this has come up before.

Is there a generally agreed-upon explanation for why the sword is the de facto standard weapon in fantasy and (more interestingly) legend? I know that certainly not every legend has a sword in it, but to my (totally) untrained eye it seems like the number of legends in which swords feature prominently kind of outstrips the prominence of the sword as a historical weapon (compared to, say, polearms or bows). I repeat, there's plenty of exceptions, but it's still a pretty common thing, so far as I know. Is there anything at all that we can reasonably point to as a major contributor to this trend?

I'm not an expert in legends, but there's a couple notable exceptions. In Norse Mythology, the two major gods I know of Odin, with his spear, and Thor, with his hammer, don't carry swords.

In Chinese mythology, with Journey to the West, the Monkey King carries a staff, and his two companions carry a rake and a glaive weapon. In the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, most of the characters carry glaives or other two-handed weapons rather than swords.

However, in more modern wuxia (Chinese fantasy), most characters carry a straight sword (jian). I'd guess the sword's popularity in wuxia is the same reason why swords are popular in Western fiction (basically as a mark of prestige: jian is a gentleman's weapon).

Galloglaich
2010-09-15, 02:42 PM
This goes to a related question namely what makes swords better than axes or maces or spears and etc.

Yes, spears, axes, hammers even clubs appear frequently in mythology of varrious cultures.

Maces in particular are actually also very popular for royal and godlike figures, you will see them in most Hindu art featuring The Gods. The mace in fact evolved into the royal scepter which is still lone of the symbols of Western Monarchy.

But overall across the board swords are the most popular weapons arguably in art and literature.

I suspect the reason is swords had a high prestige on the battlefields. Clearly this is the case, better equipped armies carry swords as their principle backup weapons. The Romans, the Celts, the Vikings, the Samurai, Medieval Knights all used swords by preference even when their primary weapon may have beena spear or a javelin or a bow; and war-hammers, axes, maces and polearms may have been better at armor-piercing or for most general purposes.

I think the reason is deceptively simple. When you look at FBI Crime Stats, people who are wounded or killed with weapons almost always try to grab the weapon if they can. That is why stabbing victims usually have 'defensive wounds' on their hands. This is a lot easier to do with any kind of hafted weapon than it is with a sword. It's still possible with a sword it's just more difficult and risky. This works for experienced fighters as well as panciked people in their death throes; grabbing the haft is one of the first thing you learn to do against polearms in historical fencing of all types, from Germany to Japan and everywhere in between.

Swords are also very very generally speaking fast, agile weapons which have some utility at both long and short range and can attack multiple different ways. You need momentum for a mace or a hammer to work. You need some room for a spear. A sword can slice, chop, stab or even bash with the pommel. Due to their versatility and difficulty to take away from someone they are the ultimate sidearm.

Sidearms were very important in pre-industrial times because bows and crossbows and blackpowder firearms had slow rates of fire, spears and lances broke routinely and ammunition was limited for all other types of missile weapons. We don't think of sidearms as having the same importance today because we are used to our primary battlefield weapon (an assault rifle) being so effective, capable of killing 30 people at a time and shooting at any range from point blank to 500 meters or more. Primary battlefield weapons of the pre-industrial age were not nearly so lethal, in many cases their job was to 'soften up' the enemy while the sidearm actually finished the job. This what the sword was to the Roman Legionairre for example.

G.

Karoht
2010-09-15, 04:13 PM
There's a common mis-conception that any idiot with a working arm can swing an axe or hammer effectively, and that even a peasant can use a spear effectively. But a sword represents a certain level of wealth, and a sword is typically viewed as a more complicated weapon, therefore requiring more skill and training and practice to use effectively than an axe or hammer or spear.

Almost all swords benefit more from finesse than the do strength. Where an axe or hammer is not going to really benefit much from added finesse, but placing more strength behind the blow with an axe or hammer will net you very noticibly increased results.

The finesse associated with a sword could be an aspect of the weapon's mythos, along with the wealth (and therefore prestige) associated with owning a sword.

Lastly, there is the shape. The sword is unmistakeably shaped like a cross. Even before Christianity, the cross was considered an important symbol.

Is it more or less effective than anything else? Well, that is a different debate altogether and entirely depends on the time period.

Joran
2010-09-15, 04:36 PM
Sidearms were very important in pre-industrial times because bows and crossbows and blackpowder firearms had slow rates of fire, spears and lances broke routinely and ammunition was limited for all other types of missile weapons. We don't think of sidearms as having the same importance today because we are used to our primary battlefield weapon (an assault rifle) being so effective, capable of killing 30 people at a time and shooting at any range from point blank to 500 meters or more. Primary battlefield weapons of the pre-industrial age were not nearly so lethal, in many cases their job was to 'soften up' the enemy while the sidearm actually finished the job. This what the sword was to the Roman Legionairre for example.

G.

Would a curved blade sword, like a cutlass or a cavalry saber, be used as a side-arm?

I ask, because in most fantasy and legends involving swords, they're almost always straight edged. For instance, the main heroes of wuxia fantasy tend to have jian (straight swords) rather than dao (curved swords).

Yora
2010-09-15, 04:41 PM
Depends a lot of what you mean by side arm. A weapon that is used as a backup when the primary weapon is unavailable or impractical, or as a main weapon carried at the belt?

May also depend on how likely it seems that a backup weapon for close range is needed.

Is there a generally agreed-upon explanation for why the sword is the de facto standard weapon in fantasy and (more interestingly) legend?
It looks really cool! :smallbiggrin:

Karoht
2010-09-15, 04:51 PM
In reply to this post in the previous thread:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9337878&postcount=2608

My grandmother survived the bombings of London.
She said that had the Nazi's come over the channel, her dad kept a revolver in the house. It wasn't to fight the Nazi's with. It was to... avoid capture at any cost. Her dad fought in the war, but before shipping out he made it very clear what that gun was to be used for and when, going so far as to naming a street down the road to be used as an indicator of when to use it.

Now sure, the people of Britain would have fought them tooth and nail. But they were prepared for the possibility of losing the fight. The above statement is testiment to exactly how prepared they were.

Yora
2010-09-15, 04:59 PM
Though that is quite crazy. People in Denmark, Norway, and France all had to deal with an occupation and while there certainly were some war crimes commited by german troops, it's wasn't anything near to what happened in Poland and Russia.
Even when the Russians invaded german territory, there was no wave of suicides (except for the leadership) and the Red Armies war crimes were at least as bad as those of the Wehrmacht.

Karoht
2010-09-15, 05:26 PM
Though that is quite crazy. People in Denmark, Norway, and France all had to deal with an occupation and while there certainly were some war crimes commited by german troops, it's wasn't anything near to what happened in Poland and Russia.
Even when the Russians invaded german territory, there was no wave of suicides (except for the leadership) and the Red Armies war crimes were at least as bad as those of the Wehrmacht.

Could just have been my great-grandpa being paranoid.

It was said that the British people would have fought them for every house, every street, every city block, would have fought them with sticks and stones if need be.
Then again, there are all kinds of awesome real-life stories like that on the eastern front.

Karoht
2010-09-15, 05:28 PM
With that done, have at, and enjoy yourselves!...and somehow I missed this.

Nice Hat.

Kalaska'Agathas
2010-09-15, 05:39 PM
...and somehow I missed this.

Nice Hat.

A man walks down the fora in that hat, you know he's not afraid of anything.

On topic: speaking of the blitz, why was it that Gloster Meteors were kept at home on V1 busting duty rather than used against the new Me 262 threat? While they developed tactics to successfully do so, why would the allies throw piston aircraft at jets when you have jets of your own?

Norsesmithy
2010-09-15, 05:50 PM
Several reasons, including range considerations, altitude performance, and others.

Remember, Allied Piston engined fighters killed more Me-262s than Me-262s killed allied fighters, and while part of this had to do with the fact that the Me-262s were almost entirely dedicated to intercepting bombers, there were performance gaps that had yet to be closed.

Also remember that the Allied Fighters over Germany were, for the most part, escorting bombers, and it'd be damn tough for a Meteor to fly that slow for that long, have 2 or 3 dogfights, and make it back home.

Yora
2010-09-15, 07:07 PM
Numbers were also an issue. During 1944 the Meteor was still in development and went through several revisions, while at the same time the allies did an insanely high number of bombing raids over germany. You'd rather keep producing a fighter that has proven itself to be reliable and with which pilots and ground crews are familiar, than to start mass production of a prototype model to replace the aircraft you already have.
In the massive scale of the air war over Germany, a couple of dozen aircraft wouldn't have made much of a difference.

Galloglaich
2010-09-15, 07:57 PM
Would a curved blade sword, like a cutlass or a cavalry saber, be used as a side-arm?

I ask, because in most fantasy and legends involving swords, they're almost always straight edged. For instance, the main heroes of wuxia fantasy tend to have jian (straight swords) rather than dao (curved swords).

Yes of course curved blades were used like that. Sabers were used by cavalry whose primary weapon was a lance or a firearm or a bow. There were somewhat less curved single edged swords like messers and falchions in wide use in Europe which were sidearms for infantry, and of course inward-curving swords used by the Greeks, Romans, Turks, Indians and others such as the Falcata, Kopis, Macheria, Yataghan, Sosun-Pata etc. etc. which were all also sidearms.

But sabers didn't appear widely in Europe or the Middle East until the Renaissance.

In China the Jian began to be associated with the upper classes from (if I recall correctly) the Ming Dynasty or maybe earlier, when it's use was banned by commoners and phased out by the army. It acquired a role akin to the rapier or the smallsword, hence it's popularity in wuxia.

But there were versions of the dao which were also high status blades used by Administrators, Mandarins, Aristocrats and high ranking military officials (the latter being of lower status).

Dao used for the army in various versions could be rather primitive, but there were extremely sophisticated Dao some of which featured "rolling pearls" or small silver ball-bearings in the spine which rolled back and forth, these were undoubtedly only for the use of very important people.

On the battlefield, generally speaking, swords are always sidearms. There are a few exceptions, but the primary weapon is almost always a spear, a polearm, or a missile weapon of some sort. As I said though, swords (and other shorter weapons) remained extremely important because they were how battles were finished and how an individual warrior or soldier protected himself when things weren't going well.

And yes they were a bit harder to use, some more than others. A short sword is fairly straightforward, fencing techniques for (hand and a half sized) European longsword or Jian is pretty counter-intuitive, fencing with a rapier requires significant training.

G.


EDIT: Incidentally I do not buy the idea that swords were carried out of fashion or because they resembled a cross, I think that is a cliche.

Ceric
2010-09-15, 07:58 PM
In Chinese mythology, with Journey to the West, the Monkey King carries a staff, and his two companions carry a rake and a glaive weapon. In the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, most of the characters carry glaives or other two-handed weapons rather than swords.

There's a bit of a hierarchy in Chinese weapons based on how difficult they are to learn. Dao are the easiest, only a few years. Jian are a bit harder. The staff-based weapons are the hardest, and that's why the most powerful legendary figures carry them. I don't know if this translated over to real soliders and real fights, because a sword is better than a polearm for reasons already described.

Crow
2010-09-15, 09:41 PM
I don't know if this translated over to real soliders and real fights, because a sword is better than a polearm for reasons already described.

In many cultures, the sword was often the weapon of last resort.

Norsesmithy
2010-09-15, 09:48 PM
In many cultures, the sword was often the weapon of last resort.

Perhaps the claim that the sword was "better" than the polearm should be amended with "in single combat".

Even then there are probably some exceptions, but I think that there is a pretty strong argument for that claim.

Change in single combat to "for personal protection" and I think the claim becomes even stronger, because things like the Knightly Pollaxe are right annoying to carry around, compared to a sword in a baldric.

Fhaolan
2010-09-15, 09:51 PM
Then again, there are all kinds of awesome real-life stories like that on the eastern front.

I have a collection of stories from my grandparents about WWII in Britain.

My grandmother met my grandfather during the war. He was a turbine engineer by trade, and so he wasn't allowed to go to the front, he was required to stay behind and supervise women that were assembling detonators in London. My grandmother apparantly deliberately let springs fly all over the place just to have him bend over to pick them up. I guess my grandfather had a nice ass. Things don't change much, do they? :smallsmile:

The funny story was that she showed up the factory early one day, and in the breakroom (or change room, not sure), she found a german bomb had come through the roof and hadn't detonated. When the rest of the crew showed up, they took the bomb, mounted it on a plaque with a sign below saying 'Rene's Bomb' (Grandma's name was Irene.)

I hope they defused it. Though with the way they dealt with things then, they may not of.

Unfortunately, grandma's not in a fit state to tell me where the factory was precisely. I'd like to head over to England some day, and see if the place is still there, and wheter the bomb is still there. :smallsmile:

Spiryt
2010-09-15, 09:59 PM
Perhaps the claim that the sword was "better" than the polearm should be amended with "in single combat".

Even then there are probably some exceptions, but I think that there is a pretty strong argument for that claim.


One would have define "single combat" as there are so many forms of it... As well as what sword and what polearm we exactly talk about.

Modern reenacting steel fights suggest that polearms from spears to glaives are actually very potent in duels, from obvious reach striking possibilities. Of course, such "fights" have tonnes of reason as for why they can't resemble "real thing", but nothing changes basic handling qualities.

Generally, the more armor swordman has, the easier he can handle the reach and polearm ability to counter his closing in with short stab or whatever.

But again, the more armor involved, the less useful most swords become.

So in all, as always in such broad matters, nothing can be called simply better than something else.

Joran
2010-09-16, 12:32 AM
Several reasons, including range considerations, altitude performance, and others.

Remember, Allied Piston engined fighters killed more Me-262s than Me-262s killed allied fighters, and while part of this had to do with the fact that the Me-262s were almost entirely dedicated to intercepting bombers, there were performance gaps that had yet to be closed.

Also remember that the Allied Fighters over Germany were, for the most part, escorting bombers, and it'd be damn tough for a Meteor to fly that slow for that long, have 2 or 3 dogfights, and make it back home.

And also I believe most of the Me-262s were actually destroyed on the ground. Having massive air superiority allowed the Allies to simply bomb the factories and the airfields where the Me-262s were built and housed; they didn't need to dogfight them.

averagejoe
2010-09-16, 12:45 AM
...and somehow I missed this.

Nice Hat.

Pretty cunning, don't ya think?

Xuc Xac
2010-09-16, 02:06 AM
There's a bit of a hierarchy in Chinese weapons based on how difficult they are to learn. Dao are the easiest, only a few years. Jian are a bit harder. The staff-based weapons are the hardest, and that's why the most powerful legendary figures carry them. I don't know if this translated over to real soliders and real fights, because a sword is better than a polearm for reasons already described.

Actually, the staff is supposed to be the easiest. Other long weapons are basically "staff techniques + extra stuff". They say that it takes 100 days to master the staff, 1000 to master the Dao, and 10,000 to master the Jian.

Many powerful legendary figures carry staves because they are simple weapons. For some of them, the simple staff indicates that they are enlightened and not materialistic. For others, it's supposed to show how badass they are because they can beat anyone with a simple stick instead of a fancy sword. For others, it's supposed to show off their strength (Sun Wukong's staff is actually a load-bearing pillar that he stole from a celestial palace, which is why it can change size from toothpick to Giant Redwood tree) or poverty (Little John uses a staff because it was free and he can't afford anything else).

Subotei
2010-09-16, 04:16 AM
On topic: speaking of the blitz, why was it that Gloster Meteors were kept at home on V1 busting duty rather than used against the new Me 262 threat? While they developed tactics to successfully do so, why would the allies throw piston aircraft at jets when you have jets of your own?

Probably the effective range of the Meteor was not great enough to accompany long range bombers. Besides the ME262 was not that superior to the late war allied piston engined fighters - late model Spitfires were as fast or faster than ME262s. The performance gap only opened significantly once proper swept wing fighters came out a few years later.

Psyx
2010-09-16, 05:40 AM
On topic: speaking of the blitz, why was it that Gloster Meteors were kept at home on V1 busting duty rather than used against the new Me 262 threat? While they developed tactics to successfully do so, why would the allies throw piston aircraft at jets when you have jets of your own?


That was kinda well after the Blitz, but...

Range, I suspect. And secrecy. It was still an experimental weapon, and putting it against V1s was nice and 'safe' and wouldn't result in one landing in the German's laps.

And although a lot of aircraft were moved across to Europe to operate closer to the front lines and extend their range, I suspect that things would be trickier with the meteor. You can take a Spitfire or a Mustang off from a grass strip, but you need a metalled surface for jets, and the allies were busy bombing them all, so there weren't many to capture.



Perhaps the claim that the sword was "better" than the polearm should be amended with "in single combat".

It really shouldn't. Pole weapons wielded with equal skill are still generally at least the equal to swords, even in single combat. In England the shod staff was viewed as a fearsome weapon, while over in Japan the spearman was reckoned to have the edge over the swordsman. Swords are in no way 'better' than pole weapons at killing people.

Swords are a weapon of the wealthy and a badge of rank. They're also handy to carry around and useful in a wide degree of circumstances against a wide range of threats. They are an expensive compromise in many ways. We've just been bought up to look up at swords as some kind of fantastic thing. So the 'mythology' is still working.



Would a curved blade sword, like a cutlass or a cavalry saber, be used as a side-arm?

Yup. Look at Japan. In the West though, such weapons only became prevalent long after the age of mythology, so the swords of our myths are straight ones.

Curved swords make great light cavalry blades, so were very popular as such in many cultures.



and see if the place is still there, and wheter the bomb is still there.

There are VERY few factories of the period still standing. But bomb disposal teams being called in to deal with 60 year old unexploded ordinance tends to be something that still occurs fairly regularly.

Yora
2010-09-16, 07:53 AM
There are VERY few factories of the period still standing. But bomb disposal teams being called in to deal with 60 year old unexploded ordinance tends to be something that still occurs fairly regularly.
Yeah, when I lived in Hamburg, traffic news said that a road was blocked because of old bomb disposal every few months. Never heard of any of those exploding though, and they are usually discovered when an excavator hits something hard. I've heard it's similar in Berlin.

Psyx
2010-09-16, 08:08 AM
Berlin still features bullet-holes in buildings.

The medieval church 50 yards from where I live was reduced to a crumbled tower by the Luftwaffe in 1941.

AslanCross
2010-09-16, 08:34 AM
My apologies if this has come up before.

Is there a generally agreed-upon explanation for why the sword is the de facto standard weapon in fantasy and (more interestingly) legend? I know that certainly not every legend has a sword in it, but to my (totally) untrained eye it seems like the number of legends in which swords feature prominently kind of outstrips the prominence of the sword as a historical weapon (compared to, say, polearms or bows). I repeat, there's plenty of exceptions, but it's still a pretty common thing, so far as I know. Is there anything at all that we can reasonably point to as a major contributor to this trend?

Adding a few more examples of mythologies in which the major characters didn't use swords:

1. Philippine mythology's warriors were mostly spear-wielders, as far as I can tell.

2. Hindu mythology has warriors who were excellent at many weapons, but the bow seems to be most common, since the Astras (divine weapons bestowed by the gods as special blessings on warriors of great virtue) were often channeled through ranged weapons. Heck, the Brahmastra is closer to a nuke than anything. Other weapons that appeared in the hands of heroes were the mace (Hanuman and Bhima), and the spear (Lakshmana and Indrajita). The only one I recall who actually had a named sword was Ravana, the demon king and primary villain of the Ramayana, who wielded Chandrahas (the Moon Blade). Having 20 arms, he wielded a whole bunch of other weapons too.

3. Fereydun in the Persian Shahnameh wielded a mace as well, if I'm not mistaken.

fusilier
2010-09-16, 11:43 AM
Didn't Hercules wield a club? And I think there were some early christian monks or priests who were reported to use clubs as well.

Arbane
2010-09-16, 12:24 PM
This might be of some interest:

Health, Grooming and Medicine in the Viking Age (http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/daily_living/text/health_and_medicine.htm)

Especially the section on "Battle injuries and first aid", near the bottom. (Emphasis mine)


In chapter 23 of Víga-Glúms saga, Þórarinn was struck by a blow that cut through his shoulder such that his lungs fell out. He was bound up, and Halldóra watched over him until the battle was over. Þórarinn was carried home where his wounds were treated, and over the summer, he recovered.

:smalleek:

I may have to reconsider my opinion of hitpoint systems as unrealistic....

Shenanigans
2010-09-16, 12:37 PM
Didn't Hercules wield a club? And I think there were some early christian monks or priests who were reported to use clubs as well.Hercules did use a club sometimes, such as when he fought the Hydra, but more often his bow (Stymphalian birds, rescuing Prometheus) or his bare hands (Antaeus, Nemean Lion)

HenryHankovitch
2010-09-16, 01:45 PM
Yeah, when I lived in Hamburg, traffic news said that a road was blocked because of old bomb disposal every few months. Never heard of any of those exploding though, and they are usually discovered when an excavator hits something hard. I've heard it's similar in Berlin.

The swath of modern-day France where the WWI Western Front was fought is still riddled with unexploded munitions. They're buried underground, but get slowly brought to the surface by freezing/thawing, just like rocks. It's so bad in places that there are national preserves that the public is not allowed to enter, and a permanent, professional group of demineurs who go around collecting the various shells, grenades, and bombs that pop up (both inside and outside of the preserves).

Yora
2010-09-16, 01:46 PM
I may have to reconsider my opinion of hitpoint systems as unrealistic....

Given the reports of the other injuries, I somewhat doubt the credibility pf the claim. :smallbiggrin:

Galloglaich
2010-09-16, 01:55 PM
One would have define "single combat" as there are so many forms of it... As well as what sword and what polearm we exactly talk about.

Modern reenacting steel fights suggest that polearms from spears to glaives are actually very potent in duels, from obvious reach striking possibilities. Of course, such "fights" have tonnes of reason as for why they can't resemble "real thing", but nothing changes basic handling qualities.

The problem is the rules, in most Re-enactor groups you aren't allowed to grab the haft of an opponents polearm which is probably the number one technique you use against a spear, staff or polearm as soon as you get into any kind of bind. In many re-enactor groups you aren't even allowed to attack their hands. The rules also can effect the polearm user quite a bit too because they often aren't allowed to strike with the spear 'butt' or trip or use a variety of other fundamental historical techniques which appear in the European fencing manuals and exist in the martial arts traditions in Asia.



Generally, the more armor swordman has, the easier he can handle the reach and polearm ability to counter his closing in with short stab or whatever.

But again, the more armor involved, the less useful most swords become.

So in all, as always in such broad matters, nothing can be called simply better than something else.

I agree with that. People always want simple answers to these sorts of questions but it's never that simple.

It's a mistake to say swords dominated the battlefields because spears and bows etc. were the primary weapons.

On the other hand it's a mistake to say that swords were not critical on the battlefield because the sidearm was so important. Armies equipped with swords and spears had a significant advantage over armies equipped with just spears or spears and knives or spears and axes.

That is why they went through the (comparatively) huge expense to make them, and put up with carrying them and maintaning them. Not fashion :)

G.

Galloglaich
2010-09-16, 02:01 PM
Adding a few more examples of mythologies in which the major characters didn't use swords:

1. Philippine mythology's warriors were mostly spear-wielders, as far as I can tell.

And yet, depending precisely where you are, the Sword has enormous prestige in the Philippines. The Kris for example, the Barong among the Moro, the Kampilan... just to name a few.



2. Hindu mythology has warriors who were excellent at many weapons, but the bow seems to be most common, since the Astras (divine weapons bestowed by the gods as special blessings on warriors of great virtue) were often channeled through ranged weapons. Heck, the Brahmastra is closer to a nuke than anything. Other weapons that appeared in the hands of heroes were the mace (Hanuman and Bhima), and the spear (Lakshmana and Indrajita). The only one I recall who actually had a named sword was Ravana, the demon king and primary villain of the Ramayana, who wielded Chandrahas (the Moon Blade). Having 20 arms, he wielded a whole bunch of other weapons too.

All true, but the sword remained the principle prestige weapon in India as well, it is the center of the sacred symbol of the Sikhs to this day

http://library.thinkquest.org/07aug/00117/Sikh_Khanda.png



3. Fereydun in the Persian Shahnameh wielded a mace as well, if I'm not mistaken.

Persia is another sword loving culture, the Akinakes in ancient times; the Shamshir from the end of the Middle Ages.

