Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. IV [Archive] - Page 3

Matthew

2006-09-17, 03:15 PM

According to Polybius, Hannibal equipped his best troops with gear taken from the Romans. In a protracted war of this sort, it would not be unlikely that the forces resembled one another.

As for strategy and tactics, well I'm pretty much reliant Polybius' impressions.

What is your current impression of the Roman military at this time?

RomanArmyTalk probably has more to say, I'll have a search about.

Here's an interesting thread:

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4581&highlight=carthage

My impression of the Roman Army at this time would be:

Velites (1,000-1,200 per Legion, most likely organised into units of 40)

No Armour / Padded Armour / Leather Armour
Light Shield (Parma)
Short Sword
Two Javelins

Hastati (1,200-1,600 per Legion, organised in units of 120-160)

Scale Armour / Mail Armour / Breast Plate (Pectorale / Lorica)*
Heavy Shield (Scutum)
Short / Long Sword (Galdius Hispanicus)
Javelin ('Fine' Pilum)
Spear ('Stout' Pilum)

Principes (1,200-1,600 per Legion, organised in units of 120-160)

Scale Armour / Mail Armour / Breast Plate (Pectorale-Lorica)*
Heavy Shield (Scutum)
Short / Long Sword (Galdius Hispanicus)
Javelin ('Fine' Pilum)
Spear ('Stout' Pilum)

Triarii (600 per Legion, organised in units of 60)

Scale Armour / Mail Armour / Breast Plate (Pectorale-Lorica)*
Heavy Shield (Scutum)
Short / Long Sword (Galdius Hispanicus)
Long Spear (Hastae)

Equites (300 per Legion, organised into units of 30)**

Scale Armour / Mail Armour / Breast Plate
Heavy Shield
Long Sword
Spear or perhaps Long Spear

# Note that Spears under this system must be considered one handed.

* Only those with 10,000+ Drachmas have access to Lorica (Mail, Scale or Breast Plate). Others wore a Small Breast Plate (AC 3?)

** Polybius says that the Equites are armed after the Greek fashion; quite what this means, I am unsure; this would be my best guess, given that the translation indicates this involves Body Armour, Shield and Spear. It says nothing of Swords, but I assume they had them.

Socii (or Italian allies) would probably have been organised in a similar manner, as they have a similar number of Foot, but three times the number of Horse.

Details are unavailable, but it might not be a great stretch to suggest that there were more Light Foot in theSocii than in the Legions. The reasoning behind this would be on account of the tendency for Velites and Equites to operate as combined arms units seperate from the Heavy Foot. Given that Polybius indicates that a fifth of the allied Foot and a third of the allied Horse were picked to operate together, this might translate as 1,000-1,200 Light Foot and 300 Horse (which would mirror the organisation of the Legion).
If the other Horse were to have equivalent numbers of Light Foot, that would leave only 400-2,000 Heavy Foot amongst the allies. It might be the case that these extra wings of Cavalry were of a different type and didn't require Skirmishers, though, in which case the Socii Cohorts might still be organised as the Legions.

Wehrkind

2006-09-18, 03:03 PM

I know mail was fairly popular among the more well to do soldiers of the republic, the principes and triarii, and most likely the equites, though it might be that they depended on the speed of their horses to protect them, since Roman cavalry was notably less than serious fighters. Particularly when compared to their Macedonian counterparts.

The spears were pretty long, as tall as a man I am given to understand, but using a spear like that and a shield is not too hard. Not terribly efficient compared to a sword, but eh, good vs cavalry and good enough vs lightly armored troops.

I have read that Hannibal had a vast number of Iberian and Gallic mercenaries in his armies, and comparatively few actual Carthaginians, as most Carthaginians were rather soft rich people who didn't want to fight if they could pay someone else. Being decidedly eastern Mediterranian in culture, being a colony of Tyr originally, the Carthaginians proper probably fought in a phalanx similar to the successors of Alexander. At Cannae the better trained Carthaginians and elites held the Roman columns by the nose while the Gauls and other less reliable troops flooded in from the flanks to kick them in the ass, as it were.

Sundog

2006-09-18, 03:06 PM

Your opinion of the Romans of that era matches fairly closely with mine, though I was under the impression that they had a separate corps of field artillery as well (perhaps that developed later).

Matthew

2006-09-18, 04:32 PM

Not to the best of my knowledge. What evidence there is refers to a later period, I think, but there is room for discussion.

I'm just giving Polybius Book 3 another read, where I imagine the bulk of the information is and then I'll see what I can cull from the translation.

shardplot

2006-09-19, 10:53 AM

javeharron

2006-09-19, 11:14 PM

Here's my question: What were some of the earliest Chinese firearms other than 'fire arrows'? Did the Chinese ever use an arquebus type weapon prior to Western trading? (Please note I mentioned Chinese, NOT Japanese.) I'm well aware of the arquebus' popularity among the Japanese, but not sure of the Chinese or early Koreans. During the Seven Years War between Korean and Japan, what type of arquebuses did the Koreans used, albeit on a MUCH smaller scale?

Zincorium

2006-09-20, 01:58 AM

Does anyone know of anyone who actually runs real smithing classes in the US? There is a coupld out of canada and since I live in michigan that would be ok. But I would rather go to one in the states.

Thanks
Vack

I've known two blacksmiths/armorsmiths personally, and I'd suggest finding one in your area and calling them up to maybe ask about an apprenticeship if you're really interested in making it a career. Most for-profit ones are too busy to take on an entire class, but if you had a real passion for the craft they might consider it. That is entirely dependent on the individual, obviously.

For just a basic knowledge, almost all the colleges where I'm from (Oregon) have a smithing class of some sort, seperate from welding and the like. Check with those.

Deadmeat.GW

2006-09-20, 07:03 AM

Another thing for learning to blacksmith is to check out the different re-enactment groups.

A fair few of them have stuff like blacksmithing and such attached to them or they know people who do.

paddyfool

2006-09-20, 08:04 AM

On lead in weapons:

This is totally irrelevant to their use on the battlefield, but my Grandma used to keep a wooden club with lead inserted in the thwacking end under her bed in case of burglars.

On roman weaponry

I've always thought that your stereotypical roman legionary in articulated plate etc. carried something more like a tower shield than a heavy shield. Is this only true of a later period? And what about the use of bows? Was their use confined to fiction, eg in Gladiator, or is it again true of a later period?

Matthew

2006-09-20, 08:30 AM

D&D Tower Shield = 45 lbs, as tall as the user
Roman Scutum = 10-20 lbs, varied in size, but not as tall as the user, probably something like 4.5' tall at the higher end of the weight range. Had a thickness similar to Medieval Shields.

As for Bows, it's an interesting question and on I have given some thought to over the years. During the Hannibalic Wars, Polybius mentions that 500 Cretan Archers were enrolled as allies on the Roman side (Polybius, Book 3, Chapter 75). Chances are these weren't the only Archers enrolled in the Roman Socii, but the evidence is sparse. Polybius might have considered these exceptional, but he does not say.

During the Imperial Period Archers were certainly common enough amongst the Auxillaries and by the time Vegetius is writing, he is able to claim that all Roman Soldiers are / were trained in the use of the Bow.

paddyfool

2006-09-20, 08:37 AM

Thanks!

Sundog

2006-09-20, 12:42 PM

Something to recall is the style of use of the bow in the ancient mediterranean world. In the period prior to the fall of the western Roman Empire, archers pulled their bows back to the shoulder, not to the eye. This gave significantly greater power, but with significantly reduced accuracy.
There's some evidence that the Romans, especially early in the Republic period, despised the bow (as indeed, did most of the Greek city-states) and far preferred the sling, which was almost as powerful (given we are speaking of short bows, and not the much-later longbow) and far more accurate.
Archery units had their place, as battlefield artillery, but not for sniping or precision fire.
Precisely when the changeover to eye-pull style archery occurred has never been identified. It is certain that the Kataphractoi of the Byzantine Empire used that style with their powerful laminated bows, but whether the latter-day Legions did the same is a subject of great debate.

Matthew

2006-09-20, 12:49 PM

What is this evidence you are speaking of, Sun Dog? I have heard the 'Romans and Greeks despised the Bow' argument before (not that I believe it), but not that they preferred the Sling.

The method of pull involved is an old chestnut, but, as you say, it's hard to prove one way or the other.

Were-Sandwich

2006-09-20, 01:24 PM

Does anyone know of anywhere in the Warwickshire where one might learn the martial art Kobujutsu?

Edmund

2006-09-20, 01:25 PM

Kataphraktoi did not use bows, they used maces, lances and swords.

The Kataphraktoi and Klibanophoroi were basically a slow-moving, blunt-nosed wedge of highly disciplined and extremely heavily armoured cavalry whose sole purpose was to plow through enemy infantry or cavalry and allow other soldiers to penetrate into the gap thus created.

They were deadly and effective, but expensive to maintain.

There were archers on horse and archers on foot in the Byzantine army, but the amount of which varies with the period.

Compound or laminated bows, like those used by the Magyars, Mongols, Turks, Huns, Scythians, and Avars (just to name a few) are quite powerful, and rather on-par with the longbow in that way.

Edit: Editted for flow and clarity. (yes, flow)

Fhaolan

2006-09-20, 01:45 PM

Actually, that brings up a question about bows.

Welsh, English longbows, Saxon siegebows, and that off-center Oriental bow are all very obviously longbows (and in many cases composite longbows) when mapped to D&D terminology.

The various horse-bows from the nomatic trives of the steppes are also very obviously composite shortbows.

But the large recurve bows of the Romans, Greeks, Persians, etc.... where do they fit? Were they composite like the horse-bows? Are these the non-composite shortbows? I've never seen one in RL, just in movies and in illustrations so I have no sense of scale.

Matthew

2006-09-20, 02:59 PM

Edmund, are you referring to a particular type of Cataphracti? I have heard before that there were types that were equipped with Bows in addition to their usual armaments, and Wikipedia seems to say something to that effect. I don't recall the source, though...

Interestingly, I think Oman cites this, the military ordinances of Charlemagne demand that Warriors bring a Bow as part of their military gear; even the 'Heavy' Cavalry were apparently expected to bring a Bow in addition to their other arms (Spear, Sword, Dagger and Shield).
The Twelfth Century Middle English Brut also contains a passage where a Warrior King, Morpidus, rides out with a full compliment of arms:
A Sword, A Quiver full of Arrows, a Bow (very strong), a Spear (very long), at his saddle an Axe and on the other side a hondseax (probably a knife)
He fights a Sea Monster, shooting it full of Arrows whilst mounted and then charging it with his Spear, before laying on with his Sword. Finally, he is killed by the creature, but it's certainly an interesting progression for a twelfth century text.

Fhaolan, I'm not sure what you are getting at. Bows in D&D are notoriously badly modelled, even by D&D standards. The Romans had full access to the Composite Bow from an early period. I think the generalisation for D&D is:

Short Bow = Normal Self Bow
Composite Short Bow = Composite 'Horse' Bow
Long Bow = Larger 'War Bow' type
Composite Long Bow = Improved War Bow

Recurve Bows probably pass as Short Bows and Composite Short Bows the more powerful variants.

In my opinion, all Bows in D&D should be rated by Strength and Length... but I may have said that before.

Pilum

2006-09-20, 05:08 PM

As regards the Kataphraktoi, I think that at one point they did indeed carry both kontarion and bow, but at a later point they switched to the greater part of the tagmata (the front ranks, essentially) carrying the shock weaponry while the remainder acted as armoured mounted archers.

Can't find that book though, but I do know someone who... well, what he doesn't know about Byzantine military practice isn't worth knowing :) I'll see him tomorrow night and ask.

Fhaolan

2006-09-20, 06:30 PM

Fhaolan, I'm not sure what you are getting at.

I badly miswrote the question. I'm sorry. :)

Okay, let me state some knowledge that I do have. I've worked with English and Welsh longbows, as well as Mongol and Scythian horse-bows. Or at least reproductions made by reputable historical bowyers. I am familiar with the properties of composite bows made of laminations of sinew, wood, etc., as well as the properties of yew and other woods selfbows and others are commonly made of. I know that most serious bows are composite, or made of yew-like woods that naturally mimic composite bows.

What were Roman, Greek, and Persian bows like? I've never seen any in RL. I've seen pictures that depict them as recurves, so they are at least superficially similar to the horsebows that I've worked with. I assume they were composites, as you can't get a good recurve without laminating, but is that a bad assumption? In the illustrations, they appear larger than horsebows, is that accurate? Are there any surviving examples, for reconstructive archeology to work off of like the Mary Rose longbows?

Matthew

2006-09-20, 07:14 PM

Ah right. As far as I know the majority of Ancient Bows of the people's you mention were of the Composite type.

We should not forget that, in the Iliad, the Bow of Pandarus son of Lycaon is described as being constructed with horn, which suggests that it is of composite construction. Given the method of composition, it would not be too difficul to argue that most Ancient Greek Bows were of similar construction.

Here's some discussion over on RAT:

Societies which supplied Rome with Archers (http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=9049)
Roman Arrows: Fletching (http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=8716&highlight=bow)
Did the Romans use the Composite Bow (http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=8167&highlight=bow)
Late Roman Archery (http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=8585&highlight=bow)
Composite Bows = Roman Defeat? (http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4734&highlight=bow)
Horse Archer Armour (http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=1666&highlight=bow)

The general thrust seems to be that the majority of 'Roman' Bows were of the composite type, but it is worth remembering that in the north the Self Bow remained usual amongst the non Romans and, therefore, probably amongst any Auxillary Archers raised there...

As far as Archaeological remains go, though, I'm not aware of any; I will look into it.

Sundog

2006-09-21, 01:53 PM

I find it interesting that most of the posters seem to believe in the compound bows being used by the Romans. While such bows definitely existed that early, the vast majority of bows and bow fragments from Roman sources have been plain wood. Still, it could be argued that plain wood is more likely to survive than a laminated bow.
The greatest evidence of the Roman preference for the sling I have come across was a listing of payments for mercenaries from around the time of Marius. The unknown scribe puts the value of a slinger as three times that of an archer, and equivalent to a professional scout.
Plus, there is the evidence of absence. Few of the Roman armies we have good reads on the breakdown of had large numbers of archers.
The Kataphraktoi definitely did use bows for most of their existence. Only towards the end of the Byzantine Empire did they have their function changed to pure Heavy Cavalry; some sources place this change coterminous with the adoption of stirrups, but frankly I don't believe it. Stirrups had been around too long for such a force to have ignored them that long.

Matthew

2006-09-21, 02:06 PM

Composite, not Compound Sundog!

The Sling is a much more difficult weapon to gain proficiency in / master than the Bow (so I am led to believe), so I would not be surprised at all to find the pay of Slingers to be higher. That does not translate into the Romans despising the Bow in favour of the Sling, in my opinion. However, I have heard unconfirmed rumours that the Sling was much more effective than the Bow...

Absence of Archers in Roman Army breakdowns is a possibility, but then they rarely mention the composition of their Allies... What army lists do you have in mind?

Nifty_Knickers

2006-09-21, 02:54 PM

A sling is not any harder to master then a bow in my experience. A sling is also a lot easier to make, ammo for it is a lot easier to find, and rocks hurt, a lot. I think it's the ease of use, manufacture and upkeep of slings that make them popular in cultures where bows do not greatly out-range them yet, or in situations where bows with greater range are not able to use that range anyways.

Matthew

2006-09-21, 03:25 PM

Interesting, I have always heard that they are very difficult to use accurately.

Nifty_Knickers

2006-09-21, 03:36 PM

I'm not sure how much more difficult vertical accuracy is, but I've found that with a simple sling made in the space of a few minutes, with rocks only mildly selected (checked for gross shape, size and weight, but not critically so), and with practice of only a few hours, I and one other could already reliably hit a young birch tree about 5 inch in diameter at a distance of 90 feet. I imagine that crash-training and supplying a group of 20 men to sling stones in the general direction of an enemy squad would be very easy to do, and that near bow-like accuracy can be trained relatively quickly.

I would imagine that the disadvantage of a sling vs a bow would mostly be the range.

Matthew

2006-09-21, 03:49 PM

Interesting; I went over and had a look to see what Wikipedia has to say. Looks like I am behind the times, as it appears the argument for Slings requiring more training than Bows is no longer made with any force.

According to that article, the Sling had a greater range than the Bows of the same period (some 200 Yards, as opposed to an estimated 100 Yards or so for a Bow), but might have required more space to use.

Now I don't know what to think; I don't accept the argument that Slingers were more highly valued than Archers, though. I rather suspect that both had their place...

Nifty_Knickers

2006-09-21, 03:54 PM

I think the problem is in perception. We should not view it as them being valued More then bowmen, but rather that their ease of use and upkeep made them quite popular on the whole.

Kinda like the Sherman tank in WWII. Not the greatest tank out there. Had a hard time standing up to more advanced german tanks. But there were so many of them and they were so easy to use and maintain (relatively) that they became quite a popular little tank all throughout the allied forces.

Matthew

2006-09-21, 04:10 PM

Well Sun Dog citing Slingers as receiving three times the pay of an Archer kind of forces that conclusion. The question now is what did the Slingers do that the Archers did not? Perhaps Slingers did more than just sling stones? I would have to get a look at the evidence and put into context, I suppose... definitely one for Roman Army Talk.

Nifty_Knickers

2006-09-21, 04:14 PM

Curious. If you find any good info there, post it here! I'd like to hear more of it too.

Raum

2006-09-21, 07:39 PM

I suspect the technique used by differing groups of archers in different periods is what made them more or less valuable than slingers. The Romans, for example, are said to have shot by drawing the string to their chest until the fifth century. Both less accurate and less powerful than drawing to the face.

Matthew

2006-09-21, 09:13 PM

Okay Sun Dog, I have been looking into it and here are my conclusions as to the Carthaginian War Machine during the Hannibalic War, mainly according to a translation of Polybius.

In general, Polybius sees the Hannibal's army as made up of three groups; the Libyans, the Iberians and the Celts.

Libyans

These are Hannibal's most trusted troops; as far as I can tell they were armed and organised along Greek lines, which means Hoplites, Peltasts and Cavalry. However, they seem to have been particularly strong in Cavalry, and employed both Heavy and Light types, with the Numidian Horse filling the role of the latter. Hannibal apparently crossed the Alps with 38,000 Foot and 8,000 Horse, though he lost nearly half in the crossing. He left behind him a significantly smaller ratio of Foot to Horse in Iberia of something of the order of 10:1
They appear to have been rearmed several times during the course of the campaign, but most memorably before Cannae, they are described as being armed in the Roman fashion, which meant the Roman Scutum and the Gladius Hispanicus. They may or may not have employed Roman Pila, but probably had some form of Spear. The large number of Roman dead and captured by this point means that they would probably have had access to a lot of Body Armour. They seem to have been organised into companies.

Iberians

Polybus 3.114

The armour of the Libyans was Roman, for Hannibal had armed them with a selection of the spoils taken in previous battles. The shield of the Iberians and Celts was about the same size, but their swords were quite different. For that of the Roman can thrust with as deadly effects as it can cut, while the Gallic sword can only cut, and that requires some room. And the companies coming alternately,--the naked Celts, and the Iberians with their short linen tunics bordered with purple stripes, the whole appearance of the line was strange and terrifying.

It is hard to imagine that the Gladius Hispanicus was not available to the Iberians or that they were short of Body Armour after such a long campaign, but there you go. I'm not sure what kind of sword is being described, perhaps a Long Sword with rounded tip or perhaps a Long Seax. Hard to say, really. At the minute I'm inclined to say Seax, but I would be willing to bet there were a fair number of Axes and Maces in the mix. Spears were probably thrown prior to engaging the enemy Foot.

Celts

The Celts are armed like the Iberians, but apparently went naked into battle. Armour was not, however, unknown to them as Polybius indicates earlier on:

3.62
Hannibal caused these men to be placed in the middle of the army, and some suits of Gallic armour, such as are worn by their kings when they fight in single combat, to be exhibited; in addition to these he placed there some horses, and brought in some valuable military cloaks.