G.

Galloglaich
2010-09-16, 02:04 PM
This might be of some interest:

Health, Grooming and Medicine in the Viking Age (http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/daily_living/text/health_and_medicine.htm)

Especially the section on "Battle injuries and first aid", near the bottom. (Emphasis mine)



:smalleek:

I may have to reconsider my opinion of hitpoint systems as unrealistic....

Great link... here is another good one:

http://www.gallowglass.org/jadwiga/herbs/baths.html

G.

Aux-Ash
2010-09-16, 03:29 PM
This might be of some interest:

Health, Grooming and Medicine in the Viking Age (http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/daily_living/text/health_and_medicine.htm)

Especially the section on "Battle injuries and first aid", near the bottom. (Emphasis mine)

:smalleek:

I may have to reconsider my opinion of hitpoint systems as unrealistic....

Just like with intestines falling out, this is actually not as dangerous as it sounds. As long as the lungs (or other organs) aren't injured and you put them back in and seal the wound quickly you should in theory be just fine. Assuming you avoid/survive the infections of course. It looks very horrifying and dramatic, but is far less dangerous than it seems.

Karoht
2010-09-16, 03:42 PM
Another consideration regarding a Sword.

In the confines of a castle (during a siege) you can't really swing a mace or axe very well. A polearm will help you hold a position such as the top of the stairs or the end of a hallway, but really isn't great for advancing in such confines. The (one handed) sword on the other hand, can still thrust, can still cut, can still be used in pretty narrow confines to excellent degree. One can still use a sword very effectively in a space the width of one human body. The axe and mace I can't say the same about, and the polearm becomes cumbersome in such confines.

Just something to think about, though I'm sure someone could elaborate further on the matter. This was just what I was told regarding old school siege tactics and I do not have a source on it.




I have a collection of stories from my grandparents about WWII in Britain.

My grandmother met my grandfather during the war. He was a turbine engineer by trade, and so he wasn't allowed to go to the front, he was required to stay behind and supervise women that were assembling detonators in London. My grandmother apparantly deliberately let springs fly all over the place just to have him bend over to pick them up. I guess my grandfather had a nice ass. Things don't change much, do they? :smallsmile:

The funny story was that she showed up the factory early one day, and in the breakroom (or change room, not sure), she found a german bomb had come through the roof and hadn't detonated. When the rest of the crew showed up, they took the bomb, mounted it on a plaque with a sign below saying 'Rene's Bomb' (Grandma's name was Irene.)

I hope they defused it. Though with the way they dealt with things then, they may not of.

Unfortunately, grandma's not in a fit state to tell me where the factory was precisely. I'd like to head over to England some day, and see if the place is still there, and wheter the bomb is still there. :smallsmile:

My grandmother has all kinds of stories of the kids playing with undetonated ordinance. Eventually it did become quite common place to the point where it was ignored and left where it fell for days or even weeks, so it wouldn't surprise me if that bomb was never actually defused/disarmed properly prior to it being mounted on the wall.
Then again, my grandmother also took a short cut through a mine field once in a while to get to school. She lived near one of the landing strips. Struck me as a bit odd that they would use land mines on home turf, when the most likely attack on the airfield and landing strip would come from the air. But again, uber prepared was the name of the game I guess.

Cogidubnus
2010-09-16, 03:50 PM
My apologies if this has come up before.

Is there a generally agreed-upon explanation for why the sword is the de facto standard weapon in fantasy and (more interestingly) legend? I know that certainly not every legend has a sword in it, but to my (totally) untrained eye it seems like the number of legends in which swords feature prominently kind of outstrips the prominence of the sword as a historical weapon (compared to, say, polearms or bows). I repeat, there's plenty of exceptions, but it's still a pretty common thing, so far as I know. Is there anything at all that we can reasonably point to as a major contributor to this trend?

My 2 cp - swords have a lot of metal in them, making them expensive. This means that only nobles, professionals and heroes could afford them, once upon a time. So they have a kinda association with the high-ups in fighting.

As for fantasy, I personally think a guy with a sword has slightly more flavour (had, before it became overused), than a guy with what is basically a sharpened gardening tool.

fusilier
2010-09-16, 04:17 PM
Another consideration regarding a Sword.

In the confines of a castle (during a siege) you can't really swing a mace or axe very well. A polearm will help you hold a position such as the top of the stairs or the end of a hallway, but really isn't great for advancing in such confines. The (one handed) sword on the other hand, can still thrust, can still cut, can still be used in pretty narrow confines to excellent degree. One can still use a sword very effectively in a space the width of one human body. The axe and mace I can't say the same about, and the polearm becomes cumbersome in such confines.

Just something to think about, though I'm sure someone could elaborate further on the matter. This was just what I was told regarding old school siege tactics and I do not have a source on it.

I'm not so certain, it really depends upon how the fortifications are laid out. The stairs in many castles were designed so that right handed people wielding swords could defend them, but the attackers' swings/thrusts would be blocked.

It is the case during sieges that pikemen were typically converted to sword and buckler for storming purposes, but I think that halberds were also distributed. (Although I can think of at least one period woodcut that shows a collection of pikes sticking out of a trench). Probably the nature of the combat meant that formed troops with pikes would be too slow to react, or simply could not be deployed in the space. If the space is truly confining, then it may even be difficult to swing swords. Trench warfare in WW1 typically involved clubs, entrenching tools, and knives being used in hand-to-hand combat in the trenches, rather than bayonets (or swords, which some officers still carried early in the war).

AtlanteanTroll
2010-09-16, 07:40 PM
Not sure this goes here but I need a site where I can find pictures of real(istic) armor and weapons from, well, anything from 0-1200 (I think). Can anyone here drop me a link?

Karoht
2010-09-16, 08:22 PM
www.darkagecreations.ca
www.museumreplicas.com
www.museumrepro.com
www.armsofvalor.com

there are others, but that is about all that really comes to mind.
Also, Museum Reproductions website might not be a functional link anymore. Due to the firewall I'm currently behind when posting, I can not check.

EDIT: One google search later, it is confirmed.

MarkusWolfe
2010-09-18, 11:04 AM
I was talking with a classmate about why axes are a more useful weapon than a military pick, and why the spikes on hammers and axes are just back up, armor penetrating weapons. The conclusion was that axes produced wider wounds, making it easier to kill people with. It does seem an odd phenomena, what with the opposite being true for piercing rapiers and slashing broadswords... but then that's because of the difference. I suspect that there is either no speed difference between a pick and an axe, or that the axe gets a speed advantage. First, am I right? And second, am I missing anything?

Spiryt
2010-09-18, 11:19 AM
www.darkagecreations.ca
www.museumreplicas.com
www.museumrepro.com
www.armsofvalor.com

there are others, but that is about all that really comes to mind.
Also, Museum Reproductions website might not be a functional link anymore. Due to the firewall I'm currently behind when posting, I can not check.

EDIT: One google search later, it is confirmed.

Sorry, but no.... As hell.

Museum replicas and arms of valor seem to be selling cheap to not very cheap, poorly accurate to straight out fantasy stuff like Darksword and others.

Surely, one can find good stuff among it, but it's quite a search. If one doesn't know what he's searching for, he may find rubbish as well.

If there's any site to advise, there's always http://www.myarmoury.com/home.html, I guess - a lot of stuff, links to the museums and with reproductions, one usually has info about them and their level of sense.

Great site generally.

There are many good sites, but as topic is extremely broad, one will pretty much always treat about just one "piece" of it.

Such as Late roman armies (http://www.comitatus.net/galleryweaponry.html) of circa 400 AD.

Yora
2010-09-18, 11:52 AM
straight out fantasy stuff like Darksword and others.
Now you got me courious? What might that attrocity be, that you mention it specifically. :smallbiggrin:

Spiryt
2010-09-18, 12:16 PM
Now you got me courious? What might that attrocity be, that you mention it specifically. :smallbiggrin:

Just as example.

As far as I know, Darksword builds sturdy, rather overweight swords, with weird, not historical, and not really nice (IMO) look.

They perfect for cutting stuff in garden, and probably if medieval man saw them, he would at least know what it is.

By no means very "real", and yet they're probably one of the top stuff at museum replicas...

Example (http://www.darksword-armory.com/Two-Handed-Norman-Sword.html) - weirdish, overbuilt sword, and is described as... Two handed XI Oakeshott sword, "Two handed Norman Sword".

As Normans weren't using two handed sword, and no one ever found something like "Two handed XI" sword is not historical straight from the project phase, execution could only screw things further.

JaronK
2010-09-18, 01:03 PM
I was talking with a classmate about why axes are a more useful weapon than a military pick, and why the spikes on hammers and axes are just back up, armor penetrating weapons. The conclusion was that axes produced wider wounds, making it easier to kill people with. It does seem an odd phenomena, what with the opposite being true for piercing rapiers and slashing broadswords... but then that's because of the difference. I suspect that there is either no speed difference between a pick and an axe, or that the axe gets a speed advantage. First, am I right? And second, am I missing anything?

One very obvious thing is that axes were generally useful items that people had on them anyway. Picks less so. So your soldiers were more effective with an axe simply because they both had one and had more experience with one.

Also, against unarmored opponents it's easier to hit with something that has a wider blade... a swing that might have missed with a pick might still connect with the axe.

JaronK

Brainfart
2010-09-18, 07:59 PM
Sorry, but no.... As hell.


Got ninja'd there. I was going to point out that most of the reproductions listed there are of exceedingly poor quality. :smallbiggrin:

Exarch
2010-09-18, 08:05 PM
Hey guys, quick question on firearms, specifically shotguns. It recently came into my head to look into lever-action shotguns, and according to Wiki and a quick Google search, there is such a thing. They don't appear to be very popular and I'm curious why this is the case.

My theories are that either; A) the lever-action style is significantly/noticeably longer to reload than a pump, or B) the lever-action style is more complex than a pump mechanic, thereby being more easily damaged. However, either of these reasons beg the question of why lever-action rifles were created, as opposed to pump-action styles (which I am aware Remington has a new pump-action style .308).

Anyone know for certain?

Another minor question about shotguns, in the movie The Expendables one of the mercs uses a shotgun with a massive chain-style belt. Aside from the weight and potential for accumulated grime to gum up the feeding mechanisms, is there a reason why this is dumb?

Crow
2010-09-19, 02:39 AM
Well from my experience with the shotgun, it is much faster using a pump-action than I imagine it would be using a lever. You can fire shots quite rapidly with a shotgun, allowing the inertia from the recoil to aid in the pump means you're pretty much ready to fire another round just as soon as you're back on target.

AslanCross
2010-09-19, 03:37 AM
And yet, depending precisely where you are, the Sword has enormous prestige in the Philippines. The Kris for example, the Barong among the Moro, the Kampilan... just to name a few.



All true, but the sword remained the principle prestige weapon in India as well, it is the center of the sacred symbol of the Sikhs to this day

http://library.thinkquest.org/07aug/00117/Sikh_Khanda.png



Persia is another sword loving culture, the Akinakes in ancient times; the Shamshir from the end of the Middle Ages.

G.

Yes, I'm aware of those examples, but I was just citing examples where the heroes used something other than swords. I wasn't saying the sword wasn't any less prestigious.

Psyx
2010-09-19, 08:25 AM
Another minor question about shotguns, in the movie The Expendables one of the mercs uses a shotgun with a massive chain-style belt. Aside from the weight and potential for accumulated grime to gum up the feeding mechanisms, is there a reason why this is dumb?


Several reasons, aside from the huge hurdles ever mentioned:

1) Shotgun shells are plastic, not metal. Normal brass gets hot in the breach and when ejected removes some of the heat from the mechanism, acting as kind of a heat sink. Without this, the breach is going to possibly suffer heat management issues, which could cause unreliability, cooking off, or melted ammunition in the breach [!!!!!]. Belt feeding makes it even worse: instead of the weapon firing at a reasonable rate and cooling a bit when reloaded, it's now got a belt-full of ammo, meaning even more heat accumulating at a rapid rate.

2) Shotgun shells aren't a great shape and don't feed particularly well at times. Combining this with a belt feed is just asking for more reliability issues.

3) Sheer weight of ammunition.

4) There are few problems that 200 shotgun shells can solve that 10 can't. People are just as incapacitated when you shoot them with a load of buckshot as they are when you shoot them with ten. Unless one is facing an infinite horde of natives attacking with pointy sticks at 20 feet, a conventional combat shotgun or assault weapon, or LSW/LMG has all the firepower you need.

Exarch
2010-09-19, 08:37 PM
Well from my experience with the shotgun, it is much faster using a pump-action than I imagine it would be using a lever. You can fire shots quite rapidly with a shotgun, allowing the inertia from the recoil to aid in the pump means you're pretty much ready to fire another round just as soon as you're back on target.

Ah, I should have mentioned that as well. Still, why did the lever-action style become so much more common in rifles?


Several reasons, aside from the huge hurdles ever mentioned:

1) Shotgun shells are plastic, not metal. Normal brass gets hot in the breach and when ejected removes some of the heat from the mechanism, acting as kind of a heat sink. Without this, the breach is going to possibly suffer heat management issues, which could cause unreliability, cooking off, or melted ammunition in the breach [!!!!!]. Belt feeding makes it even worse: instead of the weapon firing at a reasonable rate and cooling a bit when reloaded, it's now got a belt-full of ammo, meaning even more heat accumulating at a rapid rate.

Funny thing, shotgun shells that the military used before the advent of plastic were brass. Civilian ones were typically paper, however those would swell when wet and wouldn't fit into the firearm.

fusilier
2010-09-19, 09:16 PM
I know someone who can blast through the 14-round magazine of a Henry lever action rifle, very very quickly -- he can also blast off ten rounds out of M1886 lebel bolt-action, operating the bolt left handed, with incredible celerity as well. Let's just say he's very dedicated. :-)

I suspect there is something to the nature of size of the shells and the particulars of their shape that may mean a pump action is more reliable or robust. Armies generally preferred bolt action rifles over lever-action, so there is more concerned than sheer volume of fire. This is speculation, but I was under the impression that lever actions weren't typically used with heavy loads.

As for a belt fed automatic shotgun, you really have to ask why you want something belt fed in the first place, and are you willing or even able to handle the consequences.

I would imagine that you would want a belt when you need or desire continuous firing. The consequences are probably awkward bulk, weight, and/or feed issues. A drum can be used (such as on a WW1 parabellum mount, or sometimes on Mg34/42s), but they typically don't have as many rounds as a full belt. Also, *I think* it takes more time to load a belt, than to replace a magazine. So, while you can fire for longer, when you need to reload it will take a bit longer, and might be a more clunky process. Again, it's just kind of speculation based upon some general knowledge of belt fed guns.

Brainfart
2010-09-19, 10:21 PM
AFAIK lever actions mostly operated with tubular magazines, and it doesn't take a genius to see that stacking spitzer bullets in a tube might end in tears. :smallbiggrin:

Bolt actions seem to be far more tolerant of misuse than lever-actions. Also, don't quote me on this, but I'm fairly sure that the locking mechanisms in the lever actions of the day weren't built to handle full power rifle loads.

Daosus
2010-09-19, 10:24 PM
The reason that there are not many belt fed shotguns is that there is no reason to fire one more than a few times. Either your target's dead, disengaged so you can reload, or too close to use the shotgun. A machine gun is designed with the expectation that your target is fifty or more yards away, which means continuous fire isn't a bad idea if you can accept the trade-off. A shotgun isn't all that great at long range, so the additional bulk is not worth it.


Also, axes would be preferable to picks in combat because they kill or incapacitate quickly. An axe can knock down your opponent in 10 seconds. A pick will likely take longer to drop them, which means you have to keep fighting them for that period of time. A pick wound is more likely to get infected, of course, but you don't care about what happens to the guy 2-3 days from now so much as you care what happens to you within the next couple of minutes.

Norsesmithy
2010-09-19, 11:31 PM
Hey guys, quick question on firearms, specifically shotguns. It recently came into my head to look into lever-action shotguns, and according to Wiki and a quick Google search, there is such a thing. They don't appear to be very popular and I'm curious why this is the case.

My theories are that either; A) the lever-action style is significantly/noticeably longer to reload than a pump, or B) the lever-action style is more complex than a pump mechanic, thereby being more easily damaged. However, either of these reasons beg the question of why lever-action rifles were created, as opposed to pump-action styles (which I am aware Remington has a new pump-action style .308).

Anyone know for certain?

Another minor question about shotguns, in the movie The Expendables one of the mercs uses a shotgun with a massive chain-style belt. Aside from the weight and potential for accumulated grime to gum up the feeding mechanisms, is there a reason why this is dumb?

Mostly the reason why a belt fed shotgun is dumb, aside from the fact that it won't feed super reliably, and it's excessively heavy is that a belt fed machinegun chambered in a rifle round will do most of the things that shotguns do well just as well, and will be able to do a whole host of things that Shotguns don't do well very well.

Shotguns have really two purposes in the modern battlefield, that is door breaching and less than lethal. A semi or fully automatic carbine is a more effective, easier to use, and lighter to carry for Close Quarters Battle, with the added advantage of being useful past 100-150 yards, and against targets with body armor. If you are in a situation where there is a need for Door breaching and less than lethal, it MIGHT be worth it to equip one squaddie with an underbarrel shotgun, or a dedicated shotgun, but for the most part, they are not worth the weight and complexity.

The question with regard to lever action vs slide action shotguns and rifles I think has more to do with use than mechanical suitability. A slide action firearm gives a terrifically fast rate of fire, great in a close fight or when going after multiple animals hunting (see Colt Lightning slide action rifle, and Winchester Slide action .22s respectively), and that when hunting birds, you were more likely be presented with a situation where a second fast follow-up was needed.

Whereas most lever action rifles were to be carried in a scabbard while on horseback, and used for hunting things like deer, and so the slimmer profile and smaller amount of movement when working the action would be more advantageous.

Mind you, traditional designs for both have weak actions only suited for low pressure cartridges, but later, less popular designs were created that could handle the power of a full pressure rifle cartridge.

Bolt action became popular because you can work the action while prone, an important consideration for militaries, and massive amounts of them were periodically surplused to the civilian market. They are also very strong and very accurate.

As far as loading goes, there are box magazine fed slide and lever actions made, as well as tube mag bolt action, so magazine type shouldn't really be a consideration.
I was talking with a classmate about why axes are a more useful weapon than a military pick, and why the spikes on hammers and axes are just back up, armor penetrating weapons. The conclusion was that axes produced wider wounds, making it easier to kill people with. It does seem an odd phenomena, what with the opposite being true for piercing rapiers and slashing broadswords... but then that's because of the difference. I suspect that there is either no speed difference between a pick and an axe, or that the axe gets a speed advantage. First, am I right? And second, am I missing anything?

The primary misapprehension you have here is that a person is more likely to survive a blow from a broadsword than a rapier thrust.

A broad blade is generally going to do more damage to a person, a thin blade is generally going to punch through protective coverings better, and perhaps be a little faster and more precise if it is heavier, though it is entirely possible to have a thin bladed sword heavier than a broader bladed sword.

Now, a broad blade that fails to reach a vital spot isn't going to do as well as a thin blade that does, but a big open wound will stop a person's fight a lot faster than a thin puncture that may steal his tomorrows.

fusilier
2010-09-19, 11:52 PM
AFAIK lever actions mostly operated with tubular magazines, and it doesn't take a genius to see that stacking spitzer bullets in a tube might end in tears. :smallbiggrin:

The M1886 Lebel did precisely that . . . although in all fairness the French Balle D (the original boat-tail "spitzer") appeared after the gun had been made. The 8x50 mm French round has considerable taper and the base of the shell was designed to trap the point of the bullet behind it, so that it wouldn't press on the primer.

Norsesmithy
2010-09-20, 12:06 AM
The M1886 Lebel did precisely that . . . although in all fairness the French Balle D (the original boat-tail "spitzer") appeared after the gun had been made. The 8x50 mm French round has considerable taper and the base of the shell was designed to trap the point of the bullet behind it, so that it wouldn't press on the primer.

Actually, the M1886 has a blind magazine in the usual place, not a tube mag.

OOPS, it appears I was mistaken.

fusilier
2010-09-20, 12:38 AM
Actually, the M1886 has a blind magazine in the usual place, not a tube mag.

I'm pretty certain the M1886 has a tube magazine . . . are you perhaps thinking of the later Berthier rifles, which used a 3 (in the M1916 version 5) round magazine loaded with an en bloc clip? It is confusing because the Berthiers are sometimes called Lebels as they used the same ammo (and possibly some other parts).

The M1886 had an 8 round tube magazine. Another round could be loaded into the carrier, and a final one in the chamber for a total of 10. There is a magazine cut off. The theory being that troops would fire and load one bullet at a time, at long ranges, and reserve the magazine for rapid fire.

I don't understand the term "blind magazine"?

The wikipedia article describes the tubular magazine in detail. I should also point out that 8x50mm Lebel is rimmed, so that, and the taper of the round, also helps keep the bullets from stacking up point to primer.

Norsesmithy
2010-09-20, 12:47 AM
I'm pretty certain the M1886 has a tube magazine . . . are you perhaps thinking of the later Berthier rifles, which used a 3 (in the M1916 version 5) round magazine loaded with an en bloc clip? It is confusing because the Berthiers are sometimes called Lebels as they used the same ammo (and possibly some other parts).

The M1886 had an 8 round tube magazine. Another round could be loaded into the carrier, and a final one in the chamber for a total of 10. There is a magazine cut off. The theory being that troops would fire and load one bullet at a time, at long ranges, and reserve the magazine for rapid fire.

I don't understand the term "blind magazine"?

The wikipedia article describes the tubular magazine in detail. I should also point out that 8x50mm Lebel is rimmed, so that, and the taper of the round, also helps keep the bullets from stacking up point to primer.
It appears I was mistaken, the thumbnail of one of the pictures in the Lebel article on Wikipedia shows a rifle with a standard magazine, but on clicking on it, I see that the rifle is actually a Mauser, and the picture is comparing the feeding mechanisms of several period rifles.

And that it's a apparently a Russian illustration, since the writing is in Cyrillic.

A blind magazine is a fixed box magazine with no hinged or removable floorplate.

Karoht
2010-09-20, 03:47 PM
Sorry, but no.... As hell.

Museum replicas and arms of valor seem to be selling cheap to not very cheap, poorly accurate to straight out fantasy stuff like Darksword and others.

Surely, one can find good stuff among it, but it's quite a search. If one doesn't know what he's searching for, he may find rubbish as well.

If there's any site to advise, there's always http://www.myarmoury.com/home.html, I guess - a lot of stuff, links to the museums and with reproductions, one usually has info about them and their level of sense.

Great site generally.

There are many good sites, but as topic is extremely broad, one will pretty much always treat about just one "piece" of it.

Such as Late roman armies (http://www.comitatus.net/galleryweaponry.html) of circa 400 AD.

My apologies, I was under the mistaken impression that the person was looking for stuff to buy. I read it way wrong.

Medieval Reproductions is run by a fellow here in Calgary named Peter Fuller. If you ever go into the Glenbow Museum, the entire medieval wing, anything that isn't covered in rust was probably made by him by hand.
The man was so picky about authenticity (he was the curator of the museum, so one would hope so) that he spent 2 years learning (re: perfecting) how to make his own buckles for straps and such.
Also, it should be noted that he refuses to use machines. He does all his armor by hand.
He now does contract work for museums and collectors, and he's getting into restoration work from what I last heard. Really cool fellow.

Contrast him with Rob Valentine (also from Calgary) who was pretty much the polar opposite. Authenticity? The guy was too lazy to at least sand off the word 'Rona' (name of a hardware store) from the hinges he bought for a piece of armor I saw. Ironically, it was being worn by a fellow who was bashing Fuller and extolling the virtues of Valentine, with the arguement being made that Valentine's work was more authentic. And then I pointed to the hinge. Fail.


Also, to whomever stated that it was poor quality, I have to somewhat disagree. While the quality of Windlass products has gone down sharply, which is pure tragedy seeing as Windlass and by extention Museum Replicas used to be the go-to for this sort of thing (collectors and reinactors). Hank Reinhardt put in countless hours of research, and personally tested just about all of the product lines prior to his passing away.