It's hard to say how much space Polybius envisions the Celts and Iberians needing to swing their swords, given that he elsewhere says the Romans need a frontage of six feet to use theirs. I have the feeling Polybius is painting the Barbarians with a heavy brush, as the uniformity he suggests seems quite unlikely, not to mention the total absence of Spears. Very strange, but there it is.

Heavy Horse

Aside from the Numidians, Hannibal's Horse seems to have been drawn from Libyans, Iberians and Celts. Before crossing the Alps he had over 8,000 Horse, which must have been mainly Iberian and Libyan. Over 4,000 survived the crossing, but by Cannae he has 10,000 Horse again; these must have been mainly Celts, but there were clearly a fair number of Numidians, as they apparently composed one wing of Horse.
Iberian and Celtic Horse are likely to have been very similarly armed, Body Armour, Large Shields, Swords, Spears and probably drawn from the Nobility and their personal retinues.
It's hard to say how the Libyans Horse was organised, but the chances are it was on a Greek model, which would mean they would also be drawn from the richer citizens and armed in a very similar manner to their Barbarian allies.
There is no doubt that Polybius puts Hannibal's final victory down to his superiority in Horse and good fortune in fighting on an open plain.

Numidian Horse

There seem to have been several hundred of these, maybe even more than a couple of thousand originally. According to Polybius they have a unique style of fighting that results in light casualties to both them and their opponents. I suspect they are Javelin Throwers. However, Polybius also says they are good in the pursuit, which suggets they were prepared to fight in melee.

Balearic Slingers

Hannibal seems to have had quite a lot of these mixed in with his Light Foot. It's not clear whether they carried anything ina addition to their slings. I suspect that they would have at least borne Spears and probably Shields.

Light Foot

Lightly armed warriors equivalent to Velitesare mentioned often in the translation, but I have no idea what is being translated. My guess would be that Polybius envisions these as being similarly armed to the Velites and Light Socii, which would mean Spear / Javelin, Shield, Sword, Light Armour. These would have been drawn from Libyans, Iberians and Celts, but as the campaign in Italy wore on, the majority must have been Celts.

It is worth noting that this type of Foot could have served both as Light and Heavy Foot. The Roman Heavy Foot itself was not necessarily that well armoured and carried a Shield of similar dimensions to the Velites. Why have them carry swords if they are not expected to fight up close?

Deadmeat.GW

2006-09-22, 06:48 AM

If you want sling info...

http://www.slinging.org/

And read this:

The range of the sling has always been a point of contention among both enthusiasts and scholars. Present literature generally underestimates the sling's range. Consider this snippet of text from Thom Richardson's "The Ballistics of The Sling", which provides an overview of some of these statistics:

"The more conservative estimates are around the 200 m mark (Ferrill 1985: 25), Connolly suggests 350 m (1981: 49), Korfmann estimates 400 m (1973: 37) while Demmin and Hogg go to 500 m (1893: 876; 1968: 30). The few accurately recorded observations are rather different. Reid records 55 m with a 227 g stone, and 91 m with 85 and 113 g balls (1976: 21). Burgess threw stones with his reconstructed Lahun sling between 50 and 100 yds, but admits to being unskilled at the art (1958: 230). Korfmann observed Turkish shepherds sling ordinary pebbles, ‘in 5 out of 11 trials the pebbles reached 200 m, and the three best casts were between 230 and 240 m (1973), while Dohrenwend has himself thrown beach pebbles over 200 yds (1994: 86)."

Since many of these statistics are formulated from the authors' experiences, the ranges that are creeping into literature, and becoming the standard, might not be the be representative of the true potential of the sling. The sling is a demanding weapon; range varies considerably from amateur to expert. Below is a table documenting the varied ranges of some members on slinging.org's forum. It's also important to consider the projectiles used in the test. A stone or softball will not perform as well as a biconical lead projectile, like those often used in antiquity.

For comparison, the current World Flight record for a "historically accurate" English longbow and horn/sinew composite bow is 306m and 566m respectively. It should be noted, however, that these ranges were achieved using light-weight flight arrows designed for range, and not for combat.

The Balearic slingers were supposed to be among the best slingers in the world and they still have it asa national sport in which they are targeting 50 cm targets at distances of up to 90 paces (about 60 meters).

The original warfare use claims slings to be used at distances between 150 and 250 meters.
Also against many of the ancient armours slings were more effective then arrows if used well.
Breaking bones and causing internal injuries while causing no bleeding wounds.

Matthew

2006-09-22, 07:28 AM

Very interesting. That's a realy nice Site with some great images on it. The Assyrian Slingers and their combination with Archers are of particular interest. Nice.

Deadmeat.GW

2006-09-22, 07:44 AM

As added info, the Flemish slingers were quite famous for a while and they faced off against crossbows which they more then kept their own against.

Slings used by well trained people are faster firing then bows, have nearly the effective range for longbows and against a lot of the ancient armours they were quite lethal.

Edit:

And for further info to compair to the Romans...

<<<Fast, accurate and deadly weapons

Two larger Bronze Age slingstones and a smaller Hellenistic slingstone, compared to a tennis ball.
(sorry, pic not shown but these are a bit bigger then a tennis ball)
Surprisingly, a good slinger hurled a stone as far and accurately as a good archer. Roman military texts recommended archery target practice at about 200 yards (183 meters). Slingers are known to hurl their projectiles even farther, as much as 440 yards (402 meters) (a quarter of a mile / 0.40 km).

As for accuracy, one ancient writer noted that the best slingers "would wound not merely the heads of their enemies, but any part of the face at which they might have aimed." Experiments demonstrate that missiles leave a sling in excess of 60 miles per hour (97 km/h).

One Roman writer noted that opponents in leather armor were in far greater danger from sling missiles than arrows. Even if the stone did not penetrate the armor, it was capable of inflicting a fatal internal injury.

Unarmored bodies were easily penetrated by sling stones. An ancient medical book included instructions for removing lead and stone sling missiles from the bodies of wounded soldiers.

While typical slingstones used by the Greek and Roman armies were the size of golf balls, different cultures liked different sizes. In fact, at some ancient Greek and Roman battle sites, archaeologists believe they can differentiate which slingstones were standard equipment for which army.

During all periods, it was important for an army's projectiles to be uniform in size and weight. Otherwise, a slinger would need to compensate with each toss. Each army standardized the size and shape for maximum accuracy, speed and distance.

Not all slingstones were stones >>>

Sundog

2006-09-22, 11:53 AM

Excellent site, Deadmeat.gw. I'd long known that slings were lethal, but that gives me a new appreciation of them.
I went back over my copy of that pay slip, and noticed something I'd missed - the slingers mentioned are sepcified as being Balearic islanders. The archers are greeks. May explain a few things.
As for the composite/compound thing - okay so I'm occasionally an idiot... ::)
Re: The naked celts: there are repeated references to celts going naked in battle, mostly from Albion. I seem to recall it being rationalised as a religious thing - "Look, gods, I'm so brave I fight my foes clad only in your blessings!" that sort of thing.
Thanks for the rundown on the Carthaginian forces. That'll prove quite useful.

Deadmeat.GW

2006-09-22, 12:08 PM

And just as a beside, a friend of mine uses steel ball bearings (he could use iron balls like were supposed to be used by the Flemish slingers but they are pretty expensive to make so...) and he is good enough now to put 4 shots on a target at 35 meters with a grouping of about 8 centimeters in under 6 seconds with underarm slingshot throw.

That is paper rifle range targets and he goes for the upper torso/head.

With iron shots he can knock dents of quite scary depth in iron plates of a 5 milimeter!!! thickness at that distance yet he keeps the reasoning down to e unlikely this will happen on a curved metal plate if it is somewhat decent iron.
Bronze however...he just giggles.

Chainmail with padding ussually ends up with a couple of fractured links but he still says you should not want to be inside said chainmail.

All in all, the Lorica Segmata (spelling is horrible, can't find the spelling right now) as curved plates according to him would be save unless you are accurate enough to go for the upper torso and the head.

Leather armours...you are definately not going to like it.
Sling stones can be depending on region and time period anywhere from 40 grams to a quarter of a kilo!!
(even some quotes of 20-ish grams sling stones for baked clay sling stones)

The oval shaped lead projectiles are exceedingly hard hitting.

If I can get hold of his tests against some ballist resin I will post those.
The effects even when the bullet did not pierce the covering leather looks very scary.
When it pierced...imagine tumbling bullets.

EDIT: TYPO, oops.Top speed recorded for him was 82m/s (actually, not 82 but 72 m/s, still scary enough), only once managed that but then it does give an idea what a professional corps of slingers would be able to do.
(average for him is about 45 to 50 m/s, more then respectable considering he has been using slings for now about 15 years and since he was 19, he read the Earth Children so he wanted to try it and it became an obsession and a hobby)

Subotei

2006-09-22, 01:15 PM

John Man's books on Attila the Hun and Ghengis Khan are excellent reads. He goes into archery techniques in some detail.

He talked about a guy in Hungary - Lajos Kassai - who has basically made it his life's work to re-invent the techniques of mounted archery. He is able to put 3 arrows into a target inside six seconds from the back of a galloping horse.

Receating Hun tactics of a circling advance at the gallop - allowing each archer direct shots as they come to the front - Man reckons a Hun unit of 200 could put 5000 aimed arrows down on a enemy unit in 45 seconds! On a similar sized enemy unit that is 25 arrows per man!

Hun bows were also stronger than those that came before as they had horn tipped ends providing extra recurve and substantially boosting the power given to the arrow - Man maintains decent armour penetration at was achievable at 150 -200 metres.

Man also states that Mongol bows outperform longbows in power and range.

Dervag

2006-09-22, 08:50 PM

John Man's books on Attila the Hun and Ghengis Khan are excellent reads. He goes into archery techniques in some detail.

He talked about a guy in Hungary - Lajos Kassai - who has basically made it his life's work to re-invent the techniques of mounted archery. He is able to put 3 arrows into a target inside six seconds from the back of a galloping horse.

Receating Hun tactics of a circling advance at the gallop - allowing each archer direct shots as they come to the front - Man reckons a Hun unit of 200 could put 5000 aimed arrows down on a enemy unit in 45 seconds! On a similar sized enemy unit that is 25 arrows per man!
Of course, that is also a large fraction of said Hunnic force's ammunition supply. How many arrows would these guys carry?

Subotei

2006-09-23, 02:39 AM

Of course, that is also a large fraction of said Hunnic force's ammunition supply. How many arrows would these guys carry?

Man reckons 100,000 per 1000 man regiment, with around sixty as a quiver full - say roughly two quivers of fifty as an average. So the manouver described would cost the troops involved a quarter of their typical ammo load.

Put it another way - Hun troops could perhaps destroy an enemy of four times their size before even thinking about getting into hand-to-hand combat. And this rate of fire would not need to be kept up for long - just long enough to open a gap in the enemy lines for exploitation.

A proportion of the arrows would also be recovered for reuse after combat.

endoperez

2006-09-23, 08:29 AM

I love this thread! :D

While I've played with slings for some time and understand that they are deadly weapons, using them to the maximum effect requires lots of practise. Longbows or recurve bows on their own are just dangerous weapons, an army of men trained in their use is what won wars.

The three slings were of different lengths, for stones of different sizes; the largest they hurled with as much force as if it were flung from a catapult; and they seldom missed their mark. To this exercise they were trained from infancy, in order to earn their livelihood as mercenary soldiers. It is said that the mothers only allowed their children to eat bread when they had struck it off a post with the sling. (Strabo; Diod.; Flor. iii. 8; Tzetz. ad Lycophr.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balearic_Islands#Ancient_history

Wehrkind

2006-09-24, 10:20 AM

Wow, wish I had checked this while I was off work this past week; alas moving kept me out...

I think, -think- mind you, that the main difference in the Roman, and Greek, mind when it came to archers and slingers, and then to heavy infantry, was the philosophical question of how a man should fight, as well as construction.
The Greeks and Romans heavily favored the heavy infantry as the killing arm of their military. Lightly armed infantry with missiles was considered dishonorable, but effective, in the Peloponesian wars, and Alexander was comparatively innovative with his use of formation shattering cavalry charges. The Romans had similar proclivities, considering the armored infantryman to be the peak of civic duty. Light troops were the lower ranking members of society, and thus somewhat below consideration in their equipment.
The reason I point this out is to illustrate that the bow and sling were not considered "weapons of war" so much as civilian tools that were handy in a battle. So while official training would focus on the sword, spear, and shield, skill in the sling and bow was accomplished in off time for hunting. Hunting was common enough, but not as demanding as battlefield applications, as deer don't wear armor etc. So we have a situation where the only troops who would seriously plan on using a bow or sling in combat did not have a great deal of money to spend on the equipment (the lighter armed troops being the lower end of society) and the bow's that were common not being intended for military use.
I think this would contribute to more basic equipment, for while the elite could afford hunting bows that were laminate or composite construction, the lower class could only afford a basic self bow, which was more or less sufficient for hunting. Alternately they could use a sling, which was even cheaper and had less demanding ammo requirements. It most likely turned out that sling stones were more effective against armored opponants than arrows (since the bodkin was not invented for another thousand years), and combined with the sling's likely ease of supply (no more units complaining of running out of ammo) it might have been decided it was more useful than the bow.
At least until the better bows were more common, or the government started issuing better bows for auxilia to use, whichever came first.

And I love this thread too. It is the whole reason I joined the forum in the first place.

Matthew

2006-09-24, 10:50 AM

Yeah, that argument is made a lot and support can be found for it in the Iliad, where Paris is despised by certain Greek Heroes for his reliance on the Bow, but it is something of a hypocritical complaint as it is quite clear that even Greeks Heroes make use of the Bow in battle.

There is also the passage in Thucydides' The Peloponnesian War Book 4, Chapter 2, when the the Spartans uncharacteristically surrender:

This event caused much more surprise among the Hellenes than anything else that happened in the war. The general impression had been that the Spartans would never surrender their arms whether because of hunger or any other form of compulsion; instead they would keep them to the last and die fighting as best they could. It was hard to believe that those who had surrendered were the same sort of people as those who had fallen. Indeed, there was an occasion afterwards when an Athenian ally, in order to insult one of the prisoners from the island asked him whether it was the ones who had fallen who were the real Spartans. The reply was that 'spindles (by which he meant arrows) would be worth a great deal if they could pick out the brave men from the cowards', a remark which was intended to show that the ones who died were simply the ones who came in the way of the stones and the arrows.

Hoplites despised those who attacked at range, but equally they relied on them. It is a pattern that can be seen right through the Ancient and Medieval periods, every arm of the military considers itself superior to the other. I have even heard a report that the [British] Cavalry during the First World War complained that the gun was not 'proper' warfare on exactly the same grounds as the Spartans complained about the Bow.

As far as I can tell, it's a Martial Pride thing, but we tend only to hear about it from the perspective of the literary class.

Also, be careful about asserting the superiority of the Bodkin Arrow, I am led to believe there is a *lot* of debate about its influence.

Wehrkind

2006-09-24, 11:49 AM

Matthew, you misinterpret my point a little.

In Hanson's "A War Like No Other: How the Spartans and Athenians Fought the Peloponesian War" the author points out how until the Peloponesian war the Greeks made very little serious use of missile weapons in war. Not that it was unheard of, but rather that it was frowned upon as being improper. As they saw it, all REAL men fought in the phalanx. It was this cultural notion that relegated the use of missile weapons to the lower classes, and this exact same class's success in the Peloponesian war that shocked and unsettled many of the elite, just as the cross bow's success against the mounted knight caused it to be shunned by the aristocracy of Europe.

The thrust of my point was that missile weapons were not the prefered item used by the elite and upperclass of society to fight, but rather of the poor and lower class, and as a result the quality of the weapons were much lower than they might have been. This is in contrast to the archers of the eastern Mediterrainian and Baltic states, where archery was the preminent mode of warfare, and consequently their bows were of excellent design and construction.

The critical difference between your example of British aristocracy in the early 20th century and the Romans and Greeks of 500-150 BC is that the British Army's soldiers had their equipment supplied for them, while the Greeks and Romans had to supply their own. Thus while even the poorest British soldier had a gun that worked as well as his rich squad mate, and one that likely would have been much more than he could personally afford, the archer or slinger of antiquity would have only the weapon which he could afford, and coming from the lower class, he likely would not have much more than a very basic bow for hunting, a pursuit demanding less performance than war.

To look at it another way, if one assumes that over the course of a battle or short campaign a soldier with a missile weapon will need to fire ~100 rounds at the enemy. Maybe more, maybe less, but around there. Now, arrows need to be manufactured, either by the archer or someone else. In the case of someone else, either the archer has to buy them, or someone else does. The slinger merely needs to find rocks that are suitable, which any river will provide. So the price variation between bow and arrows or sling and rocks is relatively large. If the poorer archer can not afford good arrows, they will have to get what they can. If these don't penetrate too well, who cares? The archer doesn't need to prove he kills X number of men to get paid, he merely needs to show up with arrows, and fire them with his buddy at the right time. So perhaps the quality of archers in the West depended greatly on how much money they had to spend on equipment, how skilled they were, and how easy it was for them to get supplies, where as slingers depended only on skill, and supply of rocks. This likely leads to much more variation in the effectiveness of archers as compared to slingers, logistics and the demographics of the users being what they were.

Edit: Bodkins: I mention them to point out that the type of arrow head makes a great deal of difference in performance against different targets. A large bladed arrow is good for cutting flesh and killing animals or very lightly armored men, but is less effective against shields and armor.

Matthew

2006-09-24, 12:06 PM

No, I get what you're saying and to be sure I have heard this argument many times before (even bought into it to begin with), but the evidence for how the Greeks and Romans *really* fought is fairly sparse. There are passages in the Iliad that indicate that amongst the rank and file there were many Bows in use (mind you, that is my translation, it could be wrong).

The question really, is how long before the Peloponnesian War were Greeks fighting without recourse to ranged weaponry? Since Greek society was established? We only really hear things from the Hoplite's point of view. They certainly considered it unmanly to use the Bow, but does that mean they didn't? It's like the Medieval Knight, if we take the sources at face value during that period, especially the literary ones, only Knights were real men and the other classes were just there to make up the numbers, if they were there at all.

Another thing to think about is the role of the set piece battle. Most warfare does not consist of battles; raiding and sieges are far more prevailant and battles actually quite rare. Sieges in particular give the lie to the Medieval presentation of warfare, because it is here that we see Knights on foot shooting at their enemies. Were Ancient sieges devoid of these recourses? Well, I don't know for sure, but as far as I know it wasn't the case.

Even amongst the Greeks, the preferred form of fighting for the Elite was on a horse.

In Hanson's "A War Like No Other: How the Spartans and Athenians Fought the Peloponesian War" the author points out how until the Peloponesian war the Greeks made very little serious use of missile weapons in war. Not that it was unheard of, but rather that it was frowned upon as being improper. As they saw it, all REAL men fought in the phalanx. It was this cultural notion that relegated the use of missile weapons to the lower classes, and this exact same class's success in the Peloponesian war that shocked and unsettled many of the elite, just as the cross bow's success against the mounted knight caused it to be shunned by the aristocracy of Europe.

It was certainly the case that fighting as a Hoplite was more respectable than fighting as a Peltast. However, since you had to meet certain wealth requirements to become a Hoplite, this was as much a matter of wealth as it was respect for a mode of fighting. It is also important to note that not all memebers of a Phalanx were necessarily well equipped, many probably lacked Body Armour.
The Poorer Classes used Ranged Weapons because they were cheap; they fulfilled the highly necessary role of Light Foot. It wasn't that Ranged Combat was only ever for the poor, just that this was a role usually filled by them, just as only the very rich were expected to be cavalry.
The Medieval Knight did not disparage the Cross Bow because it was too lethal. They used them very often, Richard Couer de Lion and Philip Augustus are portrayed using them at sieges, as is Charlemagne himself and Godfrey of Bologne. It was actually considered very knightly to be able to use all type of arms, but their battlefield role was generally not to be Archers.