And the quality of anything made by Paul Chen has gone up drastically since Gen II. Cas Iberia has some of the most well made product lines out there, both for the collector and the reinactor. Peter Fuller, to state it again works with museums and private collectors and the like. I've seen and handled his work, I have a spear hand made by him which has lasted some 7 years of pure abuse.

So while I do respect your opinion that some of those works are poorly made and not entirely authentic, I don't think you can apply that to everything on any of the mentioned websites.




Though I was amiss to not mention Albion Swords in there as well.

RationalGoblin
2010-09-20, 11:57 PM
What was the best Dark Age/Middle Ages counter to fast-moving light cavalry, specifically horse archers? The general opinion seems to be that they were the "win" button of the day and age, but I'd like to know the circumstances in which they were inconvenient, and even ineffective. I know sieges are one way that you (aka, an enemy) can render them useless, but if it comes down to a siege, I feel you've lost already, so I need more examples.

Also, I've heard that the Battle of Lechsfield was a prime example of the failings of horse archers, but reading the Wikipedia article just confused me more. Would some one sum up what happened to me?

Finally, and it's more of a feudal history question than a weapon or armor one, but what would be a good reason a ruler would want to cut down on the power of his horse archers/Mongol-like cavalry if he had them in his army? By this I mean, what factors would lead to a forced sedentary lifestyle of the horse archers by the ruling leader?

Gavinfoxx
2010-09-21, 12:03 AM
Horse archers suck if you are in a really hilly, rocky, foresty, dense sort of place. They also suck if your supply chains for a whole ton of arrows aren't up to snuff. They also are worse than normal heavy infantry at siege warfare. Also, they take a while to wear someone down, they can't resolve it and get the enemy to break like lance cavalry with a lance charge does.

Psyx
2010-09-21, 05:36 AM
but I'd like to know the circumstances in which they were inconvenient, and even ineffective

Tight obstructed terrain of any type. Heavy going. Broken ground, urban conflict, rain, sleet, snow, sieges, maritime warfare. Assaulting any fixed position defended by troops with ranged capabilities. When supplies for horses are running low. When you don't have enough arrows. When the horses are tired from long marches or rife with illness. When the enemy have faster horses than you do, and lances.

Yora
2010-09-21, 06:13 AM
Also, cultures that used mounted archers are usually claimed to have put both archery and riding as the two most important skills any child has to learn. No idea if that's actually true, but today you'll find a great number of 5 year olds in Mongolia, whose skills would most other people put to shame.
So apparently to field large numbers of mounted archers who are really good at it, you need a culture that is based around them, you probably can't just pick any number of 16 year olds and put them on some horses you have, and expect them to become any good.

Thane of Fife
2010-09-21, 07:14 AM
What was the best Dark Age/Middle Ages counter to fast-moving light cavalry, specifically horse archers? The general opinion seems to be that they were the "win" button of the day and age, but I'd like to know the circumstances in which they were inconvenient, and even ineffective. I know sieges are one way that you (aka, an enemy) can render them useless, but if it comes down to a siege, I feel you've lost already, so I need more examples.

Also, I've heard that the Battle of Lechsfield was a prime example of the failings of horse archers, but reading the Wikipedia article just confused me more. Would some one sum up what happened to me?

Finally, and it's more of a feudal history question than a weapon or armor one, but what would be a good reason a ruler would want to cut down on the power of his horse archers/Mongol-like cavalry if he had them in his army? By this I mean, what factors would lead to a forced sedentary lifestyle of the horse archers by the ruling leader?

Most armies that regularly fought horse archers rapidly adopted the use of such troops into their own armies - see the Byzantines, Spanish, and Russians, for example. Similarly, you'll note that their soldiers (or at least their heavy cavalry) tended to be either very heavily armored, to better withstand enemy fire, or lightly armored, to better catch the enemy.

As for the light cavalry itself, I believe most situations where horse archers were beaten by western knights (Lechfeld or Ascalon for example) were those where they were relatively unable to retreat. Horse archers who were actually brought into close combat were unlikely to win. So, at Lechfeld, the Magyars had a river behind them, and at Ascalon, the Fatimids were defending a city.

What happened at Lechfeld, essentially was that the Magyars crossed the river Lech to attack a German army. There was heavy fighting, when a second Magyar force arrived on the German flank. The Germans withdrew in disorder, but didn't panic, and were able to fight off the flanking force. They then proceeded to pin the Magyar army against the river and crush them.

And finally, I suppose a ruler might want to force nomadic peoples under his rule to settle to make them more productive. The nomadic life is not exactly rich as it is, and settled peoples will be both easier and more profitable to tax.

Yora
2010-09-21, 07:45 AM
Also, being under siege doesn't mean that you've lost. Don't know the actual ratio, but many sieges lasted for month and with enough supplies you could hold out safely inside a castle much better than camping in the cold mud outside. I think even in World War 1 most soldiers died from the terrible conditions in the trenches and not from enemy fire.
"War season" was usually limited to a small time frame after harvest and before weather got too bad in fall. If you could hold that long, you didn't need to fight the troops outside the walls at all.

Subotei
2010-09-21, 05:45 PM
Also, cultures that used mounted archers are usually claimed to have put both archery and riding as the two most important skills any child has to learn. No idea if that's actually true, but today you'll find a great number of 5 year olds in Mongolia, whose skills would most other people put to shame.
So apparently to field large numbers of mounted archers who are really good at it, you need a culture that is based around them, you probably can't just pick any number of 16 year olds and put them on some horses you have, and expect them to become any good.

I spent some time in Mongolia a few years ago. I remember talking to one of the nomads we were with (the english speaking guide) and his reply stuck with me.

Me: 'At what age do you teach your kids to ride?'

Mongolian: <shrugs> 'What age do you teach yours to walk?'

For the best ways to counter mounted archers, I think they've been stated - the mongols never made much headway into Europe due to the geography - wooded and hilly - and climate - generally wetter than the steppes. Equally their raids into the middle east failed due to lack of adequate grazing. Fortifications were a difficulty unless taken by surprise or with assisting siege engineers. Anything which foils hit and run tactics will be a major hindrance to them

I've no real knowledge of Lechsfield.

Nomadic people are nomadic because of geography - the grazing land they generally rely on is poor and seasonal - they move so their herds and flocks can find adequate grazing. To force a sedentary lifestyle on nomads would mean either a) offering them a better lifestyle than they have and hope they go for it or b) destroying their herds so they have no option.

Karoht
2010-09-21, 06:00 PM
Nomadic people are nomadic because of geography - the grazing land they generally rely on is poor and seasonal - they move so their herds and flocks can find adequate grazing. To force a sedentary lifestyle on nomads would mean either 1) offering them a better lifestyle than they have and hope they go for it or b) destroying their herds so they have no option.
Or c) offering them excellent grazing land.

AslanCross
2010-09-21, 06:27 PM
Was the dagger ever used together with the European longswords, or was it strictly a backup weapon?

Spiryt
2010-09-21, 06:39 PM
Was the dagger ever used together with the European longswords, or was it strictly a backup weapon?

Well, that depends on what do you mean by "together" ?

If you're talking about "Two weapon fighting" then almost certainly not, as TWF was really occasional stuff.

Only real traces in Europe are few sagas and legends, which are mostly tall tales. There are also renaissance civilian systems, dealing with rapier and dagger - very specialized, and practical in civilian setting, where rapier and dagger was what one could most probably have to defend himself.

Two weapon fighting may look trendy, but it's really impractical and pointless for most purposes.

Secondly, 'longsword' would be mostly two handed sword, so....

AslanCross
2010-09-21, 06:48 PM
What you mean by "together" ?

If you're talking about "Two weapon fighting" then almost certainly not, as TWF was really occasional stuff.

Only real traces in Europe are few sagas and legends, which are mostly tall tales. There are also renaissance civilian systems, dealing with rapier and dagger - very specialized, and practical in civilian setting, where rapier and dagger was what one could most probably have to defend himself.

Two weapon fighting may look trendy, but it's really impractical and pointless for most purposes.

Secondly, 'longsword' would be mostly two handed sword, so....

Yes, I meant TWF, and I'm aware of the longsword being two-handed. I actually meant hand-and-a-half swords, but since you mentioned that TWF is extremely rare and doesn't really work, so I guess that answers the question.

Spiryt
2010-09-21, 06:59 PM
Yes, I meant TWF, and I'm aware of the longsword being two-handed. I actually meant hand-and-a-half swords, but since you mentioned that TWF is extremely rare and doesn't really work, so I guess that answers the question.

"Hand and half" use is believed to be : one handed from horse, and two handed on feet, in the beginning. In fact, it seems to be one of the main theories about development of longsword - bigger, and slightly more unwieldy swords for sweeping mounted strikes began to have handles for actual two handed use.

From later times, we know many descriptions of incorporating one handed techniques in fighting, along with "true" bastard swords, apparently created with an intent of being wielded more dexterously in one hand.

Don't really know anything about daggers.

And of course, many of situations where one handed grip seem to be advised, are situations where any form of grappling/grabbing is involved.

Example (http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Mair/113.jpg)

Mike_G
2010-09-21, 07:15 PM
TWF is extremely rare and doesn't really work, so I guess that answers the question.

"Doesn't really work" is an overstatement.

Rapier and dagger was a well documented style, and worked well for its aim, which was civilian self defense, where you wouldn't be wearing armor or carrying a shield or polearm on the streets of Florence. Everyone carried a dagger, and it was accepted practice to carry a rapier, so learn to fight with the combo.

Having something in your off hand is a big advantage in rapier fighting, as a real rapier is pretty long and heavy, and not as easy to shift between parry and attack as fencing and movies would have us believe. You want to be able to parry or bind with something while you attack with something else. And if that something in your off hand can kill as well as defend, so much the better.

lsfreak
2010-09-21, 07:24 PM
-good points-

Though unless I'm mistaken (I'm not one of the exerts here), one didn't tend to attack with both weapons at the same time, at least not in the same way as in most games. You don't set out thinking "I'm going to stab him with both weapons at once!" At any given moment, one of them will be primarily defensive (though it's combat, it might change very rapidly). Then given certain situations, both might be used offensively at the same time.

AslanCross
2010-09-21, 07:33 PM
Ah, interesting. Thanks for clearing it up.

Tyndmyr
2010-09-21, 07:34 PM
Yes, I meant TWF, and I'm aware of the longsword being two-handed. I actually meant hand-and-a-half swords, but since you mentioned that TWF is extremely rare and doesn't really work, so I guess that answers the question.

I wouldn't go so far as to say extremely rare. There's a number of examples, so long as you're not stuck on both weapons being a sword.

However, there are a lot of practical considerations, starting with the fact that weapons were reasonably expensive in most cultures, with well crafted weapons often being passed down family lines. Even if TWF is just as effective as say, sword and board, it's going to be a lot less popular for that reason alone.

Then you've got the issue of proficiency. Using two weapons together, effectively, takes a certain degree of practice. A great many warriors throughout history have been relatively untrained, and frequently weapons were selected based on how easy it was to slap one in a fresh conscripts hand, and have him become useful with it.

Cost and ease of use are, IMO, why spears were so ridiculously popular throughout history, and things like TWF are not.

Mike_G
2010-09-21, 09:01 PM
Though unless I'm mistaken (I'm not one of the exerts here), one didn't tend to attack with both weapons at the same time, at least not in the same way as in most games. You don't set out thinking "I'm going to stab him with both weapons at once!" At any given moment, one of them will be primarily defensive (though it's combat, it might change very rapidly). Then given certain situations, both might be used offensively at the same time.

Few games model two weapon fighting very well. The easy thing, which D&D does is allow you to use both, but with a penalty on the off hand. D&D really doesn't have a defensive use of weapons, other than a few feats, so that isn't on the map.

The off hand weapon, be it dagger, buckler or whatever, is usually used to defend while the primary attacks, or to assist the attack with a feint or a bind or a distraction. You can do very well with a buckler by keeping it between your opponent's eyes and your rapier, so he doesn't see the thrust until too late. But it's not a case of "I attack twice as often. Ha!"

The latest version of RuneQuest grants you an additional action per round, which can be an attack or parry or special combat maneuver if you have a second weapon or a shield. This is closer to realistic.

Psyx
2010-09-22, 05:25 AM
since you mentioned that TWF is extremely rare and doesn't really work

It works. It's just not really as good in many respects as any of the other options (two handed weapons or using a shield).

It exists in rapier styles because having something in your off-hand when using a single handed blade is better than having nothing. However, use of buckler or cloak seems to be more common.

Galloglaich
2010-09-22, 09:00 AM
I think dagger is arguably the most common and popular off-hand weapon in the Italian and German fencinig manuals for a sidesword or a rapier, followed by the buckler and the cloak. Some masters had different opinions on this.

Sword and dagger was also common from the late Medieval period / Early Renaissance principally as a civilian weapon system. But as was pointed out already upthread, longsword no, not as far as I'm aware since it's really a two-handed weapon.

The reason sword and dagger wasn't as widespread on the battlefield (compared to civilian context) as sword and buckler is that the dagger as an offhand weapon doesn't provide any protection against missiles; but neither does a longsword, and a sword and cloak or a small buckler only offers marginal missile protection*

As far as TWF goes, there is also 'case of rapier' in Europe, (a specialized technique in which you use two-rapiers) and there are examples of two-weapon systems (usually two short weapons) in South Asia and Southeast Asia and in the Philippines.

as Mike G. said, most RPG systems don't model TWF well. The dagger is used mainly for defense (with rapier and dagger you actually do most of your blocking with the dagger) and to stab when at close range (it's much easier to use your dagger when you are corps a corps then your rapier)

So the traditional idea of "an extra attack" is a bit of an oversimplification, but if you get to close range your dagger is much faster than a rapier will be (that is how I model it in the Codex).

http://www.umich.edu/~ece/student_projects/martial_arts/images/throatcut.jpg

I'd also say the dagger is excellent defense against thrusts but not as much against cuts (the buckler is better against cuts) so you do see tendancies in one direction or another depending on the main weapon; i.e. messers, falchions and cutting swords often with a buckler, cut-thrust swords, sideswords, and rapiers often with a dagger.

What you do not see historically very much that I'm aware of is the "florentine" style ala SCA or LARP where a guy uses a short sword and an arming sword or a sword and an axe or a sword and a mace etc. I think that is basically just a fantasy creation.

G

* Bucklers can block javelins, rocks and darts but aren't very good protection against high velocity weapons like firearms, crossbows or longbows. Which is why larger shields like rotella, heater, or mini-pavise were used on the battlefield generally.

Psyx
2010-09-22, 09:41 AM
Ooh... silly me. I can indeed think of a case where daggers were used off-hand to a weapon of war on the field of battle: Use of the dagger and targe off-hand by Highlanders.

We have been 'trained' by gaming, novels and films to think that fighting with two weapons at once is the 'best' way of fighting, when in reality, it's a rare case to do so.

Galloglaich
2010-09-22, 01:14 PM
Yeah that is a good example, the targe (small shield) is on the forearm with the dirk (large dagger) held in the hand, with the claymore (basket hilt sword) in the right hand.

http://www.oregonknifeclub.org/dirk01.jpg

Another TWF fighting system I neglected to mention is Musashis Katana and Wakizashi system in Medieval Japan, which is probably as close as you get to the classic RPG paradigm of TWF. Rare, but historical.

http://www.martialdevelopment.com/wordpress/wp-content/images/musashi-with-two-swords.jpg

G

Britter
2010-09-22, 03:25 PM
Re: TWF in Japanese martial arts

Although Niten Ichi Ryu is the most well known of systems, several schools had techniques for fighting with both katana and wakizashi. There are different approaches and methods, just as in European swordsmanship. In my experience, the short weapon is normally used in a more defensive manner and not as another attack. However, there are a variety of approaches, and I can't speak authoritatively to all of them.

It is worth mentioning that out of ~50 kata, only 5 of the Niten Ichi Ryu kata deal with wielding two swords at the same time. This is interesting, given as how the system also contains 20 kata for use of a 4 foot staff against a sword, 7 kata for use of a short sword against a long sword, 5 kata for use of a jitte against a long sword, and 12 kata using longsword against long sword. It is very obvious that the focus of Niten Ichi Ryu is not solely on using two swords at once, but somehow it has become forever assoicated with that image.

This video shows the 5 ni-to (two sword) kata.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pkGJrp9HlI

The same kata as practiced by a different line of the ryu.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVmuA39el1k&feature=related

As a sidenote, I should point out that there are several variations of pretty much every major ryu in Japan. There is no such thing as a monolithic "Niten Ichi Ryu" or "Itto Ryu" or "Jigen Ryu" etc. Different lines of transmision have popped up over the centuries and though they may share a lineage and an origin, they are not all practicing the exact same things.

Brainfart
2010-09-22, 10:50 PM
And the quality of anything made by Paul Chen has gone up drastically since Gen II. Cas Iberia has some of the most well made product lines out there, both for the collector and the reinactor. Peter Fuller, to state it again works with museums and private collectors and the like. I've seen and handled his work, I have a spear hand made by him which has lasted some 7 years of pure abuse.

So while I do respect your opinion that some of those works are poorly made and not entirely authentic, I don't think you can apply that to everything on any of the mentioned websites.


That was me, and I do agree with your general assessment of the quality trends for manufacturers. Problem is that those sites you posted also had a considerable amount of chaff in their catalogs, and that was mainly what my comment was directed at. I should've been clearer.



However, there are a lot of practical considerations, starting with the fact that weapons were reasonably expensive in most cultures, with well crafted weapons often being passed down family lines. Even if TWF is just as effective as say, sword and board, it's going to be a lot less popular for that reason alone.

Daggers aren't terribly expensive though, and they have the advantage of being very portable. Most civilian offhand weapons are similarly portable e.g. buckler, cloak, etc.

Also, judging from the number of ridiculously ornate parrying daggers in museums, I'd guess that fashion played a significant role. A dagger seems to lend itself better to ornamentation than a shield.

endoperez
2010-09-23, 03:41 AM
Another TWF fighting system I neglected to mention is Musashis Katana and Wakizashi system in Medieval Japan, which is probably as close as you get to the classic RPG paradigm of TWF. Rare, but historical.
G

I have heard that Musashi was inspired to develop his two-weapon style after he heard Europeans using two weapons at the same time.

Chinese martial arts have several two-weapon methods. Using a sword & scabbard (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBs9LMGNk8M) seems like a useful thing, actually, especially if the jian (straight sword) scabbard wasn't worn on a belt (http://swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72143). This atypical bagua vs kali (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz6Oe6a8TO8) practice session shows Chinese deer knives from bagua system, and double sticks from kali, another South-Asian martial art.

Twin swords (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReHu7BGzFAQ), twin sabers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-3VSntxFmw), twin daggers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD_TfOhuloA), saber and tonfa (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeDEM9TjH00), twin circles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_i3l1C_lx4), twin maces (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7sDV5ueXrM), twin hooked swords (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7FOb2qtwp4), twin spiky things (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-hHcMcOqRc), etc etc.

I don't know how many of them are historical, and how many of the historical ones are practical. There are so many forms that while some are probably made up, and others were probably never meant for more than show, some might be based on something that saw real use.

Psyx
2010-09-23, 05:46 AM
"Another TWF fighting system I neglected to mention is Musashis Katana and Wakizashi system in Medieval Japan, which is probably as close as you get to the classic RPG paradigm of TWF. Rare, but historical."

Very rare. Especially considering that he fought duels with one sword himself more than he's recorded using two.

I really wish D&D modelled shields in a more generous manner, instead of plying to the 'two swords is wikked!' style of play.

Stephen_E
2010-09-23, 06:00 AM
"I really wish D&D modelled shields in a more generous manner, instead of plying to the 'two swords is wikked!' style of play.

If it's any consolation Pathfinder has made Shields wicked in the hands of someone skilled in useing them. :-)

Stephen E

Galloglaich
2010-09-23, 09:31 AM
One thing I do is let the guy using a shield roll two defense dice, and keep the higher roll. That makes shields pretty effective.

G.

Britter
2010-09-23, 09:47 AM
Re: TWF, another system to look at for examples of wielding two swords would be Krabi Krabong, a Thai system that predates Muay Thai. It is interesting to me, in that the swords are of about equal length, as opposed to other sword systems which seem to have a long weapon and a short weapon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gUWTR1IrE0

Re: Mushashi and European influence on his sword system, this a highly debated topic. Consider that travel was hgihly regulated for Japanese, much less foreigners, in Tokugawa era Japan, that due to that it is possible that Mushashi never even meet a European, and that there are several other martial systems in Japan that teach the use of dual wielded long and short weapons, and it begins to look unlikely (though not impossible) that Mushashi's art was derived from his exposure to European sword arts.

Psyx
2010-09-23, 10:52 AM
Re: TWF...

Well, the only two other commonly compared systems are based around 'civilian' urban armaments: Carrying a daisho or a rapier and dagger, rather than he 'unseemly' carrying of two longer swords in a non-battlefield situation.

I haven't read Go Rin No Sho for a while, but I seem to recall that the techniques stuck me at the time as rather different from European classical fencing.
I also highly doubt that it was influenced by Western arts: Japan had been fiddling around with two-sword techniques for a while. It's hardly a massive leap of inspiration.

fusilier
2010-09-23, 02:25 PM
Regarding two weapon fighting in Europe: At about the time rapier and dagger was popular with civilians, cut-and-thrust (aka sidesword, broadsword?) and dagger seems to have been common on the battlefield. This may be because the primary weapons of the day, muskets and pikes, generally precluded the use of a shield. [This is not entirely true. In the early part of the 16th century some well armored pikemen had shields, but that practice seems to have died out by the end of the century.]

Returning to the topic of manuals. Any opinions on Agrippa?

Thanks.

Mike_G
2010-09-23, 06:53 PM
Returning to the topic of manuals. Any opinions on Agrippa?

Thanks.

Well, we know that Tybalt cancels out Capo Ferro, unless your opponent has a-studied his Agrippa.

Kalaska'Agathas
2010-09-23, 08:41 PM
Well, we know that Tybalt cancels out Capo Ferro, unless your opponent has a-studied his Agrippa.

You've just made my day, I thought you ought to know.

RationalGoblin
2010-09-23, 09:02 PM
How effective were blunt weaponry like clubs and maces in the Middle Ages? Especially if the people using them were trained as well as you can train anyone to use them?

What were examples of particularly effective blunt weaponry?

Incanur
2010-09-23, 09:39 PM
How effective were blunt weaponry like clubs and maces in the Middle Ages? Especially if the people using them were trained as well as you can train anyone to use them?

What were examples of particularly effective blunt weaponry?

This depends what you mean by blunt weapon and what you mean by the Middle Ages. Throughout the period and beyond, horsemen carry and use maces to good effect. There's at a text from the Muslim world on mount mace combat floating around somewhere. As early as the fourteenth century, pollaxes (many of which have nothing resembling an axe blade but only hammer and spike) become a weapon of choice for heavily armored warriors. In a similar vein, English archers famously used leaden mallets at Agincourt. A sixteenth-century manual gives details on mallet/maul construction that makes them the poor man's pollaxe. The cavalry short mace and the infantry long hammer would be the two most important historical blunt weapons. The various two-handed flails, maces, holy water sprinklers, and so on serve as a variation on the latter category.

RationalGoblin
2010-09-23, 10:32 PM
This depends what you mean by blunt weapon and what you mean by the Middle Ages. Throughout the period and beyond, horsemen carry and use maces to good effect. There's at a text from the Muslim world on mount mace combat floating around somewhere. As early as the fourteenth century, pollaxes (many of which have nothing resembling an axe blade but only hammer and spike) become a weapon of choice for heavily armored warriors. In a similar vein, English archers famously used leaden mallets at Agincourt. A sixteenth-century manual gives details on mallet/maul construction that makes them the poor man's pollaxe. The cavalry short mace and the infantry long hammer would be the two most important historical blunt weapons. The various two-handed flails, maces, holy water sprinklers, and so on serve as a variation on the latter category.

That's pretty much exactly the kind of info I'm looking for. Thanks, have any more info on mace/maul/etc combat?

I'd also like information from anyone on the Norman conquest of Southern Italy. I know a very vague idea of some of it (Robert Guiscard and all that), but I'd like to know specifics.

Why did the Normans go to Italy?

What was their relationship between the powers throughout Italy?

As the ruling class, what was their relationship with the conquered peoples?

I know the Normans always focused on cavalry, but what sort of style of warfare did the Italio-Normans develop?