The thrust of my point was that missile weapons were not the prefered item used by the elite and upperclass of society to fight, but rather of the poor and lower class, and as a result the quality of the weapons were much lower than they might have been. This is in contrast to the archers of the eastern Mediterrainian and Baltic states, where archery was the preminent mode of warfare, and consequently their bows were of excellent design and construction.

I would say this is true of battles, but not of warfare in general. To fight as a Hoplite, all you needed in terms of equipment was a Shield and a Spear; however, the role of Hoplite was restricted to a certain wealth category, perhaps in order to ensure that as many as possible were well armed. However, this does not hold true for Greek Mercenaries, who might not have any 'wealth standard'.

The critical difference between your example of British aristocracy in the early 20th century and the Romans and Greeks of 500-150 BC is that the British Army's soldiers had their equipment supplied for them, while the Greeks and Romans had to supply their own. Thus while even the poorest British soldier had a gun that worked as well as his rich squad mate, and one that likely would have been much more than he could personally afford, the archer or slinger of antiquity would have only the weapon which he could afford, and coming from the lower class, he likely would not have much more than a very basic bow for hunting, a pursuit demanding less performance than war.

Well, the Spartan Army was state supplied, as was the Late Republican / Imperial Roman Army. However, the particulars of ancient arms supply remain hazy at best . Certainly the very poorer classes could not afford Body Armour or Horses, but does that translate into vastly inferior Bows or Slings or Spears? The question is an open one, as any answer relies on many conditional assumptions.
I'm not sure how that impacts what I am saying about the British Cavalry's view of guns in the First Worlld War. The idea was that they didn't consider modern Infantry warfare to be 'real' warfare, but some unfair form, which is how the Spartans seem to have felt about Archers and Slingers and such. In niether case did such feelings, in general, stop their leaders from employing ranged troops.
It's also worth noting that even in modern armies a certain degree of purchasing is done by individual soldiers to 'improve' their lot. What was the purchasing power of the individual Lower Class Greek? Who knows, but even if it was very little, that doesn't take into account the patronage of wealthier Citizens or the willingness and ability of the individual to borrow money or equipment.

To look at it another way, if one assumes that over the course of a battle or short campaign a soldier with a missile weapon will need to fire ~100 rounds at the enemy. Maybe more, maybe less, but around there. Now, arrows need to be manufactured, either by the archer or someone else. In the case of someone else, either the archer has to buy them, or someone else does. The slinger merely needs to find rocks that are suitable, which any river will provide. So the price variation between bow and arrows or sling and rocks is relatively large. If the poorer archer can not afford good arrows, they will have to get what they can. If these don't penetrate too well, who cares? The archer doesn't need to prove he kills X number of men to get paid, he merely needs to show up with arrows, and fire them with his buddy at the right time. So perhaps the quality of archers in the West depended greatly on how much money they had to spend on equipment, how skilled they were, and how easy it was for them to get supplies, where as slingers depended only on skill, and supply of rocks. This likely leads to much more variation in the effectiveness of archers as compared to slingers, logistics and the demographics of the users being what they were.

That's quite a high estimate, given that the average [i]Velite carried only three Javelins. This, of course, is a very broad problem for Military History in general. We have no idea at what rate missiles were actually discharged or with what effect, though we have a general idea of what is possible.
In terms of manufacturing them, well, that's a big problem overall. What was the cost of an Arrow? Are we really expected to believe that the Roman state in the Hannibalic War was capable of producing 5,000 Swords, 10,000-15,000 Pila, 5,000 Scuta, 5,000 Helmets and an indeterminate amount of Body Armour per Legion? What about after catastrophic defeats when the equipping of entire replacement Legions was suddenly necessary. 80,000 Men freshly raised and equipped for one army is a significant and startling logistical achievement. The answers are speculative and elusive to say the least.
On the battle field you have access to the missiles being discharged at you, but who knows what proportion that accounts for? The idea of self equipping is one thing, but the reality was probably something quite different. Just because troops were expected to bring gear X, does not mean they funded such things from their own means. In all liklihood there was always a certain amount of state involvement, either indirectly through Patrons, family and friends or directly through the resources of individual Generals. As an analogue, Medieval Warriors were expected to bring their own gear, but the rich ones were also expected to equip others.
As for variation, it's possible, but it's likely always the case. However, discharging missiles into an enemy formation isn't much of a test of skill. Slingers used rocks when necessary, but I suspect finding suitable ones isn't quite as easy as you might think when there are large numbers of other people looking for the same thing. In any case, professional slingers used lead bullets, apparently, but I imagine this was also affected by wealth distribution within the army.

Edit: Bodkins: I mention them to point out that the type of arrow head makes a great deal of difference in performance against different targets. A large bladed arrow is good for cutting flesh and killing animals or very lightly armored men, but is less effective against shields and armor.

I know, but it is contested as to whether Bodkins were very much more effective than other arrows at penetrating Armour or Shields. It's kind of like the difference between a Pilum and a Spear, there's a lot of debate, but no definite uncontestable conclusions...

Wehrkind

2006-09-24, 12:35 PM

Nifty_Knickers

2006-09-24, 12:42 PM

Ahhh, such a wealth of information! I love it! I can't join in tho, I'm sad to say. My knowledge of greek and roman warfare is very limited.

On the bodkin: I thought the reason bodkin arrows were so popular was because it was easy to manufacture? I've seen examples of bodkin tips, and the design never struck me as efficient for piercing armour.

Subotei

2006-09-24, 12:43 PM

The last few posts have been really interesting - there is definitely a social/cultural dimension to who uses what weapons.

Its interesting to note the different attitude between eastern and western ideas on the use of the bow - to the Japanese the use of the bow was almost an art, whereas in Europe the higher classes frowned upon its use.

I wonder why the sling was not in wide use in Northern Europe (after Roman times) given the simplicity of it the weapon. Was it cultural, a physical reason (eg less stony than the Eastern Med?) or something else? I suspect the bow was more suited to hunting in the northern forests and therefore the technique was taught, though I've no evidence.

It seems to me to be the case that where warfare is a ritualised point-scoring way to settle differences between states with similar backgrounds, rather than an out and out 'us or them', warfare becomes more 'civilised' and less lethal, and the distaste for certain weapons develops. E.g. the Greek city states or Medieval Europe, where war was a mainly survivable pasttime for the upper classes and where prisoners were more important than a kill. It must've been very disconcerting for the average Knight to come up against an enemy that wasn't playing by 'the rules', eg the English at Crecy or the Mongols.

Matthew

2006-09-24, 12:54 PM

I don't think the Illiad really can be used as a basis for what the Greeks did in battle. Perhaps how they thought of battle, but considering the Iliad also shows heros galloping around in chariots to move around the battlefield, and we know that the Greeks did not do this by the Peloponesian war, their generals fighting in the phalanx instead, we can suppose that it is not exactly what was done by that time.

Well, the Iliad is a complex text with many overlapping and anachronistic features. The point I was making, though, was that as a model of heroism, it did not exactly condemn the use of the Bow in battle. The Bow is depicted as effemenite [sp?], but not as despicable.

Further, and I can not stress this enough, I am NOT saying they did not use bows or slings. I am certain they did to an extent, particularly in raids and the like. My point is that the upper classes did not use them in field battles, instead using the heavy armor and melee weapons they could afford. That is my whole reason for pointing out that only the lower eschelons of society used missile weapons and fought as light troops; if you could afford armor and heavier weapons, you were expected to and did. Hence my statement that it was likely that those who used missile weapons on the field did not have the best possible.

Whilst I agree that those who met the wealth requirements fought in the Phalanx and those who did not fought as Peltasts, perhaps with Bows and Slings, I do not think that it follows that they had vastly inferior Bows to what was available, for the reasons cited above regarding distribution of wealth and personal funding .
Of course, it is also important to remember that not everyone in the Phalanx would have been able to afford their own Body Armour. A Spear and Shield are pretty much the only basic requirements.[/quote]

Further, we know that the Greeks tended to eschew seiges, the Spartans for instance were famous for sucking at them. Typically their mode of fighting was to go out in phalanx, line up on and open field, and crash into each other until one line breaks and panics. At least until the Peloponesian war changed all that.

To some degree that is true, but it is not necessarily a true picture that Thucydides paints, he is glorifying Pericles strategy of withdrawing behind the walls. I don't know enough about it, but the [i]Iliad is a fairly classic incident of the Greeks involved in siege works. After Marathon, Miltiades was involved in two sieges, according to Herodotus, one failed one against the Parians and one successful one against the Pelasgians. Sieges were fairly common as far as I know. I guess I would have to see more evidence before I would subscribe to the contrary view.

The equestrian class you mention did exist obviously, but was largely relegated to chasing down fleeing troops, or providing a covering screen for flanks and retreats. There are sources that speak of how noble it was to fight in the phalanx instead of on one's horse. Granted, fighting from horse was great if you could afford one, but that is not to say that many of the upper class either could not or did not.

That's rather an unhappy view of the role of Horse. There are certainly sources that glorify the Phalanx over the Horse, but equally there are sources that glorify the Horse over all, unsurprisingly. How horses were used is a debating point these days, I should probably read up on what Xenephon has to say.

I would also point to the fact that if they considered the bow to more effective than armor and sword, they would have switched to it as was more common in the east. It would seem that the west was pretty much in agreement that heavy infantry was the way to go when it came to fighting in their vicinity, and those who could afford the armor to do so bought in on the idea. This likely speaks to how well such armor survived against missile weapons in general. Further, if one is fighting as heavy infantry, one is unlikely to be carrying a bow with that large shield and spear/sword. So again, you have a situation where those who could afford the best bows available were unlikely to use them in war, and those who were likely to use a bow in war were unlikely to have the best available.