What was the Italio-Normans preferred weaponry?

Finally, Bohemond I of Antioch. He was one of the leaders of the First Crusade; what sort of army did he have during it?

Incanur
2010-09-23, 10:58 PM
That's pretty much exactly the kind of info I'm looking for. Thanks, have any more info on mace/maul/etc combat?

There's tons (http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/getty/pollaxe.html#header) on hammer-style (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTVC25hYJaY) pollaxes (http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/NotesLEJEUDELAHACHE.htm), as nobles fought with them, but scant details on leaden mauls, flails, and so on. Mair's manual does have section on the two-handed flail (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Alt-GzAGrMY) and peasant staff (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohyb9Mc-4AM). Here's (http://www.ospreypublishing.com/articles/medieval_world/know_your_weapons_mamluk_training_manual/) a piece that contains a translated excerpt of a Mamluk military manual that deals with mounted mace combat.

Galloglaich
2010-09-23, 11:17 PM
That two-handed flail (flegel ... the German word for flail) had a significant battlefield impact in the hands of the Czech Hussites in the early 15th Century. It was part of a combined arms system invented by the Bohemians which proved consistently capable of defeating armored European heavy cavalry (and every other kind of European or Mongol or Turkish army in the region).

Keep in mind the Normans did not have all of Italy, they had Sicily and parts of the south, the "Kingdom" of Naples, which was owned by people outside of Italy for many centuries, the Greeks, the Arabs, the Spanish, the French etc. The Normans never had control of the really important northern Italian cities where all the really interesting things happened, but they did develop a very interesting and sophisticated kingdom down in the South.

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

They interacted a great deal with both the Arabs and the Greeks, and adopted the military technology of those cultures to their own, just as they had previously combined Norse and Frankish culture before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman-Arab-Byzantine_culture

G.

Galloglaich
2010-09-23, 11:18 PM
There's tons (http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/getty/pollaxe.html#header) on hammer-style (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTVC25hYJaY) pollaxes (http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/NotesLEJEUDELAHACHE.htm), as nobles fought with them, but scant details on leaden mauls, flails, and so on. Mair's manual does have section on the two-handed flail (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Alt-GzAGrMY) and peasant staff (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohyb9Mc-4AM). Here's (http://www.ospreypublishing.com/articles/medieval_world/know_your_weapons_mamluk_training_manual/) a piece that contains a translated excerpt of a Mamluk military manual that deals with mounted mace combat.

Wow thanks for that link on the Mameluke manual I didn't realize that was available in English translation. Cool!

G.

Psyx
2010-09-24, 06:55 AM
Well, we know that Tybalt cancels out Capo Ferro, unless your opponent has a-studied his Agrippa.

Golden. My favourite film.


Thanks, have any more info on mace/maul/etc combat?

The best target areas for blunt weapons are bony regions and joints (and head, of course). Bone laying close to skin is much easier broken.

Matthew
2010-09-24, 07:40 AM
I'd also like information from anyone on the Norman conquest of Southern Italy. I know a very vague idea of some of it (Robert Guiscard and all that), but I'd like to know specifics.

Why did the Normans go to Italy?

Adventure, excitement, and money. :smallbiggrin:



What was their relationship between the powers throughout Italy?

As the ruling class, what was their relationship with the conquered peoples?

I know the Normans always focused on cavalry, but what sort of style of warfare did the Italio-Normans develop?

What was the Italio-Normans preferred weaponry?

Not sure I know much about this, but they would be following the general trends in western medieval Europe. A key difference would be their interaction with the Byzantines and employment of non-Christians against them, such as Saracen archers. Anna Comnena refers to such soldiers, selectively singling them out as evidence of Norman treachery (the Byzantines were hardly above using non-Christians).



Finally, Bohemond I of Antioch. He was one of the leaders of the First Crusade; what sort of army did he have during it?

A complicated question, as it seems to have changed character as the crusade progressed. If the sources can be taken at face value, his initial army would have been largely made up of mail armoured knights, employing the relatively new couched lance technique, supported by "foot sergeants" armed with crossbows. Probably there would also have been footmen with spears, but that is far from clear in the texts. As far as organisation goes, troops would have been largely organised by household (a core nucleus of feudally obliged and fairly regularly paid soldiers) and the extended household (soldiers not usually part of the household, but associated less permanently for a particular campaign or period of time). Many Normans had experience fighting both against and for the Byzantines.

Psyx
2010-09-24, 09:01 AM
Adventure, excitement, and money. :smallbiggrin:


Plus, they'd already grabbed England, and wanted an island where it didn't rain all the time...

Shenanigans
2010-09-24, 10:13 AM
This depends what you mean by blunt weapon and what you mean by the Middle Ages. Throughout the period and beyond, horsemen carry and use maces to good effect. There's at a text from the Muslim world on mount mace combat floating around somewhere. As early as the fourteenth century, pollaxes (many of which have nothing resembling an axe blade but only hammer and spike) become a weapon of choice for heavily armored warriors. In a similar vein, English archers famously used leaden mallets at Agincourt. A sixteenth-century manual gives details on mallet/maul construction that makes them the poor man's pollaxe. The cavalry short mace and the infantry long hammer would be the two most important historical blunt weapons. The various two-handed flails, maces, holy water sprinklers, and so on serve as a variation on the latter category.
Weren't certain "blunt" weapons (the lucerne hammer springs to mind) used against heavily armored opponents also?

fusilier
2010-09-24, 11:21 AM
Keep in mind the Normans did not have all of Italy, they had Sicily and parts of the south, the "Kingdom" of Naples, which was owned by people outside of Italy for many centuries, the Greeks, the Arabs, the Spanish, the French etc. The Normans never had control of the really important northern Italian cities where all the really interesting things happened, but they did develop a very interesting and sophisticated kingdom down in the South. . . .

G.

Woah. Got to disagree with part of this statement, G. When the Normans completed their conquest of Sicily with the capture of Palermo, Palermo alone generated more revenue than all of England. Sicily was the powerhouse of the Mediterranean at the time, and arguably of Europe (although it was common during this time to consider Sicily as part of North Africa, and not Europe). The more "important" Northern Italy cities, were still a century or two away from becoming powerful city-states. [The fact that they weren't conquered may have something to do with their later rise to prominence]

Sicily at the time produced silks, oranges, and other commodities in addition to being the "bread-basket" of the Mediterranean. The Normans appreciated the cultural diversity that had existed under Saracen Sicily, and actively encouraged it. Churches that had been converted to mosques, were reverted to churches, but mosques that were built as such were left alone. Muslims maintained their own courts. Greek Orthodox christians were allowed to keep their own churches. It was a surprisingly tolerant rule.

However, the introduction of Norman style feudalism can be viewed as the most detrimental step in the history of Sicily. Indeed the Norman conquest seems to have been the high point for Sicily, which began a slow but almost immediate decline, gradually slipping further and further in a kind of death spiral that never really ended. While the Normans tolerated and even encouraged the saracens to continue their industry in Sicily, many of them fled anyway. The advanced irrigation systems and industries that they had set up slowly declined. By the time of Spanish rule they were pretty much gone.

There are few books (in English anyway) that deal directly with the history of Sicily. A few years ago a very good one was released called Sicily: Three Thousand Years of Human History, by Sandra Benjamin. If you are interested in a complete study of the history of Sicily, I would highly recommend it. There is a shorter book available too, but I can't remember the name at the moment. There are also some books that deal with specific events (such as the Sicilian Vespers).

Psyx
2010-09-24, 11:27 AM
Weren't certain "blunt" weapons (the lucerne hammer springs to mind) used against heavily armored opponents also?

Yup. 'blunt' weapons can be very handy against armour if they focus their energy onto a small area. The joints in armour are also likely to be more vulnerable as well (although not always, of course).

fusilier
2010-09-24, 11:37 AM
Well, we know that Tybalt cancels out Capo Ferro, unless your opponent has a-studied his Agrippa.

Thanks for that. It's been a while since I've seen that film. :-)

Galloglaich
2010-09-24, 03:10 PM
Woah. Got to disagree with part of this statement, G. When the Normans completed their conquest of Sicily with the capture of Palermo, Palermo alone generated more revenue than all of England. Sicily was the powerhouse of the Mediterranean at the time, and arguably of Europe (although it was common during this time to consider Sicily as part of North Africa, and not Europe). The more "important" Northern Italy cities, were still a century or two away from becoming powerful city-states. [The fact that they weren't conquered may have something to do with their later rise to prominence]

Sicily at the time produced silks, oranges, and other commodities in addition to being the "bread-basket" of the Mediterranean. The Normans appreciated the cultural diversity that had existed under Saracen Sicily, and actively encouraged it. Churches that had been converted to mosques, were reverted to churches, but mosques that were built as such were left alone. Muslims maintained their own courts. Greek Orthodox christians were allowed to keep their own churches. It was a surprisingly tolerant rule.

However, the introduction of Norman style feudalism can be viewed as the most detrimental step in the history of Sicily. Indeed the Norman conquest seems to have been the high point for Sicily, which began a slow but almost immediate decline, gradually slipping further and further in a kind of death spiral that never really ended. While the Normans tolerated and even encouraged the saracens to continue their industry in Sicily, many of them fled anyway. The advanced irrigation systems and industries that they had set up slowly declined. By the time of Spanish rule they were pretty much gone.

There are few books (in English anyway) that deal directly with the history of Sicily. A few years ago a very good one was released called Sicily: Three Thousand Years of Human History, by Sandra Benjamin. If you are interested in a complete study of the history of Sicily, I would highly recommend it. There is a shorter book available too, but I can't remember the name at the moment. There are also some books that deal with specific events (such as the Sicilian Vespers).

I don't think we are completely out of sync here, just a matter of a different emphasis in perspective. I agree at that time Sicily was a 'happening place', especially under Roger II, who was certainly an enlightened ruler in the cultural and intellectual sense, who appreciated science and brought wise men from around the world to his very multicultural court. But as you pointed out, it was a feudal system which led to a slow decline of the region and they didn't have the free city states which already existed (in a fairly humble form) in Northern Italy.

During the reign of Roger II, usually considered the epitome of Norman - Sicilian culture, the towns of Venice, Florence, Bologna, Milan, Genoa, Pisa, Brescia etc. were already important, sophisticated trading centers, nowhere near the Empires they would become, but arguably already of more importance in many respects than Sicily or any Feudal Kingdom. The University of Bologna for example, destined to become one of the greatest in Europe, was founded (or re-founded) in 1088 AD. Shorty after the death of Roger II of Sicily (in 1154 AD) the Lombard League was formed (in 1167) which was to lead to the independence of these cities from the Holy Roman Empire (after their defeat of Frederick Barbarossa a few years later), and their rise as City-States.

What happened in Sicily was really the same as what happened in England, France and much of Christian Spain (Castille anyway) during the Medieval period. The lack of free cities and the consolidation of Royal power created an agricultural economy and a nation of Serfs as soon as the (very rare) Charlemagnes or Alfred the Greats or Roger IIs of the world were replaced by the far more common "Charles the Simple" / "Aetherled the Unready" etc. type leaders.

http://history.berkeley.edu/faculty/Stovall/H5/europe1500.jpg

That is why the Renaissance happened in that real 'complicated' zone of Central Europe, which you can see above running from Flanders to Italy, more than a Century before it ever reached the big (and comparatively backward) Kingdoms of England and Castile and France.

G.

Yora
2010-09-24, 03:24 PM
That map can't be right. Germany looks so well orderd and easily to understand. :smallbiggrin:

fusilier
2010-09-24, 04:28 PM
I don't think we are completely out of sync here, just a matter of a different emphasis in perspective. . . .
G.

Yes, I think that is probably true. If you are looking at the origins of the Renaissance, Sicily certainly factors very little. However, as a medieval power, especially around the time of the Norman conquest, I think it does it an injustice to compare it unfavorably with the Northern Italian city states. I was really looking at Sicily in terms of economy, and overall technological sophistication. In these areas it had benefited from Muslim rule. For trade it benefited from its location in the central Mediterranean. However, Sicily was diverse. It had rather well developed agriculture and other industries in addition to GRAIN (which in later centuries became Sicily's only export, influencing how it has been viewed ever since). It never defined itself as a trading empire, like Genoa or Venice, but at the same time does seem to have been a fairly impressive naval power.

Sicily, of course, lacked the set of circumstances that led to the Renaissance in Northern Italy, and the development of other medieval institutions like Universities. But why does that make Sicily in ca. 1100, less important? Unless your concern is later events? As things stood at that time, Sicily was a very significant power. Albeit an unusual one; given it's cultural diversity, which lent to Sicily being considered part of North Africa rather than Europe. Perhaps that has encouraged a tendency to overlook Sicily when considering "Medieval Europe."

fusilier
2010-09-24, 04:40 PM
A quick follow up. These areas are almost never studied against one another. The northern Italian city states are typically studied in isolation from the rest of Italy, and vice versa. So, I don't know how much digging would be necessary to reveal how much revenue was generated in, or trade passed through, Palermo compared to Florence (or Genoa, or Venice, etc.) in 1100AD. The impression I got from reading about Sicily's history was that at that time it's economy was pretty big compared to other Mediterranean and European states. I could be wrong, but don't have any direct information at my fingertips. :-(

Galloglaich
2010-09-24, 04:48 PM
Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Norman Sicily it's a fascinating place. Right now I'm focused a lot on the Renaissance so maybe that is coloring my perspective.

It's all actually extremely complex, and difficult to get a sense of basic perspective. It pretty much stays that way until the 18th Century when things start to get real orderly again (and boring :P )

Maybe we should construct a model of Europe and the Middle East circa 1100 AD, I think it would be very interesting. The other major center of technology, trade etc. at this time would be Moorish Spain, particularly in the town of Cordoba, but there are various centers and powers. The Egyptians, the Byzantines of course, the Seljuk Turks, some already interesting towns like Venice (then a vassal of Byzantium), Bruges, Novgorod, Prague... the early rise of the Hanseatic League, the Kingdoms of France and England of course.

We could have fun exploring it all but I don't know if that is ok for this thread though,.

G.

fusilier
2010-09-24, 04:52 PM
Yeah, it would be fun, but we may indeed be digressing too much.


It would not be an exaggeration to describe the Kingdom of Sicily during the reign of Roger II as the most important realm of Europe and the Mediterranean, politically and intellectually as well as economically.

From this page:
http://www.bestofsicily.com/history2.htm#middle_ages

Getting back on to the original discussion. Why did the Normans go to Italy in the first place? The Normans had been operating as mercenaries in Italy for decades. So apparently they must have liked what they saw there, and decided to make it their own.

Yora
2010-09-24, 06:40 PM
So, I don't know how much digging would be necessary to reveal how much revenue was generated in, or trade passed through, Palermo compared to Florence (or Genoa, or Venice, etc.) in 1100AD. The impression I got from reading about Sicily's history was that at that time it's economy was pretty big compared to other Mediterranean and European states.
As they say: "Location, location, location!". And for mediteran trade, Palermo sits right on the spot were all goods have to come through. I can't imagine that there havn't been a great number of merchants who turned that fact into a source of massive profits.

Also, great link. I knew the political history from 500 to 1500 gets usually forgotten, as it doesn't have much relevance to modern politics and society. But from stuff I've read in the last months, the 11th century was hardly an intelectual stone age, there's so much going on with international relations on a scale that is in no way less complex than those of modern times.

RationalGoblin
2010-09-24, 10:52 PM
Okay, one final question; were longbow-ish bows effective against horse archers? They have more range and a stronger user (aka, the needed arm strength to use a longbow) behind them, after all.

Spiryt
2010-09-25, 02:31 AM
Okay, one final question; were longbow-ish bows effective against horse archers? They have more range and a stronger user (aka, the needed arm strength to use a longbow) behind them, after all.

Yes, if the arrow from longbowish bow hit the horse archer, hit would die just like everyone else.

:smallwink:

Seriously though, that's rather confusing question.

If longbow, I assume feet archers would be effective against horse archers, would depend on tactics, terrain, leadership, skill and many other factors, like any other battle...

I'm not aware of any larger scale clashes between typical longbow echelons and and horse shooters.

Although I guess that english ones vs Prussian/Polish/German etc. horse crossbowmen would be possible during some wars in France, someone could do some search.

Thane of Fife
2010-09-25, 09:09 AM
They have more range and a stronger user (aka, the needed arm strength to use a longbow) behind them, after all.

I believe, though someone may correct me if I'm wrong, that range would normally come down in favor of the horse archers, actually. Sources I've read normally say that a steppe nomad's composite bow could fire about twice as far as, say, an English longbow. It is possible that effective range in battle would be a different story, though.

Yora
2010-09-25, 09:19 AM
As I understand it, the english longbow was not a weapon to be sused by a single individual, but to provide massed indirect fire. I may be mistaken, but I think mounted archers were mostly used in direct assaults and raids instead of field battles.

Spiryt
2010-09-25, 09:58 AM
I believe, though someone may correct me if I'm wrong, that range would normally come down in favor of the horse archers, actually. Sources I've read normally say that a steppe nomad's composite bow could fire about twice as far as, say, an English longbow. It is possible that effective range in battle would be a different story, though.

Eh, that depends on the exact bow, we're talking about, as there were many nomads with many bows trough the history.

Generally, shorter, efficient reflexives would be able to achieve much greater velocities with light, 'flying' arrows.

However in case of actual martial arrows, difference won't be really great, to none, but that's a very broad subject.

And of course, no matter how much we can talk about mastery and high BaB :smallwink: horse is a platform where you can't use your legs in drawing and the rest, is unstable, always a bit unpredictable, and generally not part optimal for shooting.

That would mean, that in theory, foot archer would in theory be able to not so much out range horse one, but shoot in way more accurate and predictable way on distances sensible in battle.

Again, that's broad, but definitely in theoretical "exchange" between foot and horse archers I doubt that horse one would do very good, if only for horses, that would be in most cases unarmored, so wounded killed, and causing chaos with arrows flying around.

But that's a moot point, probably, as I don't recall such occurrences, probably because they obviously weren't happening too often. :smallwink:

Incanur
2010-09-25, 11:27 AM
Foot archers typically used somewhat heavier bows than horse archers. Because of both this, the great stability of firmly planted feet, and greater density, I suspect infantry archers would have the advantage against cavalry archers at the tactical level.

Galloglaich
2010-09-25, 12:41 PM
Yeah, it would be fun, but we may indeed be digressing too much.

"It would not be an exaggeration to describe the Kingdom of Sicily during the reign of Roger II as the most important realm of Europe and the Mediterranean, politically and intellectually as well as economically. "

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but you tend to read this type of statement about most of the interesting zones of Europe at any given time; which is one of the challenges of studying Medieval history. Like I said it's often very challenging to construct

From this page:
http://www.bestofsicily.com/history2.htm#middle_ages

So just for fun, for sense of (hopefully interesting and thread-relevant perspective) at the same time Norman Sicily was such an important economic and intellectual and military center of Europe, looking a few miles north circa 1100 AD.

Venice is a small trading town, a vassal to Byzantium situated in a cluster of swampy islands in the Northern Adriatic. In 1104 AD, Venice, which refers to itself by the grandiose title Serenissima Republica ("Serene Republic"), has just built their Arsenal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_Arsenal), a huge complex of shipyards and armories claimed by some to be the largest factory in the world, with which the tiny Republic will equip it's navies to trade salt and silk and glass throughout the world and fear neither pirates nor foreign war-fleets.

The Venetian navy, destined within 100 years to conquer their own patrons the Byzantine Empire itself (during the 4th Crusade) has already established a key military innovation by 1100 AD. While the war-galleys of every other Power in the Mediterranean (Christian or Muslim) are rowed by slaves or convicts, the Venetians use paid (and armed) sailors instead. This means that each ship has in the neighborhood of 300 fighting men instead of 100 men and 200 chained slaves who cannot fight. This gave Venice a huge advantage in the ship-to-ship close combat so common with galleys. Venetian galleys built in the Arsenal are also made with more sophisticated designs and construction techniques than, arguably, anywhere else in the world at this time.

With the help of their navy and their incredibly sophisticated diplomatic and intelligence network, the small town of Venice (with a population never more than a few hundred thousand even at it's peak) gradually spread her dominance throughout the "Middle Sea" for the next 400 years, conquering most of the Balkans, Greece, and almost all the major islands of the Eastern Med, they have Embassies in the courts of every major State in Europe and the Middle East. In the Middle Ages Venice would go on to become one of the greatest powers of Europe and prove to be virtually the only effective opposition to the expansion of the mighty Ottoman Empire in the Mediterranean.

Further north, the old Celtic-Roman city of Mediolanum has re-invented itself as the Lombard town of Milan. Their principle industry is armor, of which in the 11th -12th Century meant mail, including doubled mail and very rare tempered mail which was made almost nowhere else at this time. Milanese armor would be worn by the best equipped armies of Europe during the Crusades and for the next 500 years. Unlike other armor-producing towns, Milan lacks a system of guilds, and they are noted for their efficiency including the early use of water mills. During the Middle Ages the armor production of this little town would soon outstrip that of the entire nations of France and England combined. Milan was also to become one of the principle leaders of the Lombard League (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombard_league) in the 12th Century which would lead to the full independence of the Northern Italian cities through the Middle Ages, leading directly to the Renaissance.

Nearby Bologna, as I already mentioned, founded the oldest University in Europe, the Studio in 1088 AD. By 1100 AD the Bolognese Scholar Irnerius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irnerius) has translated the legal writings of Emperor Justinian and is re-introducing the concepts of Roman Law which will spread throughout the towns of Lombardy and later, throughout Europe (for better or worse). The City built it's first walls at this time (1100 AD), and has become a center of learning with a notable liberal bent. In the 13th Century they would establish the famous Legge del Paradiso ("Paradise Law"), which abolished feudal serfdom and freed the slaves, using public money. (boosting the nearby rural economy and liberating many potential artisans to work in the workshops of Bologna). Nor was the impact of the University purely political or intellectual; later during the Renaissance Bologna would become one of the World's greatest centers of Martial Arts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolognese_Swordsmanship).

Genoa, another small town with grandiose dreams, little more than a fishing village in the 10th Century, is one of the first cities in Europe to be granted citizenship rights by a feudal Lord and established itself as a Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Genoa#Rise) since 1005 AD. Having fought off Arab pirates throughout the first half of the 11th Century, they are now aggressive participants in the 1st Crusade, and have by 1100 AD already gained control of Sardania (after defeat of an Arab fleet of 150 ships in 1015 AD) are well established in Sicily, and have in alliance with Pisa conducted large scale raids against the Fatimid Caliphate in North Africa, briefly capturing the city of Mahdia in 1087.

A small force of 12 Genoan Galleys provided much of the naval support for the 1st Crusade and they have greatly benefited from the looting of the Levant, establishing a strong foothold there. The Norman Lord Bohemond I has already granted Genoa a headquarters in Antioch including a Church and 30 houses, and Baldwin I has also given them the entire income of the city of Acre as a concession, as well as 1/3 of the land in Acre, Arsuf and Cessaria. Genoese Merchants are also now controlling much of the Western trade from Byzantium and Armenia, and have even been granted free trading rights in Egypt and Syria. A small force of Genoese militia established a reputation as the finest Crossbowmen in Europe during the siege of Jerusalem in 1099 AD, making Genoan mercenaries among the highest paid marksmen throughout the Middle Ages.

So perhaps, the dynamism of these towns (and I haven't even discussed Florence, Pisa, Amalfi, Brescia etc. etc.) is somewhat evident even as early as 1100 AD.

Where the most important centers of intellectual life in Europe is hard to say, there are others of note in Flanders, Burgundy, Catalonia (esp. Barcelona), and Bohemia among others, as well as Sicily and Moorish Spain. It certainly was an interesting time.

G.

Norsesmithy
2010-09-26, 09:57 AM
But that's a moot point, probably, as I don't recall such occurrences, probably because they obviously weren't happening too often. :smallwink:

I believe it was mentioned in the last 10 or so pages of the last thread that English/Welsh Longbowmen were popular mercenaries on the continent, and that, esp in northern Europe, they probably did face compound bow equipped horse archers.

I think as far as how they faired, I imagine it wasn't terribly different from how any infantry faired against horse archers. If they stood, the horsemen could only harass them, if they fled, they would get shot to pieces, and if they pursued, they would never catch them, and they might get shot to pieces if they let their formation get out of order.

This mention may be in a linked article about a Northern warrior order who mostly used horn prod crossbows of their own manufacture.

Galloglaich
2010-09-26, 01:05 PM
I believe it was mentioned in the last 10 or so pages of the last thread that English/Welsh Longbowmen were popular mercenaries on the continent, and that, esp in northern Europe, they probably did face compound bow equipped horse archers.

I think as far as how they faired, I imagine it wasn't terribly different from how any infantry faired against horse archers. If they stood, the horsemen could only harass them, if they fled, they would get shot to pieces, and if they pursued, they would never catch them, and they might get shot to pieces if they let their formation get out of order.

This mention may be in a linked article about a Northern warrior order who mostly used horn prod crossbows of their own manufacture.

Yes I agree with this, there are several examples in the Baltic. One which springs to mind was during the siege of Vilnius in 1390, the English King Henry IV brought a small force of English Longbowmen with him on Crusade in the Baltic and they were used during that (unsuccessful) siege. This sort of thing happened more than once. It is highly likely that Henry IV's longbowmen faced Tartars (I.e. Mongols) from the Golden Horde during his Crusade, and he survived his adventure.

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


English king Henry IV spent a full year of 1390 supporting the unsuccessful siege of Vilnius by Teutonic Knights with his 300 fellow knights. During this campaign Henry Bolingbroke also bought captured Lithuanian princes and then apparently took them back to England. King Henry's second expedition to Lithuania in 1392 illustrates the financial benefits to the Order of these guest crusaders. His small army consisted of over 100 men, including longbow archers and six minstrels, at a total cost to the Lancastrian purse of £4,360.

Unfortunately that particular reference is unsourced but it probably comes from Teutonic Order records as many of those have survived intact and they go into a great deal of detail.

Longbows, particularly the very powerful "English Warbow" type, would have faired pretty well against horse-archers I think, for reasons already cited. There is a lot of argument as to which of the two weapons could outrange the other, my (by no means definitive) understanding is the heaviest recurves had something of an edge in range when using light arrows but the effective range against armored troops was equivalent, and the longbow arrows were apparently heavier and better for armor-piercing. The cavalry archers horses would also generally be vulnerable, more so than armored infantry.

Another area in which both weapons were used was in Naval Warfare. It's interesting to note that in battles between the Turks and the various Western Kingdoms, both longbows and Turkish recurve composite bows were used alongside (and sometimes in preference to) guns well into the 16th Century. Most of what we know in detail about Longbows today in fact comes from an English war-vessel, the Mary Rose which sank in 1545, when firearms were already very well established (in fact there were also Muskets and Gunshields found on the Mary Rose).

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

In fact some military histories claim that the Ottoman fleet was crippled by their loss of skilled archers at the battle of Lepanto in 1571 and this led to their gradual decline in Naval Power after that.

A good source about all this stuff is "The Great Warbow" which is unfortunately out of print.

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Warbow-Hastings-Mary-Rose/dp/0750931671

G.

Matthew
2010-09-26, 04:28 PM
Not to forget the Itinerarium, which mentions at least one Welsh bowman as part of the English army during the third crusade. :smallbiggrin:

Horoar
2010-09-26, 06:50 PM
Just a quick question wondering what the reach on a halberd was like.

Maclav
2010-09-26, 08:25 PM
Just a quick question wondering what the reach on a halberd was like.

Longer than a sword, shorter than a pike. Awkward at close range, but thats what a dagger is for.

What kind of info are you looking for?

Norsesmithy
2010-09-26, 11:18 PM
Just a quick question wondering what the reach on a halberd was like.

Like most things in the preindustrial era, halberds were not of standardized length, and so it's going to vary.

A lot.

Smaller halberds aren't going to be much bigger than the impressive two handed swords used by the shock troops of the landesknects, and probably don't represent any significant advantage in reach, but larger halberds could be almost as long as a pike.

Yora
2010-09-27, 07:52 AM
There are some videos on youtube of people sparing with naginatas. Not sure if they use the length that was used in warfare, but it might give you an idea. I imagine in a non-formation situation, the handling is quite similar.

Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmNTKy8LJiY)'s two people fighting with actual halberds, which seem rather long to my uneducated eyes. And they still get very close.

Spiryt
2010-09-27, 08:58 AM
I don't think that naginata compares at all, it's more like shortish, slightly more "personal" glaive with slender but longish blade in all serious example I've seen.

Halberd in classic form is solid axe/cleaver with long spike and hook... outright different handling and qualities.

Arma video is obviously solid, and anything with pollexe will be good.

Polleaxes were generally shorter and generally different, but they give good comparison.

Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TzdtyMC7ek) polleaxes start around 1 : 20 for example.

Yora
2010-09-28, 11:34 AM
Not exactly a weapon question and certainly not real-world, but it goes into the terrioty of the flame thrower and maybe you guys here can make educated guesses. Also, let's keep this as much in good taste as possible, and if you think it's too inappropriate, let's keep it a that.

But assumed you are dealing with zombies that keep standing up, or another monster that is highly infectous, and you need to get rid of it. Would a flame thrower a liter of gasoline be able to take care of them? Would such a fire ignite the body, or just burn up the initial fuel and clothes and then go out?

HenryHankovitch
2010-09-28, 01:49 PM
I'm not a crematorium engineer, but I feel fairly comfortable saying that a few liters or gallons of gasoline, burning in room-temperature atmosphere, will not consume the body to a significant degree. Enough to kill a living human, certainly, though it would take quite a while in terms of combat rounds. But if your zombies are walking corpses that can ignore things like gunshot wounds or severed limbs...not so much.

I can't speak for the gelled gasoline used in actual flamethrowers; and I don't know if you're referring to military designs or some sort of homemade flamethrower. Either way, I'm pretty sure that this tactic will just result in you fighting a zombie that is on fire.

If we're speaking (ghoulishly) of disposal methods rather than combat, I suspect that to truly render a corpse harmless would be to reduce it to ashes--requiring some kind of high-temperature crematorium or other very intense fire--or bury it in a place where it's not going to leach into the water table.

From an infections standpoint, particularly transmissible pathogens (smallpox or cholera, say) may be somewhat mitigated by partial burning. Of course, you then have the problem of the person handling the body en route to burning it. In both cases the most infectious phase of the disease has probably already passed, so of whatever airborne or waterborne pathogens would have come from the corpse, most are already loose in the enviroment. Your "magical" diseases like zombie-ism or Rage Virus may work differently, but at that point you're just waving your hands and saying "it's magic, it just works that way" anyway.

fusilier
2010-09-28, 03:21 PM
I'm not a crematorium engineer, but I feel fairly comfortable saying that a few liters or gallons of gasoline, burning in room-temperature atmosphere, will not consume the body to a significant degree. . . .

There's a fairly bizarre set of circumstances that can cause a very small amount of fuel to result in almost complete human combustion. If the conditions are right, fuel (such as alcohol) can cause the human body itself to burn. It's wierd, but most of the claims of "spontaneous human combustion" can be explained by people drinking and smoking in bed. There was a case in France that the authorities treated as a murder, and discovered some interesting facts. A lady had been murdered and robbed in her home, and the robbers attempted to cover up the murder by starting a fire with a very tiny amount of fuel (chanel no. 5 I believe). This caused almost her entire body to burn up, reducing the bones to ash, but hardly set fire to anything else. They were able to replicate something similar using a hog cadaver.

I realize that's not exactly what you were referring to, and this process takes a considerable amount of time.

In order for this to happen, I think the fuel had to burn for long enough that it raised the core temperature of the body enough to set fire to fat. At the same time the fire itself couldn't be too destructive to body. There was some television show that I saw a few years back that contained this information.

fusilier
2010-09-28, 03:29 PM
Some random trivia:

Venice's Arsenal, eventually became a kind of early form of a production line. In the 16th century it was claimed that they could crank out a complete galley in a day! The parts were standardized, and they kept forms of all the pieces, and would keep many spare pieces in stock (it also aided in repairs). Other nations did copy the Arsenal system, to a lesser or greater degree.

The University of Bologna:

I think this University was a "student-run" university. Professors that were late to class could be beaten by the head-student, and faced various fines/penalties for different infractions! If memory serves me correctly, Bologna specialized in Law.

At some point it was listed as a "Studium Generale" which means it was recognized by the Holy Roman Empire. This was the classification that most early universities sought. The university was not a physical place at this time. It was a collection of students and teachers, who typically rented rooms. This gave them mobility, and the ability to threaten to leave cities that didn't meet certain demands.

Daemon
2010-09-28, 06:29 PM
I'd appreciate it if one of you could direct me to information about fighting with and wearing an axe. Or a description would work well to. The more types of axes included the better.

Also, were double bladed battle-axes use? Or is that mostly a fantasy based weapon?

My google-fu is pretty terrible and the searches I turned up were all related to that strange smelling stuff that many dudes like to put on their bodies.

Thanks in advance for your help!

Hades
2010-09-28, 06:35 PM
This (http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_axe_techniques.htm) is probably the best resource I know of for axe fighting. The problem is that there aren't any real surviving resources, until you get to the poleaxe stuff, though that isn't really an "axe".

AslanCross
2010-09-28, 06:53 PM
There's a fairly bizarre set of circumstances that can cause a very small amount of fuel to result in almost complete human combustion. If the conditions are right, fuel (such as alcohol) can cause the human body itself to burn. It's wierd, but most of the claims of "spontaneous human combustion" can be explained by people drinking and smoking in bed. There was a case in France that the authorities treated as a murder, and discovered some interesting facts. A lady had been murdered and robbed in her home, and the robbers attempted to cover up the murder by starting a fire with a very tiny amount of fuel (chanel no. 5 I believe). This caused almost her entire body to burn up, reducing the bones to ash, but hardly set fire to anything else. They were able to replicate something similar using a hog cadaver.

I realize that's not exactly what you were referring to, and this process takes a considerable amount of time.

In order for this to happen, I think the fuel had to burn for long enough that it raised the core temperature of the body enough to set fire to fat. At the same time the fire itself couldn't be too destructive to body. There was some television show that I saw a few years back that contained this information.

It's called the wick effect, and if I'm not mistaken it takes a very long time to produce.

It will probably work for a body with fresh adipose tissue, but in a zombie that's already undergone some level of decomposition, I'd think that the zombie would still keep going and be on fire, so I don't think it's a very...favorable situation, to say the least.

A fragmentation grenade would probably be far more effective.

Daemon
2010-09-28, 06:55 PM
This (http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_axe_techniques.htm) is probably the best resource I know of for axe fighting. The problem is that there aren't any real surviving resources, until you get to the poleaxe stuff, though that isn't really an "axe".

Thanks for the link. I am kinda disappointed that this is the best material I've seen so far on axe fighting, but it's far better than my terrible attempts at figuring it out for mock battles. Thanks!

Norsesmithy
2010-09-28, 10:44 PM
Not exactly a weapon question and certainly not real-world, but it goes into the terrioty of the flame thrower and maybe you guys here can make educated guesses. Also, let's keep this as much in good taste as possible, and if you think it's too inappropriate, let's keep it a that.

But assumed you are dealing with zombies that keep standing up, or another monster that is highly infectous, and you need to get rid of it. Would a flame thrower a liter of gasoline be able to take care of them? Would such a fire ignite the body, or just burn up the initial fuel and clothes and then go out?

If you are using proper coprecipitated aluminum salts of naphthenic, and palmitic acids or a more modern substitute equivalent, you could probably get a pretty good body roast out of a litre or less, but simple gasoline will not do a very good job.

And I don't think that you really need to burn the thing to ashes, you simply need to destroy the vector carried in the tissue, and that might mean 165 degrees Fahrenheit if it's a bacteria or fungus, and 300 degrees for a particularly durable virus, or 600 degrees if we are talking prions. Now if your vector is something exotic like a nanomachine, you can invent any target temperature you want.

Psyx
2010-09-29, 05:43 AM
Thanks for the link. I am kinda disappointed that this is the best material I've seen so far on axe fighting,

Sadly; there is nothing really that has historically survived. None of the axe-fighting cultures wrote anything down about it, there's been no surviving 'sport forms' or off-shoots and stuff like that like there has been with fencing.



A fragmentation grenade would probably be far more effective.

Frag isn't powerful enough to shred a corpse. Maybe if you stood a zombie in front of a claymore it might work, but not a standard offensive frag grenade.
It'd also do a great job at essentially aerosolling body tissue: Great for infection.

AslanCross
2010-09-29, 08:03 AM
Frag isn't powerful enough to shred a corpse. Maybe if you stood a zombie in front of a claymore it might work, but not a standard offensive frag grenade.
It'd also do a great job at essentially aerosolling body tissue: Great for infection.

Ew. What would you recommend, then?

Anyway, my brother and I picked up a hardwood bokken earlier today. Anyone know of any katas I can practice? The initial results I found on the net were pure text and highly technical.

RationalGoblin
2010-09-29, 08:04 AM
How high quality of equipment (weapons and armor) did typical Dark Ages (900s or so) soldiers have? I know this question depends on the wealth and social status of the soldier, so add that in to the quality. (Aka, poor nobility, rich peasant, rich nobility, merchant class, etc)

Psyx
2010-09-29, 08:25 AM
How high quality of equipment (weapons and armor) did typical Dark Ages (900s or so) soldiers have? I know this question depends on the wealth and social status of the soldier, so add that in to the quality. (Aka, poor nobility, rich peasant, rich nobility, merchant class, etc)

Depends on culture as well, of course.
If by 'soldiers' you mean the small number of 'professional' warriors that were kicking around, then the answer is 'very, very good'.

Mail was enormously time and resource intensive to make, so was very much a luxury. It represented a massive investment, really. Worth far more comparatively than modern body armour.

Likewise, anyone carrying a sword was also in a pretty fine fiscal position, assuming that it was a pattern welded blade. Once again: The work of a skilled craftsman, a lot of metal and time were involved.

And if there was a horse involved... well; those weren't cheap either. The feudal system funnelled money up to the fighting classes because their panoply was far from being within the fiscal limits of the lower classes.

Many cultures required the free men of the nation/tribe to be able to outfit themselves for war in times of need. Obviously, these militias were less tooled: A decent spear and/or axe, a well-made shield, and whatever scraps of armour could be afforded were what was typically available.





Ew. What would you recommend, then?

Being a long way away and requesting some napalm?

Most weapons don't reduce people to small lumps of meat, because it's rather ineffective. It it just takes a few bits of metal to render someone non-combative, then that's all that is used: It's lighter, cheaper and safer than reducing someone to a pile of ash and teeth-fillings.

White phosphor is VERY unpleasant and burns a treat, but WP munitions once again only need a target to be hit with a few fragments, rather than crispy-fried.

Point blank Claymore mines are capable of putting bodies up in trees and stripping the clothes of them, so would do the trick. Otherwise; if you have a foe that needs physically taking apart in order to kill 'em, then I guess it's time for some chopping! A boar spear might be good, too: It wouldn't destroy a zombie, but it'd stop it getting any closer!

I'm going have to go back to the old addage here:

Remove the head, destroy the brain. :smallbiggrin:

Britter
2010-09-29, 08:26 AM
Anyway, my brother and I picked up a hardwood bokken earlier today. Anyone know of any katas I can practice? The initial results I found on the net were pure text and highly technical.

Do yourself a favor and see what is availible around you in terms of sword instruction. With traditional Japanese sword arts, you are not going to be able to learn anything authentic and effective over the internet or by video. A good place to start would be to look for a local kendo club or school. The kendo curiculum has a set of 7 katana used against katana and 3 wakizashi used against katana kata which are very good and entertaining kata to practice. They will also give you a good solid set of foundational sword skills.

I can't speak towards instruction in Western Martial Arts, so I will leave that to experts in that field, but as regards Japanese Sword arts it is my opinion, formed by 13 years of training, that learning without a qualified instrutor is literaly impossible to do correctly.

Yora
2010-09-29, 08:31 AM
Thanks for the answers regarding fire. I already suspected that lamp oil or something like that wouldn't work.

pendell
2010-09-29, 10:07 AM
Gentles,

In today's news, the US has discontinued bayonet training (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2010/0928/One-less-skill-for-soldiers-to-master-at-boot-camp-bayonet-training). I was wondering if anyone had any opinions on the matter, and if this is the right place to ask that question.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Yora
2010-09-29, 10:15 AM
As field battles are a thing of the past, you'd get close enough to potentially use a bayonet only inside buildings. And US forces had lots of actual combat experience in such environments, so if they believe bayonets are useless, I think they have very good reasons to do so.

Psyx
2010-09-29, 11:22 AM
Anyway, my brother and I picked up a hardwood bokken earlier today. Anyone know of any katas I can practice? The initial results I found on the net were pure text and highly technical.

"It is very difficult to attain this merely by reading this book, but you will soon understand with a little instruction." - Miyamoto Musashi

Get a teacher. Kata are nothing without context.



the US has discontinued bayonet training .

Thanks for the link. Interesting.



As field battles are a thing of the past, you'd get close enough to potentially use a bayonet only inside buildings. And US forces had lots of actual combat experience in such environments, so if they believe bayonets are useless, I think they have very good reasons to do so.

With all due respect for the US Armed Forces; some other modern military organisations have had just as much, or arguably more actual combat experience in recent years, and haven't elected to drop it from training.

One can roll out the usual comments that it's good aggression and confidence training. They're obvious. It does also teach infantry a someone greater respect for their own weapon system: Soldiers who wave firearms around in a frankly reckless manner suddenly stop doing it when it has a pointy bit on the end that they might take their own eye out with: It's a rather more immediate fear than that of the firearm discharging.

As for being useless: The British Army have fixed bayonets for modern warfare on several occasions in the last 30 years, so it's clearly not a completely pointless martial exercise, either. Unless one considers the British Army green and inexperienced in the field of modern warfare?

What actually disturbs me greatly is the fact that it's being shelved because there isn't time in the 10 week basic training for it. Fair enough: Other skills are more useful and should take priority... BUT:
We aren't at actual war. We have no conscription. There is no need to rush training: Ten weeks isn't enough time to teach a grunt how to effectively fight anyway. Bayonet training hardly takes weeks. Just extend the training schedule. Why is the US Army rushing green troops out of Basic?

dsmiles
2010-09-29, 11:34 AM
With all due respect for the US Armed Forces; some other modern military organisations have had just as much, or arguably more actual combat experience in recent years, and haven't elected to drop it from training.

One can roll out the usual comments that it's good aggression and confidence training. They're obvious. It does also teach infantry a someone greater respect for their own weapon system: Soldiers who wave firearms around in a frankly reckless manner suddenly stop doing it when it has a pointy bit on the end that they might take their own eye out with: It's a rather more immediate fear than that of the firearm discharging.

As for being useless: The British Army have fixed bayonets for modern warfare on several occasions in the last 30 years, so it's clearly not a completely pointless martial exercise, either. Unless one considers the British Army green and inexperienced in the field of modern warfare?

What actually disturbs me greatly is the fact that it's being shelved because there isn't time in the 10 week basic training for it. Fair enough: Other skills are more useful and should take priority... BUT:
We aren't at actual war. We have no conscription. There is no need to rush training: Ten weeks isn't enough time to teach a grunt how to effectively fight anyway. Bayonet training hardly takes weeks. Just extend the training schedule. Why is the US Army rushing green troops out of Basic?

Being in the Army, I can actually understand the dropping of bayonet training from BASIC training (if they moved it to advanced individual training). Most soldiers that aren't SF, Infantry, Military Police, or combat engineers will never use this training. Ever. I've been in 15 years, have been Artillery, and am now a specialized type of engineer, and have not once heard of anyone other than the four aforementioned fields using a bayonet for more than a can opener. Blah, blah, everyone is an Infantryman (or woman) first, sure, whatever. It's not true in the Army. It may fit well into the Marine Corps, but that mode of thought is outdated for the Army. (But they do make nifty can openers. :smalltongue:)

EDIT: Heh, I forgot why I came in here in the first place. Has anyone done any independant studies on renaissance firearms? Specifically ranges and chance of blowing up in your hands? I've been able to look at studies on Revolutionary War, Civil War, and American West period pieces, but renaissance-era stuff has somehow escaped me.

Kalaska'Agathas
2010-09-29, 11:41 AM
Concerning Bayonets: I recall that British troops in Afghanistan have used bayonets on at least one occasion, and to great effect. So it seems odd that the United States Army has discontinued the practice, especially for the reason given. I would like to echo Psyx, why are they spending only ten weeks on training?

Concerning Zombies: What would the likely effect of a 12 gauge shotgun firing deer slugs be on our garden variety 'shambler'? I've thought that it ought to do fairly considerable tissue damage, so even if I fail to "Remove the head or destroy the brain." with my first or second shot, the target will be reduced to a fairly-easily disposed of mass of crawling zombie.

dsmiles
2010-09-29, 11:45 AM
Concerning Zombies: What would the likely effect of a 12 gauge shotgun firing deer slugs be on our garden variety 'shambler'? I've thought that it ought to do fairly considerable tissue damage, so even if I fail to "Remove the head or destroy the brain." with my first or second shot, the target will be reduced to a fairly-easily disposed of mass of crawling zombie.

I concur. They may not even be crawling at that point, but I'd still rather use 00 buck shot. More tissue damage = less crawling zombie to clean up later. You could experiment using a pig corpse and a shotgun, or alternatively, I think Mythbusters has already done this with ballistics gel and a shotgun.

fusilier
2010-09-29, 12:36 PM
EDIT: Heh, I forgot why I came in here in the first place. Has anyone done any independant studies on renaissance firearms? Specifically ranges and chance of blowing up in your hands? I've been able to look at studies on Revolutionary War, Civil War, and American West period pieces, but renaissance-era stuff has somehow escaped me.

I would be interested in seeing such statistics myself, but I have low hopes that they will be found. I don't think enough records were kept at that time to provide good statistics - primarily because of the nature of war and soldiering during the renaissance.

Quality could vary considerably, and that would effect reliability, along with how experienced or well trained the soldiers were. Musket accuracy can be affected by how carefully they are loaded, and how good of a patch is used. If the patch is tight fitting, it will eliminate the bouncing effect that tv shows always point out. However, it will also take longer to load, which will become a greater problem as fowling builds up. On the other hand, renaissance musketeers probably fired their muskets fewer times in a given battle than their later counterparts. Also supply of patches and wadding could be irregular. I read somewhere that troops were known to stuff grass down their barrels to serve as wadding.

That said, the ranges typically provided for Renaissance era muskets are pretty similar to what is given for later muskets. Accurate to about 50 yards against individual targets, and 100-150 for massed targets. This may simply be people applying knowledge of similar weapons from later periods. Snipers did exist, and are claimed to have picked people off at longer ranges than 50 yards. I suspect that the 50 yard claim is based on typical training and skill levels combined with weapon limitations, and not simply weapon limitation.

Tyndmyr
2010-09-29, 03:47 PM
Concerning Bayonets: I recall that British troops in Afghanistan have used bayonets on at least one occasion, and to great effect. So it seems odd that the United States Army has discontinued the practice, especially for the reason given. I would like to echo Psyx, why are they spending only ten weeks on training?

Nearly anything will be useful at some point over 30 years. However, you can't possibly pack with you everything that might possibly be handy at some time.

Bayonets are very seldomly used for their intended purpose. Knives are handy, but mostly as tools. So, you're much better off either using that weight, space, and training time for something more generally applicable. Also, it's worth noting that with a bayonet fixed, your accuracy frequently changes significantly. Definitely a major downside.

Personally, being air force, we haven't had bayonet training in basic for ages. Well, at least, not went I went through it, it might have been added when they increased the length.

And basic training is just that...the basics. Most people get quite a bit more training in their specific field. Years, in some cases. There is quite enough mostly pointless stuff in basic that'll never be used by anyone in the practical military. No need to add more.

fusilier
2010-09-29, 05:53 PM
How much time do the armed forces waste marching around in formation? They don't do close order marching on the battlefield anymore . . . I bet that's next on the chopping block! ;-)

Fortinbras
2010-09-29, 06:52 PM
What stopped the Luftwaffe from destroying the Red Army when it was pushing into Germany?

Mike_G
2010-09-29, 09:06 PM
Bayonet training will still, I'm sure, be a part of Infantry training. Most people who go through Basic go into a specialty that isn't close combat, so spending a few days hacking up dummies might be better used learning how to avoid IEDs or deal with locals.