Well, that's not what I am saying at all and makes no more sense in an Ancient context than a Medieval one. Even during the latter, when ranged weaponry was supposedly more effective, the response of the Knightly classes was not to adopt it on the battlefield, but continue to use it when the occasion demanded.
A composite Army is what I would always argue for. Heavy Foot and Light Foot must operate together and support one another in combination with Horse. That is the general rule of all armies, whether Eastern or Western in character. The Persian Army at the time of Marathon was a composite, consisting of Heavy (Sparabara) and Light (Takabara) Foot, as well as Horse (though it is debatable what the army at Marathon actually looked like). Herodotus has the Persians surprised that the Greeks would fight a Marathon unsupported by Horse or Bow, but is that characteristic of Greek warfare or is that just part of the legend of Marathon? [i.e. the Athenian Hoplites going it alone against all the odds].
I still would not agree that Peltasts would have inferior equipment; it just does not ring true for me, but we may have to just agree to disagree.
There is a vigorous, and sometimes bitter, debate as to the effectiveness of Ancient and Medieval Arms and Armour amongst professionals and academics. About all that can be said with any certainty is that those who could afford it wore it.

If you are curious about the Peloponesian war, I recommend A War Like No Other. It is a good read even for the non historian, and has a lot of information and analysis about how the war changed the way the Greeks thought.

I haven't read that one and I have to admit it has been a few years since I was studying Greek history. I will look out for it.

As to bodkins, I am willing to accept that they might not have been "teh ubarz", but it seems to me that they would have been a bit better, or they would not likely have been used. Not to mention that it is much easier to drive an awl into metal plate without it breaking than it is to drive a knife through it. Thin blades tend to shatter when struck against hard surfaces, and thick blades have a lot of surface area, reducing effectiveness. It seems to me that it should be a VERY simple question to answer though; I can't imagine why some aspiring experimental historians haven't shot some different items with different arrows to see how it works out.

Basically, any results are suspect because the arms and armour are reproductions and the conditions under which they are tested are widely variable. How Weapon X effects Warrior Y when wearing Armour Z is basically untestable, because of the risk involved, and highly conditional. So, debate abounds in the academic world.

On the bodkin: I thought the reason bodkin arrows were so popular was because it was easy to manufacture? I've seen examples of bodkin tips, and the design never struck me as efficient for piercing armour.

I have heard varying accounts over the years. I bet Fhaolan knows more...

Its interesting to note the different attitude between eastern and western ideas on the use of the bow - to the Japanese the use of the bow was almost an art, whereas in Europe the higher classes frowned upon its use.

Well, this is not quite the case. It is true that you hear less disparagement concerning the Bow in the East, but it wasn't exactly frowned upon in the west. In fact, ranged weapons (Bows, Cross Bows and Slings) were very popular in the West in reality, just not really in the literature, which preferred one on one combat, for various reasons. The fact that the Pope attempted to ban the use of ranged weaponry between Christians (and not just Cross Bows, as is popularly believed) testifies to their widespread implementation, but more than that, you can see it in the art of the period.

I wonder why the sling was not in wide use in Northern Europe (after Roman times) given the simplicity of it the weapon. Was it cultural, a physical reason (eg less stony than the Eastern Med?) or something else? I suspect the bow was more suited to hunting in the northern forests and therefore the technique was taught, though I've no evidence.

Good question; I don't know, that is, I don't know if it even did. Just check out the Medieval section of that Sling site to see some medieval representations.

It seems to me to be the case that where warfare is a ritualised point-scoring way to settle differences between states with similar backgrounds, rather than an out and out 'us or them', warfare becomes more 'civilised' and less lethal, and the distaste for certain weapons develops. E.g. the Greek city states or Medieval Europe, where war was a mainly survivable pasttime for the upper classes and where prisoners were more important than a kill. It must've been very disconcerting for the average Knight to come up against an enemy that wasn't playing by 'the rules', eg the English at Crecy or the Mongols.

Ritualisation is an important part of understanding warfare as it deals with the psychology of the combatant. Nobody wanted to be captured, though; in some ways it would be worse than death, as it could lead to fiscal ruin. The lethality of warfare is subjective, casualty rates are unknown, but being involved was a huge risk, no matter what. No Knight would be disconcerted to find his enemy not 'playing by the rules', especially if he wasn't even a Christian. so many people seem to have such a warped impression of Knighthood. Being an active Knight was deadly serious in all periods and required the individual to kill people in close quarters. They were ruthless individuals; to go to one extreme or the other is to be mistaken; they weren't all illiterate thugs and they weren't all divorced from reality; like modern soldiers, most were probably somewhere imbetween.

Wehrkind

2006-09-24, 02:28 PM

My point about the difference between the 20th centurey Brits and the 5th century BC Greeks was that the elite that said "that's not REAL fighting" in Britain might grumble, but he was fighting how his unit was instructed, be it on a horse or behind a machine gun, and no one was going to call him a coward because he did one or the other. The Greek elite was going to purchase the best he could, with thought towards survivability and cultural esteem, and since by and large the elite fought either as heavy infantry (expensive) or on horse (VERY expensive) with little note of them fighting as light infantry, it seems reasonable that light troops were made up as those who could not fight as heavy.

Let me try a thought experiment to explain. You have me and my roommate; I have a good job (one that pays well and allows me to post on here at length), while he has a fairly menial job (got out of the Navy and is going to college) that pays poorly. Now, say we are drafted into the (modern US) military. We are both in the Marine infantry. We are going to have either the M16 or the SAW. While I might be able to blow a lot of cash on upgrades for my weapon, and maybe some nicer clothing for various climes, we are going to be VERY similarly outfitted. I am not going to be able to buy a completely different rifle to use should I deem it better.

Now, say we are in Greece or Republican Rome (pre Marian). He and I would both be providing 100% of our gear. Now, I want to live. That requires not being shot, and not getting run down by cavalry. So, being the upper class wank I am, I would be investing in heavy armor and large shield, a helmet and a sword or spear, as the upper class did. I might even get a horse, but I am not a millionaire, so let's not get nuts.
Now, my poor underfunded friend, he is not going to be able to afford the armor that keeps you alive in melee. He might be able to get a shield and javalins to fight as a velite or peltast. Alternately he might use a bow or sling, especially since he is skinny and not well suited to sudden bursts of power compared to endurance activities.
So, he wants a bow. Now, there are the nice, masterfully crafted composite bows that have many hours of craftsmanship put into them. They are popular with the upperclass for how well they shoot. But he can't afford that, as they cost more than he makes in a year. He can however afford a cheap and commonly available self-bow, just a stave of wood, likely yew or ash, which works well enough to kill dear and the like. He can also buy his arrows. Or he gets a sling, which is dirt cheap even for the best, and he just gathers rocks, or even a few shaped ammo bits.

So you see my point. State supplied armies, troops get all the same gear, usually with a prohibition on supplying your own gear (though perhaps what gets picked up on campaign is different). Armies where troops supply their own gear, the rich get the best, and the poor get what they can. In this particular case of Greek and Roman warfare, the rich got armor and shields, the poor got slings and bows and javalins.

My whole point was perhaps baddly expressed. The idea I was trying to convey was that since the poor were the ones who mostly used missile weapons on the field, what was available was not necessarily what was used. So while excellent eastern style composite bows were around, it is quite likely that the low class auxilary would not be able to afford it, and would have cheaper things. As a result, the effectiveness of any given archer would be questionable and possibly extremely varied even given a standard skill level, where as the variations in quality of slings and stones would be minimal, and thus if your poor could use slings uniformly well, the unit would function uniformly well, assuming slings work pretty well. Now, if you were going to outfit your poor with good quality bows and arrows, then you might have much better luck, as well as perhaps archers that are as good as slingers. Or, if everyone can afford a good bow, no problem. If, however, mediocre bows are the standard for the lower classes, then perhaps a sling is better.

Awetugiw

2006-09-24, 03:19 PM

I would also point to the fact that if they considered the bow to more effective than armor and sword, they would have switched to it as was more common in the east. It would seem that the west was pretty much in agreement that heavy infantry was the way to go when it came to fighting in their vicinity, and those who could afford the armor to do so bought in on the idea. This likely speaks to how well such armor survived against missile weapons in general. Further, if one is fighting as heavy infantry, one is unlikely to be carrying a bow with that large shield and spear/sword. So again, you have a situation where those who could afford the best bows available were unlikely to use them in war, and those who were likely to use a bow in war were unlikely to have the best available.

I'm not fully sure, but wasn't bow use in the west also limited because of climate? Don't bows, and especially the better, composite, versions tend not to like rain?

Wehrkind

2006-09-24, 03:33 PM

The Asiatic bows definitely get droopy when they get moist (even from humidity.) That sort of thing isn't an issue on the dry steppes, but in the west it is. I would assume though that if the Greeks and Romans had access to the laminating technology as Matthew says, they probably had a type of glue that did not get soft when it was exposed to moisture.

Then again, if they didn't, then you would see many more self bows and long bows in the west, as they would be much more user friendly than their eastern counterparts. So much so, that perhaps the more durable composites were too expensive?

Matthew

2006-09-24, 06:55 PM

I have added additional comments to my two posts above, if you are interested to read them. I have tried to address the individual posts, rather than post all responses here.

My point about the difference between the 20th centurey Brits and the 5th century BC Greeks was that the elite that said "that's not REAL fighting" in Britain might grumble, but he was fighting how his unit was instructed, be it on a horse or behind a machine gun, and no one was going to call him a coward because he did one or the other. The Greek elite was going to purchase the best he could, with thought towards survivability and cultural esteem, and since by and large the elite fought either as heavy infantry (expensive) or on horse (VERY expensive) with little note of them fighting as light infantry, it seems reasonable that light troops were made up as those who could not fight as heavy.

Indeed, but it does not follow that the Greeks despised the Bow, only that the richer Citizens despised the poorer for their lack of wealth. However, you are assuming that each individual equips himself. This is not the case, as far as I know and makes little sense. The Peltast would likely draw on many resources for his equipment, not least the richer Citizens, as I have suggested above. [My understanding of Ancient Greek Society is that it was similar to Roman, in the sense of Patronage by the richer of the lower, but to a lesser degree. If I am in error, then these remarks obviously do not stand].