I like the bayonet. It comes in handy up close, like house clearing, which we are doing a lot of in the current campaigns, and the training is good for building strength, agility and aggressiveness into your troops.

Plus, halfway through your 12 weeks at Parris Island, you really want to stab and chop the @#$% out of something, and beat your fellow recruits with pugil sticks.

Kalaska'Agathas
2010-09-29, 09:18 PM
Plus, halfway through your 12 weeks at Parris Island, you really want to stab and chop the @#$% out of something, and beat your fellow recruits with pugil sticks.

Remember that it's the Army that's discontinued Bayonet training. I suspect the Marine Corps still trains its Marines in the activities of stabbing and chopping the @#$% out of things.

AslanCross
2010-09-29, 09:20 PM
Do yourself a favor and see what is availible around you in terms of sword instruction. With traditional Japanese sword arts, you are not going to be able to learn anything authentic and effective over the internet or by video. A good place to start would be to look for a local kendo club or school. The kendo curiculum has a set of 7 katana used against katana and 3 wakizashi used against katana kata which are very good and entertaining kata to practice. They will also give you a good solid set of foundational sword skills.

I can't speak towards instruction in Western Martial Arts, so I will leave that to experts in that field, but as regards Japanese Sword arts it is my opinion, formed by 13 years of training, that learning without a qualified instrutor is literaly impossible to do correctly.

That's the answer I was dreading but expecting. I've little time left as is, but thanks anyway.

Norsesmithy
2010-09-29, 10:59 PM
What stopped the Luftwaffe from destroying the Red Army when it was pushing into Germany?

Lots of factors, including spare parts shortages, fuel shortages, the Red Air Force, weather, and the fact that they did more good shooting at Anglo-American bombers than strafing tanks.

firechicago
2010-09-29, 11:55 PM
Re: Bayonets:

It's not like bayonet training is being dropped entirely, it's just being dropped from basic, i.e. the universal training that every Army soldier has to go through. The fact is that bayonet training is useful in a specific set of predictable combat circumstances that are encountered somewhat often by soldiers in certain specialties and almost never by soldiers not in those specialties. Seems like the absolute definition of a skill that should be taught in the training for those specialties, not in basic.

Re: Luftwaffe vs. Red Army:

Where to even begin? Even at the height of its strength, the Luftwaffe wasn't able to destroy the Red Army (though it came pretty close in the opening days after Barbarossa kicked off). By the time the tide turned in the East, the Luftwaffe was plagued by fuel and spare part shortages and was mostly devoted to defending German cities from the RAF Bomber Command and US 8th Air Force. Even if the Luftwaffe had decided to give the Allied bombers a free hand over German skies, it'd not clear that they could have defeated the Soviet Air Force decisively enough to give them a free hand over the battlefield, after all, the Soviets were majorly outproducing the Nazis in basically every area of war materiel, including planes, by the end of the war.

Psyx
2010-09-30, 05:00 AM
What stopped the Luftwaffe from destroying the Red Army when it was pushing into Germany?

There wasn't any Luftwaffe left! By D-Day the Allied had air superiority.
It's simply impossible to launch effective airstrikes if your aircraft get shot down 10 minutes after take-off. And remember that by this point in the war, allied fighter cover easily extended over the whole of Germany.

Allied strategic bombing trashed the industrial capabilities of the nation, and a lot of airpower was allocated to air defence. Allied air forces were doing their best to destroy any remaining aircraft the Germans had, to the extent that a vast number of them were destroyed on the ground by roving interdiction missions, striking at air bases. There were few [German] planes left capable of such missions [Air support].

The Luftwaffe was a hollow shell of its former glory, with ground crews being handed rifles and assigned last-ditch infantry tasks.

Psyx
2010-09-30, 05:08 AM
Concerning Zombies: What would the likely effect of a 12 gauge shotgun firing deer slugs be on our garden variety 'shambler'? I've thought that it ought to do fairly considerable tissue damage, so even if I fail to "Remove the head or destroy the brain." with my first or second shot, the target will be reduced to a fairly-easily disposed of mass of crawling zombie.

A hole! A big hole, but still a hole. Sadly, it won't remove the head, but might blow a nice big chunk of skull off the back, if you're lucky.
I'd imagine that if our zombie was a little decomposed then it might be more effective, but I don't really know how well rotting meat handles ballistic tests!

00 buckshot at close range results in a 'rat hole' wound: a hole that looks like it's been chewed by rats. The shot simply doesn't have enough range to spread, causing pretty similar effects to a heavy single slug, with the wound diameter dependant on range.

It's back to the 'bullets aren't designed to blow heads off' thing again, really.

It kind of depends how the zombies are 'controlled'. If they still 'need' their brain, then even a pistol round to the brain stem will shut them down straight away.

Psyx
2010-09-30, 05:20 AM
Nearly anything will be useful at some point over 30 years. However, you can't possibly pack with you everything that might possibly be handy at some time.

A knife is always handy. Even if it's not for stabbing people with.


There is quite enough mostly pointless stuff in basic that'll never be used by anyone in the practical military. No need to add more.

I'd rather ditch 'what to do if a nuclear warhead goes off near you' classes instead. Because those are really useless in comparison. Never mind pointing my head away from the blast... just tell 'em to tuck it between their legs and pucker up.

For me it's just a poor reflection of standards. Not got 'time' to fit in all the stuff a modern soldier needs to know? Extend training. Simple as. Be the best.

Modern warfare is fought in newspapers. Once a nation's People see enough body bags, they've had enough, regardless of the actual state of the campaign. It's happened time and time again. So the goal of warfare for the US must always be to heavily prioritise anything that reduces their own bodycount. If that means an extra 2 days MIGHT remotely save someone's skin, it's really worthwhile.

And we all know that being able to use a bayonet really isn't what the training is about, anyway. Aggression during FIBUA and lack of 'squeamishness' is really quite important in our current campaigns.




How much time do the armed forces waste marching around in formation? They don't do close order marching on the battlefield anymore . . . I bet that's next on the chopping block! ;-)

To impress the ladies. Duh! :smallbiggrin:
Dress uniform doesn't walk itself!

Storm Bringer
2010-09-30, 05:59 AM
you yanks are taught to face away form the blast?

the brit drill is to lie down, helmet towards the blast, letting it take the shock wave, and stick your hands on your balls to keep them out of the way.

though, I must note that my nucular training conisted of a grand total of two hours of lectures. most of my CBRN training was focused on chemical drills, which makes sense as a lot more of our oppenents have chemical weapons (saddam hussien, for example. we know he had them pior to the 1st gulf war, becuase he used them on the kurds and agianst the iranians), plus it has some theoretical useage outside of battle (dealing with chemical spills mainly)

The birtish army spends 14 weeks on basic training, and exactly one afternoon on bayonet training. I am sure the infantry go though more in their phase 2 training (along with how to use any firearm other than a L85)


How much time do the armed forces waste marching around in formation? They don't do close order marching on the battlefield anymore . . . I bet that's next on the chopping block! ;-)

pah. you americans think you have that bad?

the drill instructors coruse in the birtish army is still one of the most promotion-freindly courses you can do. I am fairly sure i spent more time on the drill square in basic than i did on the rifle range.

and don't get me started on the Guards...

Psyx
2010-09-30, 06:48 AM
you yanks are taught to face away form the blast?

No; I'm English. It was just a very, very long while ago, and I found it hard to pay attention to any lecture that started 'when you see a nuclear weapon go off nearby...'

It was complete garbage. Stabbing a sandbag for an hour would have been far more useful.




and don't get me started on the Guards...

I've never understood how they stay so shiny.


Are Forward Assists on the IW loading drill in or out this year? They always seemed to be changing their mind about it...

Storm Bringer
2010-09-30, 07:09 AM
No; I'm English. It was just a very, very long while ago, and I found it hard to pay attention to any lecture that started 'when you see a nuclear weapon go off nearby...'

It was complete garbage. Stabbing a sandbag for an hour would have been far more useful.

cool. what unit where you part of?



I've never understood how they stay so shiny.



according to my Coldstream guards corporal in basic, by literally spending an hour on them every single night for a month or two. theier is also this trick with beeswax and sand that they use to harden the leather and help it keep the polish.



Are Forward Assists on the IW loading drill in or out this year? They always seemed to be changing their mind about it...

as i've been taught we don't chamber a round on the command "load", but do it on the command "ready", instead. But to answer the question, its foreward assist pretty much every time the bolt comes foreard, be it NSPs, reloading, unloading, reloading, clearing stoppages, etc.

Adlan
2010-09-30, 08:19 AM
Are Forward Assists on the IW loading drill in or out this year? They always seemed to be changing their mind about it...

In, Out, in Out, Forward assist, and check your change leaver, that's what it's all about.

We (I'm MSUOTC, so as close to being a civvie without actually being one), were taught to always forward assist every time, in every circumstance. If anyone ever called us on it, to say we were unsure if the working parts were full forward.



I've never understood how they stay so shiny.

They get their **** to do it old boy.


I am fairly sure i spent more time on the drill square in basic than i did on the rifle range.

I'm very sure I have. It's odd, how intially you hate it and hate doing it, but as soon as you get a parade, you start looking down on all the other units (particularly the Naval and Airforce reserve's), who can't march. Which is why it's done, it builds esprie d-corp. Or however it's spelt.

And thats the major reason to include bayonet training, It builds aggression, and fighting spirit.

Tyndmyr
2010-09-30, 08:46 AM
Re: Luftwaffe vs. Red Army:

Where to even begin? Even at the height of its strength, the Luftwaffe wasn't able to destroy the Red Army (though it came pretty close in the opening days after Barbarossa kicked off). By the time the tide turned in the East, the Luftwaffe was plagued by fuel and spare part shortages and was mostly devoted to defending German cities from the RAF Bomber Command and US 8th Air Force. Even if the Luftwaffe had decided to give the Allied bombers a free hand over German skies, it'd not clear that they could have defeated the Soviet Air Force decisively enough to give them a free hand over the battlefield, after all, the Soviets were majorly outproducing the Nazis in basically every area of war materiel, including planes, by the end of the war.

Correction, they were fielding more in every area of war material. Without lend-lease, the red army would have utterly lost the war in the air, and this would have arguably put their entire war effort at risk. Lend-lease was ridiculously huge in specialist things, like aviation supplies. I don't recall the details, but for some things, the US was providing 80%+ of the supply used. Supply moving stuff, like railway machinery, was even more drastic.

dsmiles
2010-09-30, 08:54 AM
I would be interested in seeing such statistics myself, but I have low hopes that they will be found. I don't think enough records were kept at that time to provide good statistics - primarily because of the nature of war and soldiering during the renaissance.

Quality could vary considerably, and that would effect reliability, along with how experienced or well trained the soldiers were. Musket accuracy can be affected by how carefully they are loaded, and how good of a patch is used. If the patch is tight fitting, it will eliminate the bouncing effect that tv shows always point out. However, it will also take longer to load, which will become a greater problem as fowling builds up. On the other hand, renaissance musketeers probably fired their muskets fewer times in a given battle than their later counterparts. Also supply of patches and wadding could be irregular. I read somewhere that troops were known to stuff grass down their barrels to serve as wadding.

That said, the ranges typically provided for Renaissance era muskets are pretty similar to what is given for later muskets. Accurate to about 50 yards against individual targets, and 100-150 for massed targets. This may simply be people applying knowledge of similar weapons from later periods. Snipers did exist, and are claimed to have picked people off at longer ranges than 50 yards. I suspect that the 50 yard claim is based on typical training and skill levels combined with weapon limitations, and not simply weapon limitation.

I was looking more toward hard numbers. With an average wadding and patch, and a taget as big as a barn, at what distance does a renaissance-era long-gun stop blowing a hole in the target? A hand-cannon? I wish Gunney Ermey would cover more renaissance-era firearms...:smallfrown: He covered the blunderbus, though, and that made my day. Ah, medieval shotguns...those were the days...:smallsigh:

MarkusWolfe
2010-09-30, 09:32 AM
How much time do the armed forces waste marching around in formation? They don't do close order marching on the battlefield anymore . . . I bet that's next on the chopping block! ;-)

The way I understand it, the marching exercises are purely disciplinary in nature.

Galloglaich
2010-09-30, 10:36 AM
I don't think that naginata compares at all, it's more like shortish, slightly more "personal" glaive with slender but longish blade in all serious example I've seen.

Halberd in classic form is solid axe/cleaver with long spike and hook... outright different handling and qualities.

Arma video is obviously solid, and anything with pollexe will be good.

Polleaxes were generally shorter and generally different, but they give good comparison.

Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TzdtyMC7ek) polleaxes start around 1 : 20 for example.

Gladiatoria does great videos I didn't know they had a new one out, thanks for posting...

G.

Galloglaich
2010-09-30, 10:38 AM
Some random trivia:

Venice's Arsenal, eventually became a kind of early form of a production line. In the 16th century it was claimed that they could crank out a complete galley in a day! The parts were standardized, and they kept forms of all the pieces, and would keep many spare pieces in stock (it also aided in repairs). Other nations did copy the Arsenal system, to a lesser or greater degree.

The University of Bologna:

I think this University was a "student-run" university. Professors that were late to class could be beaten by the head-student, and faced various fines/penalties for different infractions! If memory serves me correctly, Bologna specialized in Law.

At some point it was listed as a "Studium Generale" which means it was recognized by the Holy Roman Empire. This was the classification that most early universities sought. The university was not a physical place at this time. It was a collection of students and teachers, who typically rented rooms. This gave them mobility, and the ability to threaten to leave cities that didn't meet certain demands.

Good stuff! Yeah the Arsenal was impressive. I wasn't aware of the details about the Studio

G.

Galloglaich
2010-09-30, 10:41 AM
Thanks for the link. I am kinda disappointed that this is the best material I've seen so far on axe fighting, but it's far better than my terrible attempts at figuring it out for mock battles. Thanks!

Well there is also this (http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=12114) 15th Century manual, but as previously stated, it deals with poll-axes... which are axes, just on a really long haft.

G.

Caustic Soda
2010-09-30, 10:48 AM
CBRN training ..
If C is Chemical, B is Biological and N is Nuclear, the what does the R in CBRN stand for?

Psyx
2010-09-30, 10:50 AM
Correction, they were fielding more in every area of war material. Without lend-lease...

Although it's not fair to pretend that anyone except the Soviet Union won the war against Germany. The rest of the Allies helped a bit, I guess...




cool. what unit where you part of?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159783

I had a CR of 4, apparently.





In, Out, in Out, Forward assist, and check your change leaver, that's what it's all about.

At least they fixed them and they mostly work now.


In other news, I'm taking a trip down memory lane by buying myself an old Landrover tomorrow. :smallbiggrin:

dsmiles
2010-09-30, 10:51 AM
If C is Chemical, B is Biological and N is Nuclear, the what does the R in CBRN stand for?

Radiological. Why it's separate from Nuclear, I'll never know. The meanings are close enough to the same that they could have left it alone. They probably got tired of hearing NBC = NoBody Cares.

lsfreak
2010-09-30, 10:52 AM
If C is Chemical, B is Biological and N is Nuclear, the what does the R in CBRN stand for?

Radiological, I believe. My assumption - I don't actually know for sure - is that Nuclear deals with the detonation of a nuclear weapon, Radiological deals with dirty bombs and raw nuclear material rather than the aftereffects of a nuclear explosion.

Galloglaich
2010-09-30, 11:10 AM
Sadly; there is nothing really that has historically survived. None of the axe-fighting cultures wrote anything down about it, there's been no surviving 'sport forms' or off-shoots and stuff like that like there has been with fencing.

That is not entirely true, the Norse for example wrote a lot of stories which had passages about axe-fighting, including some technical details. There are also many other depictions of fighting with axes in European literature, but there are no actual manuals as such, at least not from Europe.

But I think there may be a Mameluke manual which might have some axe stuff in it and there is probably something from India as well.

G.

Galloglaich
2010-09-30, 11:14 AM
With all due respect for the US Armed Forces; some other modern military organisations have had just as much, or arguably more actual combat experience in recent years, and haven't elected to drop it from training.

One can roll out the usual comments that it's good aggression and confidence training. They're obvious. It does also teach infantry a someone greater respect for their own weapon system: Soldiers who wave firearms around in a frankly reckless manner suddenly stop doing it when it has a pointy bit on the end that they might take their own eye out with: It's a rather more immediate fear than that of the firearm discharging.

As for being useless: The British Army have fixed bayonets for modern warfare on several occasions in the last 30 years, so it's clearly not a completely pointless martial exercise, either. Unless one considers the British Army green and inexperienced in the field of modern warfare?

What actually disturbs me greatly is the fact that it's being shelved because there isn't time in the 10 week basic training for it. Fair enough: Other skills are more useful and should take priority... BUT:
We aren't at actual war. We have no conscription. There is no need to rush training: Ten weeks isn't enough time to teach a grunt how to effectively fight anyway. Bayonet training hardly takes weeks. Just extend the training schedule. Why is the US Army rushing green troops out of Basic?

I agree, but I think they are rushing green troops out of Basic (and letting criminals into the military and relaxing various other standards) because money is tight. This thing waxes and wanes. Bayonett training has come and gone; whether or not it's used in battle it is valuable because it enhances morale and fighting spirit, much like paratroop training for the 82nd Airborne and amphibious training for Marines.

You also see this change in different stages of a war and fluctuating economic conditions with things like body armor, sidearms, transportation, medical support, veterans support and etc.

I think the truth is this news reflects how our militry is stretched to the breaking point financially and on a whole lot of other levels.

G.

dsmiles
2010-09-30, 11:20 AM
I think the truth is this news reflects how our militry is stretched to the breaking point financially and on a whole lot of other levels.


No kidding. We see it every day. Undermanned (womanned?) / underpaid / overworked.

Galloglaich
2010-09-30, 11:28 AM
On the Soviets, I would also say that they had a qualitative as well as quantitative superiority over the Luftwaffe by late 1944, and definitively by 1945, at least within the performance envelope which related to Close Air Support.

Luftwaffe were under orders not to engage Yak 3's at altitutde under 5000 meters from 1944 onward, IIRC, which tells you a lot. The La-5FN and La-7 were significantly better than any other German fighter except the very rare Fw -190D, and arguably better than those. The Yak 9 was a close match for the best variants of the Me 109 and Fw 190A. The Sturmovik was vastly more effective than Stukas which were still being used on the front-line or even the more specialized German C.A.S aircraft from Henschel etc. The only real advantage the Luftwaffe had was in jets but the jets they had were fairly useless for tactical operations.

The lend-lease did have a huge effect on spare parts, and also on front line fighters (P-39s, P-40s, and Hurricanes put them close to parity with Luftwaffe fighters, closing a wide gap from the early Soviet fighters) and tactical bombers (esp. A-20) during the crucial turning-point period of the war in 1942 / 1943. But by 1944 the Soviets were producing plenty of materiel...

G.

Psyx
2010-09-30, 12:09 PM
That is not entirely true, the Norse for example wrote a lot of...


I think it's a bit optimistic to say 'a lot of' as regards Norse writings. There are tantalising glimpses that point us to the martial skills and 'tricks' that were seen as being 'uber', but without a description of the basics, it's all kinda fluffy and pretty useless. Certainly nobody can look a serious historian in the eye and claim to have properly and fully interpreted Norse axe techniques.



I think the truth is this news reflects how our militry is stretched to the breaking point financially and on a whole lot of other levels.

It could be worse: You could have the 7th largest economy and the third largest military budget... instead of being top of the pile.

At least the US Forces get most of what they want within... oooh... 10 years of asking for it! The British military has been operating with outdated and frankly duff kit for decades.

fusilier
2010-09-30, 12:28 PM
The way I understand it, the marching exercises are purely disciplinary in nature.

Well, yes, I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek. :-)

I have an anecdote that relates to this. In the most recent Alamo movie, I helped train the Mexican Infantry. We spent a solid week (not much, but quite a bit in the movie business), drilling different groups and weeding out those who couldn't learn it quick enough. Afterwards the extras were organized into various companies. They were actually looking pretty good, and their maneuvers were pretty tight. When filming began they would collect all the extras in a central area, and as they were needed for different shots call out a particular company or two to a certain location. The commanders (typically reenactors) of the companies would form up their units and march them to the shot.

Well, some of the extras didn't like all this marching and complained to the assistant directors. The reenactors warned the leadership that if they stopped marching it would be detrimental, but they didn't listen and gave into the complaining extras. Discipline fell apart pretty quickly, and even though we spent a couple of days retraining them on set it never completely recovered. :-(

Due to some annoying policies, and unfair (or just negligent) management, I wasn't involved in the early days of filming. By the time I rejoined the action, they had already abandoned marching, and there were some pretty stupid situations. For example there was a scene where our company would advance about 40 yards, but something wasn't right in the background, and we kept having to "reset" back to our original position and do it over again. Instead of simply about facing and marching back to our position, we *had* to break the formation, and reform it which took considerably longer.

fusilier
2010-09-30, 01:06 PM
Good stuff! Yeah the Arsenal was impressive. I wasn't aware of the details about the Studio

G.

Yeah, I need to see if I can find my source for that again, but I'm pretty sure that Bologna was a student run university. I think Paris was the model for the master (professor) run university.

Students were often protected by the local clergy, and were eventually given the status of clerics (I'm not sure when that began). Conflicts with townspeople were well known (classic Town and Gown relationships), but sometimes they also ran afoul of other religious institutions:


The scholars of Paris, in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, had to face the mortal enmity of the monks of the Abbey of St Germain, the meadow in front of which was claimed by the Faculty of Arts. The sight of Paris students walking or playing on the Pré-aux-clercs had much the same effect upon the Abbot and monks as the famous donkeys had upon the strong-minded aunt of David Copperfield, but the measures they took for suppressing the nuisance were less exactly proportioned to the offence. One summer day in 1278, masters and scholars went for recreation to the (p. 132) meadow, when the Abbot sent out armed servants and retainers of the monastery to attack them. They came shouting "Ad mortem clericorum," death to the clerks, "verbis crudelibus, ad mortem ad mortem, inhumaniter pluries repetitis." A "famous Bachelor of Arts" and other clerks were seriously wounded and thrown into horrible dungeons; another victim lost an eye. The retreat into the city was cut off, and fugitives were pursued far into the country. Blood flowed freely, and the scholars who escaped returned to their halls with broken heads and limbs and their clothes torn to fragments. Some of the victims died of their wounds, and the monks were punished by King and Pope, the Abbot being pensioned off and the Abbey compelled to endow two chaplains to say masses for scholars. Forty years later the University had again to appeal to the Pope to avenge assaults by retainers of the Abbey upon scholars who were fishing in the moat outside the Abbey walls. The monks, of course, may have given a different version of the incidents.

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20958

This is a fairly old book (1912), and assumes you speak latin (which I don't), and understand life in a modern (i.e. 1912) Scottish university. Nevertheless, that is one of my favorite, and certainly most morbid, stories about medieval university life.

Stephen_E
2010-10-01, 12:25 AM
Correction, they were fielding more in every area of war material. Without lend-lease, the red army would have utterly lost the war in the air, and this would have arguably put their entire war effort at risk. Lend-lease was ridiculously huge in specialist things, like aviation supplies. I don't recall the details, but for some things, the US was providing 80%+ of the supply used. Supply moving stuff, like railway machinery, was even more drastic.

You have to be careful about the Lendlease.
It definitely help the Soviets a lot, but it didn't become significant until early 42, by which time the Axis had already blown their best chance of actually defeating the Soviets.

And as regard air combat, air power doesn't take territory. It helps but when it comes down to it you need troops to actually take territory.
I don't know what the Luftwaffe was like early 42, but I do know that by Stalingrad their ability to support the 6th army in Stalingrad was pretty limited. They simply never had the numbers.

Stephen E

Norsesmithy
2010-10-01, 10:04 PM
Or the supplies or the resources.

The German advance was halted before lend lease was contributing to the sharp end of the stick in Russia (though Lend Lease and pre Lend Lease shipments of railway cars did important things, like save the tooling for the manufacture of T34 tanks), for a multitude of reasons. The weather was an important factor, as is the fact that the Sovs were finally managing to replace the assets that were taken by surprise in the initial assault, but one of the biggest reasons IMO, was that Germany's ability to keep the army well supplied was exhausted, due to things like the fact that they were shipping artillery shells to the front by horse cart, and using obsolete tanks to tow tanker trailers of petrol (about as efficient as spilling fuel on the ground and waiting for it to run to your destination).

Russia simply had too much in the way of manpower, industrial capacity, and strategic resources for Germany to defeat on her own, and Germany's political and strategic posture denied her the allies she might have used to make a sporting go of it.

Where Lend Lease comes in is allowing Russia to devote her efforts towards driving the Germans back and then taking Berlin. I'm not saying that it wouldn't have happened anyways, but Lend Lease certainly moved the timetable up significantly.

RationalGoblin
2010-10-02, 11:26 PM
I have a silly question: Was the Morthschalag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortschlag), or Mordhau technique an actual, serious use of a sword, or is just some joker on Wikipedia making stuff up deliberately?

lsfreak
2010-10-02, 11:42 PM
I have a silly question: Was the Morthschalag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortschlag), or Mordhau technique an actual, serious use of a sword, or is just some joker on Wikipedia making stuff up deliberately?

It's serious, and exactly what the article describes. You can see a couple demonstrations buried in here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj4Ng6DBfrg), a grosses messer one at 1:16 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38sVdx7nzhQ), and one at the very end of here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsh0aQTIg9g).

Spiryt
2010-10-03, 04:12 AM
I have a silly question: Was the Morthschalag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortschlag), or Mordhau technique an actual, serious use of a sword, or is just some joker on Wikipedia making stuff up deliberately?

He would have to be quite a joker to make up medieval like illustrations too. :smallwink:

Link (http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Mair/135.jpg)


Generally, such grip and strike would be somehow extreme case of halfswording, and most probably wouldn't be sensible in most cases, but obviously would be used sometimes, since it's described in sources.

Cogidubnus
2010-10-03, 10:13 AM
I have a silly question: Was the Morthschalag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortschlag), or Mordhau technique an actual, serious use of a sword, or is just some joker on Wikipedia making stuff up deliberately?

Yes, it was. It's depicted in the sources.

In addition, in a book by John Waller (an experienced re-enactor), this blow is used in the following circumstances.

Combatant A swings his sword up towards his opponent's groin, passing forward on the right leg. B passes backward with his right leg, gripping his sword by the hilt with his right hand and near the point with his left hand, beat parrying the cut away if his movement has not taken him out of distance. He then rotates the hilt of his blade forwards with the left hand, moving his right hand onto the blade below the guard, passing forward with his right leg and striking for A's head with the hilt of his blade.

Just to put in the sort of context you'd use it in. Basically, after that sort of parry or to give you an opportunity to hook your opponent's blade.

Brainfart
2010-10-04, 12:55 AM
He would have to be quite a joker to make up medieval like illustrations too. :smallwink:

There was a rather amusing case of fail committed by some silly **** who decided to use a similar depiction of the mordschlag in a demotivational poster. Clear case of not doing the research. :smallamused:

Psyx
2010-10-04, 05:49 AM
Russia simply had too much in the way of manpower, industrial capacity, and strategic resources for Germany to defeat on her own, and Germany's political and strategic posture denied her the allies she might have used to make a sporting go of it.

Actually; that's a bit of a misconception. The Soviets was WOEFULLY short of manpower at several points in the war. Many formations were lucky to be at half strength, and only Guards formations tended to resemble the TO&E tables. low-ranking Commissars and other 'non-teeth' members of the armed forces were handed rifles to fight alongside the infantry.
Their industrial capacity near the beginning of conflict was pathetic too. Stalin had instigated his five-year plans to get the Russians up to modern industrial standards, but the third plan (which was cancelled after 2 years due to the war) was well behind it's goals, and the Soivet Union was still in poor industrial state at the commencement of hostilities.

Stephen_E
2010-10-04, 06:33 AM
Actually; that's a bit of a misconception. The Soviets was WOEFULLY short of manpower at several points in the war. Many formations were lucky to be at half strength, and only Guards formations tended to resemble the TO&E tables. low-ranking Commissars and other 'non-teeth' members of the armed forces were handed rifles to fight alongside the infantry.
Their industrial capacity near the beginning of conflict was pathetic too. Stalin had instigated his five-year plans to get the Russians up to modern industrial standards, but the third plan (which was cancelled after 2 years due to the war) was well behind it's goals, and the Soivet Union was still in poor industrial state at the commencement of hostilities.

Strength of formation - Once formations have seen combat 80% is about as good as you ever expect to be able to field at any one time.
So 50% is only poor, not shocking. And after the initial Barbarossa, going into 42 spring, I suspect if you looked at the German formations, many were little better.

The Soviet industrial setup was indeed much poorer man for man than the "western" countries, but they had much more "men", and even with the 5 year plans been behind schedule they were vastly improved on the days of the Czar. And crucially the German ability to destroy that industry was limited by the size of the country.

As Norsesmithy pointed out the bulk of German transport system in Russia was horse. The German industry couldn't produce enough transport to even reduce horse transport down to a minority role.:smallredface:

It's a old myth that the Germans hadn't expected the war to last to winter so they didn't have winter uniforms. They did have winter uniforms and other equipment, back in Germany. They didn't have the transport capacity to ship them to the soldiers at the front.

Stephen E

Psyx
2010-10-04, 08:48 AM
A formation at 50% strength is -by all conventional military thinking - not combat worthy. not even close. To be honest; anything more than 25% losses is crippling, both in terms of organisation, combat capability and morale.

The Soviets went through cycles of hurling troops to their deaths, and then running out. We have this opinion that Stalin's 'Quantity has a quality all of its own' quote reflected the Soviet strategy, but the truth is that they didn't have sufficient manpower to take losses like that in any sustainable manner.

Agreed on the Winter kit thing. Logistically; it was a choice between jackets and ammunition.
Although if someone ever told me 'We're starting a land war in Asia', I'd be packing a jacket...

Yora
2010-10-04, 09:53 AM
though to be fair, they never got that far.

fusilier
2010-10-04, 12:03 PM
A formation at 50% strength is -by all conventional military thinking - not combat worthy. not even close. To be honest; anything more than 25% losses is crippling, both in terms of organisation, combat capability and morale.

You're going to have to qualify that claim. Units during the American Civil War were typically at 50% prescribed strength, or less, even before they reached their first battle.

Norsesmithy
2010-10-05, 08:35 PM
A formation at 50% strength is -by all conventional military thinking - not combat worthy. not even close. To be honest; anything more than 25% losses is crippling, both in terms of organisation, combat capability and morale.

The Soviets went through cycles of hurling troops to their deaths, and then running out. We have this opinion that Stalin's 'Quantity has a quality all of its own' quote reflected the Soviet strategy, but the truth is that they didn't have sufficient manpower to take losses like that in any sustainable manner.

Agreed on the Winter kit thing. Logistically; it was a choice between jackets and ammunition.
Although if someone ever told me 'We're starting a land war in Asia', I'd be packing a jacket...

50% strength is unacceptable from the point of view of a modern western (American) commander, but was not at all unusual before the era of our modern volunteer army. We aren't talking about 50% losses, we are talking about companies that are actually overstrength platoons, and similar.

What I meant by manpower is that Russia had reserves of men to train, and replace their losses, and build their forces. Germany did not. Germany had to pull men who should have been left working in war vital industries, or even left to farm.

Sure, there were battles where Russia suffered from acute issues of manpower, due to transportation or training issues, but Russia went from the desperation of Stalingrad to the Hammer wielded by Zhukov. Germany was not able to draw up her forces in the same way, and still maintain a useful wartime economy.

Mike_G
2010-10-05, 08:53 PM
Historically, even with 50% losses, many units have continued to fight and to function.

large percentage losses of actual combat troops happens a lot. A platoon only has to lose 3 or 4 guys to be down 10%. A squad is down that much with the first casualty. No decent rifle platoon ever became nonoperational because they had 4 guys hit.

Now a division's paper strength include the transport guys, the cooks, the bakers, the mechanics, and the guy who waters the major's oak leaves. But the losses are usually in the rifle platoons, so a 25% loss to a division is probably half the guys who actually do the shooting.

Stephen_E
2010-10-06, 05:14 AM
Also keep in mind that if people amongst the cooks ect are sick or considered non-operational for some reason, then that takes down the percentage of effectives while having liitle effect on the normal combat effectiveness.

I say normal because I remember reading about the WW2 Nth African campaign where a NZ unit (comapany I think) had been cut off and surrounded in a retreat. It was presumed lost until a british force came apon it by accident and releived it. The cooks were fighting on the frontline by that time.
Despite that it was still combat effective and wanted the retreating british force that had releived them to join in a counter attack, :smallbiggrin:
They were most disappointed to be told they had to retreat. Crazy bastards. lol

Stephen E

Psyx
2010-10-06, 06:14 AM
You're going to have to qualify that claim. Units during the American Civil War were typically at 50% prescribed strength, or less, even before they reached their first battle.

It was what I was taught at RMAS, so I dare-say it's pretty accurate and backed up by a fair few military theorists and quite a lot of practical experience. However, I don't have citable sources to hand.


the guy who waters the major's oak leaves.

/chuckle



but Russia went from the desperation of Stalingrad to the Hammer wielded by Zhukov.

I believe that well into 1943, the Soviet TO&Es were/are viewed as somewhat of an optimistic joke. I should probably have a look at the population figures of Russia at the time, but the wide-scale employment of women in roles such as mortar teams would tend to point to an actual man-power shortage, not just a deficit in training.

fusilier
2010-10-06, 09:57 AM
It was what I was taught at RMAS, so I dare-say it's pretty accurate and backed up by a fair few military theorists and quite a lot of practical experience. However, I don't have citable sources to hand.

Yes, I don't doubt that, but it clearly doesn't apply to all time periods. Perhaps it has to do with operational planning? In planning some sort of action a battalion at 50% shouldn't be considered a battalion. Or something along those lines?

Psyx
2010-10-06, 10:18 AM
Obviously it's period-sensitive to some degree and most applicable in late C20 warfare as taught. Although I suspect that it might not be a bad rule of thumb across various periods, given considerations of morale. If half your mates are dead, you aren't going to feel great about doing any more fighting, unless you are already up to your neck in it. I suspect that historically, a formation at 50% strength is pretty likely to rout, given half a chance.

War is not a great leveller: Junior Officers typically die faster than anyone else on the battlefield, with NCOs not too far behind in the running. Thus a 50% casualty rate will mean a high-that-that proportion of Officers and NCOs being 'absent', with a knock-on effect on cohesion and organisation. If you have half your men, but only a quarter of your C&C, things are not good.

For operational purposes, 75% is the key number: One wouldn't commit a unit that was operating below that level to any offensive action/operation, and would rotate it out-of-line if it was at all viable to do so. There's no point flogging a horse with three legs, and reserves are there for a reason.
At 50% the unit might as well not be there, and it effectively isn't worth considering on a strategic level.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-06, 11:42 AM
Yup. The eastern front was a notorious meat grinder...and both sides frequently used very optimistic organization to downplay the true nature of the fight, and the losses taken.

For instance, as the germans got pushed back, they, in theory, still had plenty of divisions between them and the russians. It's just that those divisions had taken so ridiculously many casualties that they were not functional as such a unit.

Obviously, not an ideal way to run a war, but both germany and russia had a certain degree of disconnect between the guys on top and the guys on the front lines. Happens with everyone to some extent, but it was arguably more common there.

Storm Bringer
2010-10-06, 11:56 AM
I have a history book somewhere, where, at one point, a panzer officer form the Stalingrad Kessel is flown out to meet Hitler and explain to him the realities of the Front. The officer sees quite clearly that his efforts had no effect, as hitler, after listening to his tale of woe, then turns to the Big Board behind him and points out the devisions that were forming for a counterattack as they spoke. these were the same divsions that the panzer offcer knew were little more than a brigade of infantry and maybe a companys worth of running (ie working) armour. And that he'd just told hitler that they were in this state.

it was the point where this panzer officer lost his faith in hitler, as it was clear he was totally disconnected between what his Big Board said and what was on the ground, and wasn't willing to listen.

fusilier
2010-10-06, 12:00 PM
Obviously it's period-sensitive to some degree and most applicable in late C20 warfare as taught. Although I suspect that it might not be a bad rule of thumb across various periods, given considerations of morale. If half your mates are dead, you aren't going to feel great about doing any more fighting, unless you are already up to your neck in it. I suspect that historically, a formation at 50% strength is pretty likely to rout, given half a chance.

War is not a great leveller: Junior Officers typically die faster than anyone else on the battlefield, with NCOs not too far behind in the running. Thus a 50% casualty rate will mean a high-that-that proportion of Officers and NCOs being 'absent', with a knock-on effect on cohesion and organisation. If you have half your men, but only a quarter of your C&C, things are not good.

For operational purposes, 75% is the key number: One wouldn't commit a unit that was operating below that level to any offensive action/operation, and would rotate it out-of-line if it was at all viable to do so. There's no point flogging a horse with three legs, and reserves are there for a reason.
At 50% the unit might as well not be there, and it effectively isn't worth considering on a strategic level.

It sounds like you are talking about battle losses? A typical ACW regiment would often be at less than 50% strength by the time they reached their first battle. This was due to a variety of reasons, disease, desertion, etc. While those could have an effect on morale the losses occurred over an extended period of time. Replacements were not common in the volunteer army, so any losses incurred usually lasted until the unit was mustered out (2 to 3 years typically). Many units ended their service with 30 or 40 men per company (out of an authorized 100).

Battle casualties inflicted could sometimes be horrendous, like in WW1. Those units appear to keep fighting as commanders lose control over the battle once it begins. However, they would typically receive replacements to bring them up to full strength as soon as possible. Although in some situations depleted units may have been amalgamated until they had a chance to retire from the combat zone. By the end of the war attrition had taken its toll on the Central Powers and their plans had to acknowledge undersized units.

It seems reasonable to me that if a unit takes 25%+ casualties in a given action, it should be pulled out of line and at least given an extended rest (and hopefully replacements).

Fortinbras
2010-10-06, 05:25 PM
In terms of training, what is the difference between a navy corpsman and army 68W?

Of the two who gets more combat training?

Who gets sent on more ops?

Grynning
2010-10-06, 05:30 PM
Need some help from some of the history buffs: What kind of swords and firearms would have been used by soldiers and in particular naval officers during the Nine-years War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Years%27_War_%28Ireland%29)? I know that pistols would have likely been uncommon but would have been of wheelock or snaphance designs, but that's about it. Images and references would be helpful. Thanks!

Mike_G
2010-10-06, 09:37 PM
In terms of training, what is the difference between a navy corpsman and army 68W?

Of the two who gets more combat training?

Who gets sent on more ops?

What's a 68W? Is that a medic?

Navy Corpsmen don't get any specific combat training just by virtue of being Corpsmen, and Army basic teaches more combat stuff than Navy basic. That said Corpsmen act as medics for both Navy and Marine Corps units, so the ones whose job it is to keep the jarheads patched up see a lot of combat operations.

I doubt that the medical training is very different between services. It's similar to paramedic training. Not exactly, but that's the closest civilian analogy. One of the guys I worked with on the ambulance a few years back had been a Navy Corpsman, and he mostly worked as an OR tech in the service.

Psyx
2010-10-07, 05:08 AM
it was the point where this panzer officer lost his faith in hitler, as it was clear he was totally disconnected between what his Big Board said and what was on the ground, and wasn't willing to listen.

Hitler was so mentally degraded by that point that he was still busy winning the war with invisible divisions in his head. He'd surrounded himself with officer who were happy to lie to him rather than face his anger for so long, that his reality had become the only one he could tolerate.

It's a problem with all dictators that they tend to assume that they have suddenly learned how to become military geniuses, and know how to fight wars better than their career Staff Officers. Perhaps sending men to die is the ultimate high for the megalomaniac.



It sounds like you are talking about battle losses?

On a modern battlefield, pre-combat losses are negligible. Although that I would imagine that in the event of 25% casualties before getting into line (say due to a transportation accident or illness), that a reserve unit would be used instead. Prior to the late C20, such a thing would be quite a luxury, and attrition due to disease and desertion simply something that had to be dealt with. I also suspect that desertion (and perhaps disease to an extent) might be more prevalent amongst Other Ranks than within the command structure, and so less detrimental to the unit as an organisation. that's just a hunch, though.

Storm Bringer
2010-10-07, 05:28 AM
It's a problem with all dictators that they tend to assume that they have suddenly learned how to become military geniuses, and know how to fight wars better than their career Staff Officers. Perhaps sending men to die is the ultimate high for the megalomaniac.


part of the problem was, he'd clashed with his staff several times, won the arguement, and then been proven right as events unfolded. For example, he'd overruled staff officer objections over france, and won a major victory.

Hitler took gambles, and had a run of luck that convinced hum he knew better than his generals.

RationalGoblin
2010-10-07, 08:08 AM
Quick question; in the 10th (so 900s) and 11th century, how did the decentralized Frankish state work? Particularly military-wise, what was the relationship between king and vassal in military matters, the type of troops (and their equipment) and so forth?

Spiryt
2010-10-07, 10:12 AM
Type of equipment is being "standard" generally.

What I mean, nothing is really standard in those times, of course, as people are arming themselves on their own, by "standard" I mean typical for the period - spears, axes, javelins. As I understand franciskas or similar throwing axes were somehow typical frankish element. Helmets, mail and rare and not well documented things like scale or lammellar for armors - usually the best things we have for their confirmation is something like this (http://www.freha.pl/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=13680).

On this situla (http://www.freha.pl/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=3395) one can see oval shields, both with central boss, and with rivets in the upper part, which can suggest few different methods of holding the shield. It's supposed to represent Otto III, AFAIK, and is from about 1000.

Generally, system would be prospering feudalism - depending on status, power, wealth, your armed man would be expected by his lord to stand with better equipment and more armed subjects.

So here are few point, hopefully others shall add more. :smallwink:

fusilier
2010-10-07, 12:19 PM
Need some help from some of the history buffs: What kind of swords and firearms would have been used by soldiers and in particular naval officers during the Nine-years War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Years%27_War_%28Ireland%29)? I know that pistols would have likely been uncommon but would have been of wheelock or snaphance designs, but that's about it. Images and references would be helpful. Thanks!

Basic European firearms would have been muskets and calivers (or arquebuses), and pistols. Most long arms would be matchlocks, but an officer could afford a wheellock or snaphance design. Such locks were also preferred for powder-train guards and some skirmisher units. Pistols would typically be wheellock. I think I've seen some snaphaunce and also early miquelet lock pistols too. I think the older German style pistols (pfuffer) were falling out of use. Pistols wouldn't have been that uncommon. Lances were being abandoned in favor of pistols at this time, and it is reasonable to expect an officer to have a few pistols. I'm having trouble finding good pictures on the internet at the moment. Maybe someone else can help.

There's an old geocities page about matchlock muskets that can be found through www.archive.org, but right now that website appears to be having trouble.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080116084647/www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Campground/8551/index.html

As for swords, the short answer is: all of them! Pretty much any sword that was available in Europe could be used, based upon individual preference, although two-handed swords would probably not be used by officers. There are also a ton of different names by which these swords may be known. Rapiers, cut-and-thrust (sidesword? broadsword?), falchions, etc. There's probably others on this forum that can provide more detail.

Galloglaich
2010-10-08, 09:59 AM
Quick question; in the 10th (so 900s) and 11th century, how did the decentralized Frankish state work? Particularly military-wise, what was the relationship between king and vassal in military matters, the type of troops (and their equipment) and so forth?

To add to what Spyrit said.

The late Frankish kingdom was a complex society, not really feudal in the 10th Century so much as still mostly tribal. Due to the relative paucity of surviving records we actually know far less about them than we do about the Romans or the later Medieval world. But we do know a few things I can review briefly here.

The Frankish top leadership (the Carolingian Dynasty) was very strong in the 8th Century from the victory of Charles Martel at Tours until the early 9th Century when Charlemagne died. During Charlemagnes reign the King of the Franks also became the Emperor of 'Rome'. After Charlemagnes death the Empire was split into three parts and the Frankish kingdom went into a period of decline through the 9th Century under a series of weak leaders with names like Charles the Fat, Charles the Simple and Louis the Stammerer. France was ravaged by the Vikings and fragmented by internal dissent well into the 10th Century. Meanwhile the other two branches of the Empire, Burgundy / Italy and Germany, went into a different direction, sealing the break up of the Frankish Empire into several parts by the late-9th Century. Finally from the early 11th Century the Capetians took over starting with Hugh Capet, which was a new stronger dynasty leading into the Medieval Kingdom of France. So that is the top leadership, complex enough to be sure, but that is actually the simplest part.

Probably the most important to keep in mind about the Franks is that they were not an ethnic group per se, or a tribe, but a large multi-ethnic tribal federation. It was the same for all the other famous Barbarian 'tribes' of the Dark Ages.

So the original Franks included the Salii, Sicambri, Chamavi, Bructeri, Chatti, Chattuarii, Ampsivarii, Tencteri, Ubii and Batavi (tribes ranging from Germany to Flanders / Holland), one branch of the federation was dominated by the Salii which is why they were known as the Salian Franks. The name Franks probably means 'Free men' which is typcial of such early Germanic federations (the Allemani, which is still the French word for Germans, means literally Alle - Mani or "All men"). As the Frankish tribes conquered Gaul, they heavily intermingled, intermarried and integrated with the Romanized Gauls and picked up many of their habits and gradually, their language. As the Franks expanded they absorbed or federated with other tribes including the Saxons, Alans (Iranian / Persian people), the Taifals (also Iranian), and Alemanni. This has a lot of significance on the Frankish military.

Frankish tribal law was of the traditional Germanic type, governed by independent "lawspeakers" (called rachimburgs) who spoke at the tribal assembly similar to the Scandinavian 'Ting' and would make legal rulings but did not have direct authority. Judgments were carried out by jurors and tribal Chieftains were elected by the assembly (though the most powerful men were usually elected). Gradually Roman / Oriental style monarchy took hold inside the confederation, which was unified under the Merovingian 'Sea-Kings' and these lawmen were replaced with royal magistrates who were part of an administrative class called centannae or antrustiones (more about them a bit later) who played a similar role, but with loyalty to the King rather than the tribe (somewhat similar to Islamic Qadi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qadi)).

In terms of kit, while the Frankish confederation started out iron poor, like many Germannic tribal groups, only more so. But by the 10th Century they had actually become one of the greatest iron producing people in the world. Frankish ('Ferrengi') armor and swords were among the most sought-after in the East by this time. So their armies were generally well equipped by the standards of the day, better than most late-Roman armies probably.

Command would break down by Dukes, Bishops, and tribal Chieftains (who would bear similar titles but with less formal meaning). At any one time depending on the strength of the King from 20 -80% of these Princes would fight on the side of the Kingdom. You would also have of course many smaller regional disputes going on between princes.

Political and military organization overlapped, by the 10th Century where you are focusing, the Frankish kingdom was much more sophisticated and organized, but still also pretty decentralized and multicultural, quite complex but you can break it down into four zones.

In parts of Flanders and the West of France there were many Gallo-Roman trading towns which were almost like smaller versions of Medieval city-states. These walled towns had their own militias made up of a special class of armed burghers called centannae who were called up under what the records refer to as 'local levies' which were well trained and well armed and equipped, like the urban militias of the later Medieval world, mostly as heavy infantry.

Feudalism wasn't very well established in Frankish lands by this point but in Central and Southern France there were some truly feudal fiefdoms based around Latifundia, traditional Roman villa - plantations worked by serfs (pagani), ruled over by Bishops or Dux (Dukes). There were also certain higher nobles such as the Bishop of Paris and the Patrician of Burgundy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Burgundy) who held special ranks and often acted as important military leaders with their own heavily armed (cavalry) retinues. These places had Romano-Gallic cavalry but little infantry (unless the 'General levy' was called in which case even serfs 'pauperes' and 'inferiores' would be armed and pressed into service, but that was very rare).

Around the Rhine and the tribes were more barbaric and organized as traditional Germanic light infantry equipped similarly to the Franks of a much earlier time.