Let me try a thought experiment to explain. You have me and my roommate; I have a good job (one that pays well and allows me to post on here at length), while he has a fairly menial job (got out of the Navy and is going to college) that pays poorly. Now, say we are drafted into the (modern US) military. We are both in the Marine infantry. We are going to have either the M16 or the SAW. While I might be able to blow a lot of cash on upgrades for my weapon, and maybe some nicer clothing for various climes, we are going to be VERY similarly outfitted. I am not going to be able to buy a completely different rifle to use should I deem it better.

Sounds plausible.

Now, say we are in Greece or Republican Rome (pre Marian). He and I would both be providing 100% of our gear. Now, I want to live. That requires not being shot, and not getting run down by cavalry. So, being the upper class wank I am, I would be investing in heavy armor and large shield, a helmet and a sword or spear, as the upper class did. I might even get a horse, but I am not a millionaire, so let's not get nuts.
Now, my poor underfunded friend, he is not going to be able to afford the armor that keeps you alive in melee. He might be able to get a shield and javalins to fight as a velite or peltast. Alternately he might use a bow or sling, especially since he is skinny and not well suited to sudden bursts of power compared to endurance activities.
So, he wants a bow. Now, there are the nice, masterfully crafted composite bows that have many hours of craftsmanship put into them. They are popular with the upperclass for how well they shoot. But he can't afford that, as they cost more than he makes in a year. He can however afford a cheap and commonly available self-bow, just a stave of wood, likely yew or ash, which works well enough to kill dear and the like. He can also buy his arrows. Or he gets a sling, which is dirt cheap even for the best, and he just gathers rocks, or even a few shaped ammo bits.

Well, this is where we must perceive a difference between wealth and available equipment. Wealth determined which class of the five tier legion you belonged to, but equipment would have been another matter and dependent on more than individual wealth. [i.e. disposable income is not the only means by which an individual would have been equipped].
By the time of the Hannibalic War it was age. Those with 10,000 Drachmas or more were expected to have Body Armour, those with less made do with what they could get. According to Polybius, men of all wealth classes were expected to have Helmet, Gladii, Pila / Hastae and Scuta / Parma. How they provided such arms is quite the question. They weren't state supplied, so they must have been contingent on personal resources. However, it would have not been merely a matter of the individual. Patron, Tribe, Family and Friends would have all contributed to the equipping of that soldier.

So you see my point. State supplied armies, troops get all the same gear, usually with a prohibition on supplying your own gear (though perhaps what gets picked up on campaign is different). Armies where troops supply their own gear, the rich get the best, and the poor get what they can. In this particular case of Greek and Roman warfare, the rich got armor and shields, the poor got slings and bows and javalins.

The problem I have with this is that it assumes the rich only took responsibility for equipping themselves. My understanding of Ancient and Medieval Societies would suggest that this wouldn't have been the case. Even wealthy individuals might have relied on other family members to equip them. Poorer individuals did not operate in isolation from the wealthier ones. Certainly in Medieval and Roman times wealthier individuals equipped poorer ones, but only to the degree that they were well equipped for their function. If it definitely wasn't this way in Ancient Greece, I guess I would have to accept your argument, but it seems unlikely to me.

I had best point out that I am not saying Hoplites fought as Light Foot on the battlefield, but I am saying that they were unlikely to fight without such support, even before the Peloponnesian War.

Subotei

2006-09-24, 08:14 PM

The fact that the Pope attempted to ban the use of ranged weaponry between Christians (and not just Cross Bows, as is popularly believed) testifies to their widespread implementation, but more than that, you can see it in the art of the period.
Interesting - I didn't know that. I suppose it just goes to show how lethal (and undescriminating of social standing) missile weapons were.

I don't know, that is, I don't know if it even did. Just check out the Medieval section of that Sling site to see some medieval representations.
Not widespread to my knowledge, whereas the role of longbow and crossbow are well known. But I'm no expert.

No Knight would be disconcerted to find his enemy not 'playing by the rules', especially if he wasn't even a Christian. so many people seem to have such a warped impression of Knighthood.Sorry - my poor choice of phrase. What I meant was where they turn up to battle expecting the usual action and find the enemy not doing that - peppering them with arrows, turning and running etc rather than a stand up melee - I didn't mean abiding by some chivalric code or something. Medieval Knights and armies were generally so limited tactically that anything unusual must've really caused confusion. Where the Mongols excelled (and why they went through European medieval armies like a chainsaw through butter), rather than in just bowmanship, was in manouver and tactical command and control. I've seen them described as fighting like a modern armoured division, rather than the 'Horde' which gives the completely wrong impression. But thats the impression the losers would want to give to justify their losses - "there were thousands of them..."

Nobody wanted to be captured, though; in some ways it would be worse than death, as it could lead to fiscal ruinVery true, though people haven't changed and I for one would rather be poor and alive than rich and dead. Alive you have a chance of getting it all back.

The lethality of warfare is subjective, casualty rates are unknown, but being involved was a huge risk, no matter what.I read something on this but I can't remember where unfortunately. Battle casualty rates - as a percentage of an army - peaked in Napoleonic times. I guess after that increasing technology and prolongation of battles made specialist troops and troop rotation necessary, so that the actual number of troops doing the fighting a smaller overall proportion, even though the armies were getting larger.

Wholesale carnage in open battle would've been quite uncommon in medieval times, given the propensity of peasant levees to stop fighting and run away given a chance, and the mobile force for pursuit too busy bagging their trophy prisoners for ransom. Disease and starvation would've been the biggest risk for most common troops on campaign. Thats not to say hand to hand fighting that did occur would not be horrific - why buy that suit of plate if it isn't?

Being an active Knight was deadly serious in all periods and required the individual to kill people in close quarters. They were ruthless individuals; to go to one extreme or the other is to be mistaken; they weren't all illiterate thugs and they weren't all divorced from reality; like modern soldiers, most were probably somewhere imbetween. Totally agree with you on that.

I have even heard a report that the [British] Cavalry during the First World War complained that the gun was not 'proper' warfare on exactly the same grounds as the Spartans complained about the Bow.This might have something to do with the fact that the British army was essentially used for police action work in the Empire, and consequently found it hard to justify their poor performance in the face of an enemy with modern weapons when previously they were use to gloriously charging down the poor [insert oppessed people here]. Just my opinion - no evidence

Fhaolan

2006-09-24, 10:36 PM

I'm going to keep myself mostly out of this discussion, as it appears to be about the economics of warfare. Not my best subject. :)

However, I was under the impression, correct me if I'm wrong, that in the British army during the height of the British empire; officers did in fact purchase their commissions, and all their equipment would be drawn from their own funds. However, I thought it was also expected that an officer would suppliment his mens' equipment from his own funds as well?

On the bodkin: I thought the reason bodkin arrows were so popular was because it was easy to manufacture? I've seen examples of bodkin tips, and the design never struck me as efficient for piercing armour.

Ah, this one I can answer. What many people refer to as a bodkin point is not made to pierce plate armor. It is made to pierce maille. It is a long thin point that will break the maille's rings, or simply be long enough to do damage even when stopped by the rings. Exactly like a bodkin dagger or a stilleto, just driven by the power of a bow.

Pile points are made to pierce plate. The idea being a heavy point, very thickly built. Most pile points look like slightly elongated pyramids. I have seen some historical ones, however, that look more like modern bullets.

I have seen tests performed with Mary Rose-style longbows with pile point arrows against tempered steel breastplates, all manufactured to mimic museum pieces to the best of these craftsmens' abilities. Pile points will in fact penetrate plate armor quite nicely, but it has to hit it dead on. Any deflection and the arrow will fail to penetrate. Late period plate is made to have very few flat surfaces in an attempt to make it very difficult to hit it dead on.

Matthew

2006-09-25, 08:01 AM

Sorry - my poor choice of phrase. What I meant was where they turn up to battle expecting the usual action and find the enemy not doing that - peppering them with arrows, turning and running etc rather than a stand up melee - I didn't mean abiding by some chivalric code or something. Medieval Knights and armies were generally so limited tactically that anything unusual must've really caused confusion. Where the Mongols excelled (and why they went through European medieval armies like a chainsaw through butter), rather than in just bowmanship, was in manouver and tactical command and control. I've seen them described as fighting like a modern armoured division, rather than the 'Horde' which gives the completely wrong impression. But thats the impression the losers would want to give to justify their losses - "there were thousands of them..."

I don't know about this. Knights were very versatile at a tactical and strategic level. Usually, when they lost it was ascribed to indiscipline (riding off, looting or some such disreputable thing). Whilst this probably happened, it is worth noting that it is also a very Christian explanation for defeat, as it allows the writer to equate defeat with sin. Often one individual is scapegoated as the 'Judas' of the situation.
The Mongols are supposed to have been very disciplined and very well organised. However, many seem to have a very favourable impression of them that just seems crazy. Their tactics and equipment were very similar to those of the Turks and Westerners were very familiar with such things. Moreover, the Mongol army was a composite by the time it reached the west. Horde is certainly the wrong impression of them, but describing them as fighting like a modern armoured division runs equally misleading risks.
That's not to say the Mongols weren't excellent warriors or that they didn't have a fearsome reputation. I do not think that they were more tactically flexible than any other army of the time. What they had was unified central command and huge resources, which meant they had a strategic advantage that had a tactical impact.

Wholesale carnage in open battle would've been quite uncommon in medieval times, given the propensity of peasant levees to stop fighting and run away given a chance, and the mobile force for pursuit too busy bagging their trophy prisoners for ransom. Disease and starvation would've been the biggest risk for most common troops on campaign. Thats not to say hand to hand fighting that did occur would not be horrific - why buy that suit of plate if it isn't?

No doubt this depends on the battle. The battle of Hastings and the Horns of Hattin likely had very heavy casualties, but they were decisive victories and not all battles were. Hard to say. Disease and starvation were problems, but sometimes perhaps exaggerated. To hear the accounts of some some Primary, and indeed Secondary, sources it is hard to imagine how raising an army could ever be anything more than an unmitigated disaster.
As for peasant levies, well it all depends what you mean. Some medieval armies might have been composed of a core of mounted professionals and a useless levy of Foot, but, as I understand it, the majority of medieval armies were composed of professional and semi professional warriors, both Horse and Foot.