Finally the Alans and Taifals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taifals) were settled in certain areas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poitou) of France. These Iranian / Saromatian nomads fought as light or as . In fact there is some argument that they may have introduced the culture of heavy cavalry to France. A Taifal uprising is mentioned in France in 565 AD by Gregory of Tours, so they were still considered a distinct ethnic group by then. The zones controlled by the Central Asians would have been aristocratic areas since they were a foreign people ruling over local tribes. They seem to have assimilated quickly a Taifal Saint (]heavy cavalry[/url) was canonized in the 6th Century.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b29/Acidophilus-Bifidus/Civ/Germans013.jpg
So in the 10th Century, the urban militias of Paris and towns like Nantes, Bordeaux, Poitiers, Toulouse, Tours etc. would be heavy infantry called centannae, armed with spears, shields, javelins, darts, swords and axes, and backed up by archers. Typical soldiers would wear helmets and many would have mail, others probably textile armor.

http://www.comitatus.net/galleryhardwick09/images/24.jpg
The Romano Gallic cavalry was probably armored, at least with a textile armor and a shield, probably with a byrnie as well, and would also carry lance, javelins, darts and a sword. A few would carry bows like Roman Sagitarii

http://www.allempires.com/Uploads/Sarmatian_Knight.jpg
These Cataphracts are kitted out in Asian style, the Alans in Gaul would have probably been clothed and equipped somewhat more similarly to the locals.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:qq2QG6hpyeRaOM:http://www.acronet.net/~magyar/english/96-07/sarmatian.jpeg
The Saromatian (Alan, Taifal) cavalry would be split into light cavalry, some of whom may have had bows, most armed with javelins and darts and light lances, and heavy cavalry with real warhorses some of whom may have had armored horses, body armor (possibly including scale or lamellar armor as Spyrit showed above) axes, light maces, lassos, and lances.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b29/Acidophilus-Bifidus/Civ/Germans006.jpg
This image depicts Franks from the 5th or 6th Century, Franks in the 10th Century would probably have a more 'medieval' appearance in terms of dress and hair etc., but the weapons were similar.

The Germanic tribes would fight primarily as light infantry armed in the more traditional Frankish manner, with the Angon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angon) / Francona (a heavy armor-piercing spear probably derived directly from the Roman Pilum) the Francisca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisca), a throwing axe, plus swords and axes.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b29/Acidophilus-Bifidus/Civ/Germans008.jpg

The chieftains would be armored with mail and helmets, and would be accompanied by an elite bodyguard called a Commitatus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comes#Frankish_Gaugraf[/url) or Antrustiones. These men would be heavily armed and well mounted but many would prefer to fight as heavy infantry as they did so famously under Charles Martel.

The king himself had both heavy infantry centannae and a large bodyguard of Antrustiones called comes palatii and comes stabuli (palace guards and state police, respectively, some of whom were aristocrats but some of whom were recruited from tribesemen or serfs, creating a new class which came to be called ministerials in the Holy Roman Empire, many ministerials eventually became the founders of the fighting Orders like the Teutonic Order), plus archers and probably Sarmatian cavalry as well.

The best source for the early Franks is Procopius, the best source for the Medieval Franks is (in my opinion) Hans Delbruck. The Osprey books are also, as always, useful particularly for the individual kit.

[url]http://www.amazon.com/History-Wars-Books-VI-Gothic/dp/1406566551/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1286585302&sr=8-4

http://www.amazon.com/Barbarian-Invasions-History-Art-War/dp/0803292007/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1286585377&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Warfare-History-Art-War/dp/0803265859/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1286585341&sr=8-3

http://www.amazon.com/Warfare-Society-Barbarian-450-900-History/dp/0415239400/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1286585377&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Age-Charlemagne-Men-at-Arms-David-Nicolle/dp/085045042X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1286585507&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Carolingian-Cavalryman-AD-768-987-Warrior/dp/1841766453/ref=pd_luc_sim_01_01_t_lht5

G.

Crow
2010-10-08, 10:57 AM
Freaking Deadliest Warrior.

I specifically refer to the Viking vs. Samurai episode. It seems they overestimate the utility of the katana, and underestimate the utility of a shield (and western weaponry in general).

A samurai was basically just a feudal retainer, so you kindof have to assume a huscarl on the viking side, which is much the same, to make it fair, so you can probably safely assume a near equal level of skill. While the samurai's weaponry was well-suited to the enemies he was likely to face, it seems the viking's equipment would be better suited to whatever he may have come across (interesting as one culture was very isolationist at times, while the other nearly spanned the globe in their travels).

Am I way off base here? Any thoughts from others?

I hate that show by the way. The only reason I watched it was by the recommendation of that episode by a friend.

Psyx
2010-10-08, 11:53 AM
The show always completely underestimates the effectiveness of shields, and seldom addresses armour adequately and...<insert froth>

What weapons did the samurai use? Because it strikes me as:

Japanese bow (low draw weight) vs Higher draw weight Western bow
Spear vs Spear
Laminated metal cutting blade optimised against unarmoured foes Vs Laminated metal cutting and thrusting blade AND shield
Laminate armour vs Mail
Tetsudo versus Long Axe

I suspect fanboyism won out, and the samurai won, right?

MarkusWolfe
2010-10-08, 12:29 PM
The show always completely underestimates the effectiveness of shields, and seldom addresses armour adequately and...<insert froth>

What weapons did the samurai use? Because it strikes me as:

Japanese bow (low draw weight) vs Higher draw weight Western bow
Spear vs Spear
Laminated metal cutting blade optimised against unarmoured foes Vs Laminated metal cutting and thrusting blade AND shield
Laminate armour vs Mail
Tetsudo versus Long Axe

I suspect fanboyism won out, and the samurai won, right?

Yep. And the Viking had better weapons he could've used.

This was also the episode that the guys figured out that most weapons are going to have a very difficult time getting through riveted (AKA effective and well constructed) chainmail. Anytime after that you see chainmail on the show, it's butted chainmail (AKA it might deflect accidental blows while training, but it's not going to stop a determined opponent) Whether it was for balance between combatants or for more blood for the ratings, it was sucktacular.

Britter
2010-10-08, 12:36 PM
Speaking as a practicioner of Japanese swordsmanship, I think it is way off base to assume that a samurai would win that fight. For starters, with the exception of the early days of the Tokugawa shogunate, when the samurai were veterans of the wars that unified Japan, a samurai was for the most part a glorified administrator. Oh sure, some of them could fight, all of them wore swords, and they were part of the military to some degree, but there was a 300 year period of relative peace in Japan during which the samurai were essentially government functionaries. It's sort of like asking if a Viking warrior could kill an accountant, in some ways.

Assuming our viking was fighting a samurai of sufficently high rank to be able to afford swords and armor and a horse and a bow (which was not always the case. Watch the excellent movie Twilight Samurai for an example of both the samurai as adminstrator, the samurai as very poor, and a couple of pretty cool fight scenes) and that the samurai was equally skilled, I think it would probably come down, to a certain extent, to personal skill. The tools of war used in Japan did not evolve very much during the feudal period, and the katana is not really an anti-armour balde. Additionally, the primary battlefield weapon of the Samurai was either the bow, used from horseback, or the spear. I think that a well trained spearman could give the Viking a run for his money, but I don't think that a katana is well designed to deal with shield, high quality sword, and mail.

I personally ignore just about everything the Deadliest Warrior has ever said. The show will give you a permenant stress headache if you pay too much attention to it.

Spiryt
2010-10-08, 12:45 PM
I think it would probably come down, to a certain extent, to personal skill.

It will come down to a huge extent to personal skill.

And other similar things.

It's not F - 22 vs (insert some SU) or even full plate armor vs naked guy, so equipment alone would matter that much.

And the show, with two mules entering the battle with some weird stuff, throwing the two spears at the same time, and generally doing hell knows what, is only a bit less abstract than Power Rangers.

Thus I'm not sure why it's so widely discussed. :smalltongue: :smallwink:

Britter
2010-10-08, 01:05 PM
Agreed. I should have put more emphasis on that point, because in my expirience skill is the biggest determining factor in winning a conflict. Luck is the second biggest.

The entire discussion is nothing more than a thought excercise, really, which is why I think it comes up so often.

Galloglaich
2010-10-08, 01:27 PM
Yeah it's been widely discussed. The whole basis of what is in the show comes from the "experts" (low grade stuntmen for the most part) that they hire who explain all the details about the "Deadly Warrior" in question.

The biggest falacies were that the Viking didn't have any martial arts or technique, but fought on the basis of strength (which was promoted by the Viking 'Expert', who I think was that dumb guy from Coach who does the voice for Patrick on Spongebob squarepants) the idea that Vikings didn't have bows (they had longbows stronger than a Yumi) or that the armor was equivalent. Mail is much better armor than the early o-yoroi style and do-maru armors they portrayed in the show, but late Samurai armor such as a more modern 'Tosei-gusoku' panoply would have been more effective than anything a Viking from the 8th-11th Century would have had.

Both pagan Norse and Japanese were known to be very stoic, disciplined, ruthless, cunning, and resourceful.

Skill of a real 'fighting' Samurai and a 'real Viking would probably be equivalent. The equipment of both would depend on wealth and rank, and what time period you were specifcally referring to. So armor could range from nothing to formidable panoplies. The heydey of Samurai arguably occured during the period of Arquebus, which would outclass anything the Vikings had, but failing that the Vikings would have equal or better weaponry. However Vikings didn't offten fight mounted and didn't usually have very good cavalry horses.

So in the open, at a distance I might give the edge to the Samurai if they were mounted. Depending on how the Vikings were equipped. Close up, I'd give it to the Vikings who were much bigger men, had better armor and more armor-piercing weapons, and were very good at shock warfare.

The speculative aspects of this are not entirely fantastic, Swedish Vikings in Russia had extensive experience fighting with Asian horse archers who were armed and equipped in many ways similarly (though by no means identically) to the early Samurai. Sometimes they defeated them, sometimes they were killed, it went both ways. The Rus gradually expanded and crushed most of the Steppe tribes, largely using techniques taught to them by the Khazar Empire, but then later the Mongols came and almost wiped them out. But they almost wiped out the Japanese too.

The 'double spear' thing was just pure Sci Fi channel stupidity, the show is really, truly retarded but I watch it anyway when it's on. Sometimes (more or less randomly) they use marginally realistic armor in their tests, and it's good for people to see that it works. I saw Chuck Ledell hack up a side of beef with Roman cestus. Another time I got to see a test of a Sikh chakrum being used to cut through a hunk of meat, which was cool.

G.

Galloglaich
2010-10-08, 07:57 PM
The best episode though was Medellin cartel vs. Somalian pirate, i loved the machine-pistol hit on the parked car, that was classic.

G.

Noodles2375
2010-10-09, 12:08 AM
The 'double spear' thing was just pure Sci Fi channel stupidity, the show is really, truly retarded but I watch it anyway when it's on. Sometimes (more or less randomly) they use marginally realistic armor in their tests, and it's good for people to see that it works. I saw Chuck Ledell hack up a side of beef with Roman cestus. Another time I got to see a test of a Sikh chakrum being used to cut through a hunk of meat, which was cool.
G.

There is def some cool fun stuff.

The spartan v. ninja episode was excellent for its portrayal of armor. The ninja team were yelling and hollering about how their ninja sword would cut through that stupid bronze armor like butter. Surprisingly they did an actual test, and of course, striking solid bronze with whatever that "ninja sword" was made out of did absolutely nothing to the bronze, and damaged the sword.

I was watching this episode with my roommates and for whatever reason, they were utterly shocked that the ninja's sword didn't cut right through the bronze. It was def good for them to see that armor really worked.

Galloglaich
2010-10-09, 12:17 AM
yeah I agree there has been a lot of that, with mail they seem to alternate between cheap quality riveted (which always seems to work) and even cheaper butted (which never works) but when it works it's cool, it's changing some very stubborn memes a little bit.

G.

Brainfart
2010-10-09, 05:03 AM
That last part is definitely true. Even the most persistent katana plonker will shut the f*** up when you mention that episode of DW. :smallamused:

Shademan
2010-10-09, 07:09 AM
Norse sagas tell of a man so big and strong that he could throw TWO spears at one time!
my oh my! he must be nearly as strong as that viking that shattered a boulder with his sword!

Yora
2010-10-09, 08:11 AM
Norse sagas also tell a lot about lawsuits.

Skill of a real 'fighting' Samurai and a 'real Viking would probably be equivalent. The equipment of both would depend on wealth and rank, and what time period you were specifcally referring to. So armor could range from nothing to formidable panoplies. The heydey of Samurai arguably occured during the period of Arquebus, which would outclass anything the Vikings had, but failing that the Vikings would have equal or better weaponry.
By the time the japanese got guns, the swedes were already transforming into a modern state. And you might have heard of Gustav Vasa and Gustav Adolph before, if you've read about 16th and 17th european history. :smallbiggrin:

Shademan
2010-10-09, 08:19 AM
well yes. you don't suppose anyone had copyrighted the two-spears-at-once throw?
offcourse!
which led to more throwing of said spears...

Crow
2010-10-09, 11:34 AM
Norse sagas also tell a lot about lawsuits.

Haha. Yes. They do. :)

Galloglaich
2010-10-09, 08:09 PM
Norse sagas also tell a lot about lawsuits.

Indeed... but of course lawsuits were different back then, even the lawyer might have to fight a judicial combat or a holmganga... and worse than that your whole family could end up in a feud lasting six or seven generations....



By the time the japanese got guns, the swedes were already transforming into a modern state. And you might have heard of Gustav Vasa and Gustav Adolph before, if you've read about 16th and 17th european history. :smallbiggrin:

Of course, but by that time there were no more such thing as Vikings... I mean that is the whole premise of the show a Spartan vs. a Knight or a Venetian War Galley against the Battleship Yamato. It's kind of hard to get a grip on it in a really serious way, but one can always idly play around with the puzzle in at least some of the scenarios...

For example, a really interesting (to me) question is, how would a small force of Vikings have fared against a small force of 16th Century Swedish soldiers? I think 17th Century would be too much even if we left out cannons... it's kind of hard to fight a guy who has 4 pistols and a caliver when your only missile weapon is a bow or a spear. But then again the Ottomans were still using composite bow archers by preference at that time in naval warfare, and I believe the Tartars were still using bows in the time of the 30 years war as well, so who knows....

G.

Galloglaich
2010-10-09, 08:28 PM
Another scenario to consider for Vikings vs. Samurai, is in a theoretical street or indoor encounter (in whatever twilight zone world this is) like if they were all drinking in some tavern or something.... because the Japanese had the nukitsuke technique to instantly cut from a sheathed sword, and I'm not sure the Vikings had that or were aware of it as a technique (they could have had it, you can do it with a western sword, but I've never read any mention of it in the Sagas). Ronin Samurai almost took over an English vessel in the 16th Century by taking the crew by surprise with nukitsuke attacks, they killed the navigator and half the crew.

On the flip side I'm not sure the Samurai had ever seen anyone who was really good at throwing axes or not, which might be an unbalancing part of a "civilian" encounter if the Vikings were looking for trouble...

G.

Fortinbras
2010-10-10, 01:56 PM
Everyone keeps talking about how the katana would be ineffective against a Viking coat of mail because the katana was designed as a slashing weapon. This, to me anyway, begs the question, how much success would you have piercing mail with a spear or sword thrust.

Shademan
2010-10-10, 01:59 PM
katanas are kinda like two-handed sabers.
so they cut the mail about as good as one. thing is, the katana is rather light. it is not made for weight like the falchion forexample.


oh and if they were fighting in close quarters, I would recon the viking would pull a dagger or headbutt him

The_JJ
2010-10-10, 02:23 PM
Norse sagas also tell a lot about lawsuits.

By the time the japanese got guns, the swedes were already transforming into a modern state. And you might have heard of Gustav Vasa and Gustav Adolph before, if you've read about 16th and 17th european history. :smallbiggrin:

As a Swapanese (Swedish-Japanese) American, I heartily approve this post.

That said, the samurai were still samurai when they were stomping around with gunpowder weaponry.

Now that would be an interesting fight: Hideyoshi vs. Adolphus.

Also, Vikings of the Far East! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wokou)

That said, I would've still given the fight to the Samurai. They were mounted warriors first and foremost so... yeah.

But yes, DW is the stupidest show on the planet.

Spiryt
2010-10-10, 02:25 PM
katanas are kinda like two-handed sabers.
so they cut the mail about as good as one. thing is, the katana is rather light. it is not made for weight like the falchion forexample.


Falchions weren't really made "for weight" anymore than katanas, and most other swords.....

Here (http://www.myarmoury.com/review_mrl_falc.html) the specification of antique falchion, with Windlass reproduction. They not the best AFAIK, but they get the idea.

Here, Thorpe's falchion is not tremendously corroded, in fact quite complete still, and weights only 900 g

http://bjorn.foxtail.nu/images/thorpe.gif

And anyway, no matter how weighty the blade would be, 'cutting' mail on the soft, absorbing padding and human body couldn't really happen physically.

If one placed mail on the stump, and hacked it with something, he could certainly had broken the rings - still not exactly "cutting" in the strict sense. And of course that don't make any sense in judging how it would work in the way it was used, obviously.


This, to me anyway, begs the question, how much success would you have piercing mail with a spear or sword thrust.

It would be obviously much more reasonable, as weapon point can get into the gaps between rings, or inside rings, and burst them open.

Still, it would obviously hugely depend on the shape, weight, properties of the blade, energy, momentum etc of the thrust, material, size, and quality of the rings, and dozens of different things, obviously.

Good experiments are very rare, obviously because of the difficulty in obtaining mail that can at least resemble some historical one.

Still, The Arma had recently put decent try on their site (http://www.thearma.org/Videos/NTCvids/testingbladesandmaterials.htm).

Here, by clicking "Test Cotas" (http://www.cotasdemalla.es/ma1.htm) one can see one of the few tests of decently accurate mail against accurate arrows. Very nice.

Generally, from both practice, logic and sources, we can conclude that bursting the mail bu thrust is definitely possible, but if mail was decently made and used, it wasn't obviously easy at all - pointy weapons, and very potent ones were absolutely basic ones through the millenia, so armor that wouldn't protect well against them wouldn't be highly priced and used way more often that others.

EDIT : With another of my lengthy post, please inform me when supposed english is not english. :smalltongue:

Shademan
2010-10-10, 03:04 PM
i mean that falchion are made more for getting trough armour

and i said "cut mail" 'cus Im rreeallyyy lazy right now and a sentence about armour piercing qualities would just be ...longer

Galloglaich
2010-10-10, 10:45 PM
Everyone keeps talking about how the katana would be ineffective against a Viking coat of mail because the katana was designed as a slashing weapon. This, to me anyway, begs the question, how much success would you have piercing mail with a spear or sword thrust.

Not much... the only thing which would work against a real coat of mail is a specifically armor -piercing weapon, like an angon / pilum, or a warhammer or a mace.

So you have a point. In fact the slicing cut of a katana (or any saber) is arguably better than a cutting or chopping cut against textile armors which were also ubiquitous.

But generally the best way to deal with armor was to go around it, 'cap-a-pied' (head to toe) armor coverage was fairly rare anywhere except in certain periods.

By the time you get to the late medieval period, swords are being designed to thrust with very small points, which may have been able to pierce mail especially with a half-sword thrust.

G.

Galloglaich
2010-10-10, 10:55 PM
Still, The Arma had recently put decent try on their site (http://www.thearma.org/Videos/NTCvids/testingbladesandmaterials.htm).

Here, by clicking "Test Cotas" (http://www.cotasdemalla.es/ma1.htm) one can see one of the few tests of decently accurate mail against accurate arrows. Very nice.

Generally, from both practice, logic and sources, we can conclude that bursting the mail bu thrust is definitely possible, but if mail was decently made and used, it wasn't obviously easy at all - pointy weapons, and very potent ones were absolutely basic ones through the millenia, so armor that wouldn't protect well against them wouldn't be highly priced and used way more often that others.

EDIT : With another of my lengthy post, please inform me when supposed english is not english. :smalltongue:

Spyryt,

Thanks for posting that ARMA-HELLAS test was really cool, very interesting, I hadn't seen it before. They haven't put a new vid on that page for a long time.

The other one didn't play for me, just some music.

To add to this I know Royal Armories at Leeds did several tests with some realistic riveted mail (I think from Eric Schmidt) and concluded it was virtually invulnerable to most hand weapons, but as you can see in the ARMA vid the tiny points of the Renaissance era Oakeshott Type XVa etc. can get inside a ring and still give you a nasty (if not necessarily fatal) poke, at the expense of apparently getting your sword trapped.

Bottom line mail is good protection, much better than it's portrayed in most RPGs.

G.

Galloglaich
2010-10-10, 10:57 PM
i mean that falchion are made more for getting trough armour

and i said "cut mail" 'cus Im rreeallyyy lazy right now and a sentence about armour piercing qualities would just be ...longer

Yeah and his point is... they weren't. Falchions are mainly for cutting naked flesh. They aren't armor-piercing weapons. They are basically meat cleavers.

G.

Psyx
2010-10-11, 05:19 AM
Infantry doesn't like to carry anything that isn't going to save their lives, because they have to wear/carry the wretched stuff. Considering the weight of armour, and the insane cost of mail, it is a pale shadow of itself in every book and film made, and most games too.

Soldiers wore the finest mail because it turned glancing blows that would maim into 'misses', and anything except a strong determined attack at a specific point into a pointless swipe. Swords don't 'cleave through mail' as has been used as a line in a thousand books. If they did: People wouldn't bother wearing it.



For starters, with the exception of the early days of the Tokugawa shogunate, when the samurai were veterans of the wars that unified Japan, a samurai was for the most part a glorified administrator.

I don't disagree with your conclusion, but over here in Europe, a rich noble with six months of fencing lessons from a master under his belt was viewed as more than a match for any thug with a few years of practical experience. That's training over brute strength and experience for you...

That said, you can bet Viking martial arts were pretty darned sophisticated. One look at the long axe and the many ways it could be used is a pretty clear indicator.



Additionally, the primary battlefield weapon of the Samurai was either the bow, used from horseback

In the C12: Sure. Samurai were elite mounted archers. By the C15-16, Samurai were much more shock-troops. The mounted archery role was no longer the primary focus.

As regards viking horses... Japan didn't exactly have great horses, either.


Commenting about variations in skill... anyone see Knight Versus Pirate, where the pirate guys managed to keep a straight face when telling us what highly skilled and trained combatants were, compared to knights (who y'know... only trained daily for combat from the time they could pretty much walk...)

Dienekes
2010-10-11, 09:42 AM
Commenting about variations in skill... anyone see Knight Versus Pirate, where the pirate guys managed to keep a straight face when telling us what highly skilled and trained combatants were, compared to knights (who y'know... only trained daily for combat from the time they could pretty much walk...)

Ehh, most pirates were drop outs of their respective countries navies (mostly British) or ex-slaves and probably did have some weapon training.

Not saying they're comparable in any way to the knight, but the idea that they were an untrained disorganized rabble is a bit of a misconception.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-11, 09:49 AM
Well, the big thing on Pirates vs whatever is that vikings ARE pirates. And vikings are awesome.

I have no trouble whatsoever with the idea of a bunch of vikings tearing up a bunch of knights.

Lev
2010-10-11, 09:59 AM
Everyone keeps talking about how the katana would be ineffective against a Viking coat of mail because the katana was designed as a slashing weapon. This, to me anyway, begs the question, how much success would you have piercing mail with a spear or sword thrust.
Katanas are actually hybrids, they work in both a slashing and chopping motion which is looser categorized as slashing.
A saber is actually more used as a chopping motion to take off limbs where a katana is best used to disembowel. You don't see a lot of horseback katana users despite the alarming amount of horseback combat in feudal Japan.

As for vikings armor, a persons armor and their weaponry alone should tell you a lot about each other.

Not only did vikings have quite beefy mail, it was common practice to seal your money onto your chesthair with melted wax.

Now, I'm not saying that viking armor or weaponry is superior or inferior to that of feudal Japan, but I gotta say their tactics and boats are much much better. Better raiders? Hell yes.

Vikings are uni-task, they are brawlers, fighters and raiders. They do these things VERY well.

Fortinbras
2010-10-11, 08:48 PM
What did people think about the musketeer vs Ming episode.

Spamotron
2010-10-11, 11:02 PM
Simple question how long would it take say A master armor smith and 3-4 apprentices to craft suit of armor? Say mid 17th century heavy cavalry full plate.