Edmund

2006-09-25, 10:12 AM

I don't know about this. Knights were very versatile at a tactical and strategic level. Usually, when they lost it was ascribed to indiscipline (riding off, looting or some such disreputable thing). Whilst this probably happened, it is worth noting that it is also a very Christian explanation for defeat, as it allows the writer to equate defeat with sin. Often one individual is scapegoated as the 'Judas' of the situation.
Well, discipline is almost always an essential attribute. It is what made the infamous Swiss and Landsknecht mercenaries so effective, (because a pike square is only good as long as it remains a square), it is what allowed King Richard to win at Arsouf (along with the effectiveness of the maille and shields worn by the Crusaders and the impetuosity of Saladin's soldiers) and it is also one of the key components in the lanced cavalry charge.

It alone, of course, does not make an army, but it really, really darn important.

The Mongols are supposed to have been very disciplined and very well organised. However, many seem to have a very favourable impression of them that just seems crazy. Their tactics and equipment were very similar to those of the Turks and Westerners were very familiar with such things. Moreover, the Mongol army was a composite by the time it reached the west. Horde is certainly the wrong impression of them, but describing them as fighting like a modern armoured division runs equally misleading risks.
I agree with this statement very much, except for the rather generalised description of 'Westerners'. The battle of Liegnitz, the Mongols' only true encounter with any kind of large-scale Western army was fought against the Poles and the Hungarians, who had very limited contact with the Turks. Their closest enemies were the Lithuanians and Pechenegs, and the latter were closer to the 'hit and run' tactics that are often mistakenly ascribed to the Mongols of the period.

The Mongols, on the other hand, had a very powerful kind of heavy cavalry corp along with their 'typical' light cavalry archers and an extensive resevoir of foot soldiers. One of their greatest failings, however, is in siege warfare, which they consistently failed at once faced with stone walls. They were quite masterful at discipline and, more importantly, coordination and logistics of which they had quite a large resevoir.

The Battle of the River Kalka is one instance of this coordination. The large Russian army had pursued the much smaller Mongol army for a week, and in this time it had become disorganised and separated, and more importantly lulled into a sense of false security at the retreat of their enemies. This allowed the Mongols to destroy the Russians in much smaller groupings, now tired and surprised by their opponents sudden willingness to fight, but also impetuous and foolish.

In one of the few instances where the Mongols (in the form of the Golden Horde) did in fact face an organised enemy at Kulikovo (with a numerical advantage, no less) they were defeated, though not without huge losses to the Muscovites. This, unfortunately, made them unable to respond appropriately to the invasion of Tokhtamysh's horde, which ravaged Muscovy and the surrounding principalities. Luckily, Moscow's stone Kremlin was completed a few years after, protecting it from later sieges quite adequately.

They definitely weren't supermen, nor did they operate as a 'modern tank division'.

That's not to say the Mongols weren't excellent warriors or that they didn't have a fearsome reputation. I do not think that they were more tactically flexible than any other army of the time. What they had was unified central command and huge resources, which meant they had a strategic advantage that had a tactical impact.
Agreed... To a point. If you look at Almughavars like the Catalan Company (another group that gets more credit than they deserve) they lacked cavalry to any great extent, yet were still rather effective. They were somewhat flexible, but not nearly as much as a proper Byzantine, Turko-Arabic, Western European, or Russo-Mongolic army. The same can be said about the pikemen of Switzerland, who were effectively thwarted by Spanish sword-and-buckler men.

As an aside: Sorry about my long absence, folks. Just moved into the University of Glasgow, and will be here for the next 4 years.

Wehrkind

2006-09-25, 11:45 AM

Ok Matthew, I know where the disconnect is springing up, I think.

You seem to equate armies of antiquity with the medieval era, when in fact they had very distinct social features. In antiquity, both early Roman and Greek, you had tribes and large extended families that were pretty much the basic unit, to my understanding. After the fall of Rome, the more fuedal system of warlord patrons came about. So while later a lord or general would outfit his troops to a greater or lesser extent (levies were still SOL), citizens of the polis were expected to provide their own arms. So while a soldier would have an extended family for support in terms of equipment, that extended family would have many sons to outfit, so it was not a bottomless reservoir of funds. Gear was very expensive and passed down for generations.

Further, before the Peloponesian war, yes, hoplites really did fight without support, or at least VERY little. That was one of the shocking attributes of the war, the failure of open hoplite battle to end the fighting and settle the dispute in an afternoon. This is why the Marian reforms were so startling, the notion that the state would provide gear instead of the soldier himself was somewhat unheard of.

Also, you are missing a bit of logic inherent in my argument. The rich bought armor, because it kept them alive and they thought it was the best way to fight. Even the middle class fought as heavy infantry if possible. Hence even though all poor did not fight as missile troops, all missile troops were from the lower rungs of society. I am stating that their inability to buy better equipment such as armor and shield also meant they were unable to buy the best bows, perhaps leading to the general notion that bows were not too useful in warfare.

It also occurs to me that deficiencies in the mass production of quality arrow heads might lead to a lowered ability to penetrate armor of the period. Corinthian helms and the breast plates of the hoplites were made from ~.25" thick bronze, and were notoriously tough. Factor in a shield wall of very large round shields, and you have a force nearly impervious to arrow fire, at least from the front. The Romans might have had similar experiences, though their armor was lighter and more flexible. (The Romans certainly learned the value of bowmen later, however.) It is possible the concussive force of the sling stone carried through armor better than that of an arrow, should both fail to penetrate.

Vazzaroth

2006-09-25, 01:27 PM

Nifty_Knickers

2006-09-25, 02:06 PM

Ok, I've always assumed a Claymore is built like a Bastard Sword, but I recently bought one at a Ren. faire and now that I have my hands on one, Im not so sure. It seems pretty hard to be able to effectivly use one-handed, but I also guess that is why DnD decided to make it exotic to do so. Anyway, am I correct in thinking it would qualify as a basterd sword? Has anyone seen a sword that could be called a greatsword? I'm still looking for a 6' +foot sword...

Hahaha, such confusion. My dear friend, you just haven't been looking far enough.

Firstly, the claymore is in no way a bastardsword. Differences in design notwithstanding, claymores are full-blown two-handed weapons, and not desingned to be wieldable one-handed. Secondly, a bastard-sword wasn't a sword designed to be wielded one-handed often. A RL longsword is a two-handed sword, a bastard-sword is a slightly differently balanced version of that with usually much more tapering to the blade.

The closest thing you'll find to fantastical greatswords (because ofcourse, you have to realise that D&D is in no way representative of real-life weapons) would be these:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html

Be sure to scroll all the way down for cool pics, and enjoy the article, it's good reading! :)

Fhaolan

2006-09-25, 02:08 PM

[Note: I am not endorsing the site I am linking to here as a purveyor of quality swords. It is merely the first site I found that had images of all the types of weapons I needed. :) ]

I assume you purchased either a 'Wallace' style claymore with straight quillions (http://www.reliks.com/merchant.ihtml?pid=1396) or a 'Highlander' style claymore with the angled quillions and quadrafoils on the ends. (http://www.reliks.com/merchant.ihtml?pid=2512)

First off: Most of the pieces of junk that are available at faires are very poor reproductions. They have bladed that are considerably heavier, are poorly balanced, and are of poor-quality steel or worse yet, stainless steel. These are not swords. They are truck springs that have been flattened and ground out into a vague approximation of a sword in a sweat-shop environment in India. It is very likely what you bought is one of these. Why do I assume this? Because you probably spent less than $250 for this sword. Reasonable reproductions of claymores start at $250, and go up very quickly.

Claymores average on the small side for greatswords. Reproductions tend to be of the smaller examples, which skews the statistics even further. If you want reproductions of the bigger greatswords, you need to look at zweihanders and slaughterswords. (http://www.reliks.com/merchant.ihtml?pid=2254)

The largest reproduction greatsword I know of at the moment is a slaughtersword at 6' total length.
(http://www.reliks.com/merchant.ihtml?pid=2514). I actually have this exact sword. I've compared it to museum pieces, and it's a reasonable reproduction for stage and display. Not a wonderful one, just reasonable.

Very few historical swords went beyond 6' in length, and those that did seem to be execution swords or cerimonial, not actual combat swords.

Many of the swords you saw at the renfaire would fall into the category of 'bastard sword' in D&D, but you probably didn't recognize them. The most common one at ren faires looks like what you would call a 'long sword' [The term long sword is misused in D&D, but that's a different topic. :) ] It just has a longer grip to allow easier two-handed usage. (http://www.reliks.com/merchant.ihtml?pid=2254)

Matthew

2006-09-25, 02:50 PM

Well, discipline is almost always an essential attribute. It is what made the infamous Swiss and Landsknecht mercenaries so effective, (because a pike square is only good as long as it remains a square), it is what allowed King Richard to win at Arsouf (along with the effectiveness of the maille and shields worn by the Crusaders and the impetuosity of Saladin's soldiers) and it is also one of the key components in the lanced cavalry charge.

It alone, of course, does not make an army, but it really, really darn important.

Absolutely, but that was the point I was labouring to make. [i.e. that discipline is important and, contrary to what some sources seem to indicate, at a tactical level Knights, and perhaps Medieval Armies in general, were not lacking in discipline].

I agree with this statement very much, except for the rather generalised description of 'Westerners'.

Yeah, I was fumbling about for the right term at the time, but settled on a generic one.

As an aside: Sorry about my long absence, folks. Just moved into the University of Glasgow, and will be here for the next 4 years.

Welcome back! / Welcome to Britain?

You seem to equate armies of antiquity with the medieval era, when in fact they had very distinct social features. In antiquity, both early Roman and Greek, you had tribes and large extended families that were pretty much the basic unit, to my understanding. After the fall of Rome, the more fuedal system of warlord patrons came about. So while later a lord or general would outfit his troops to a greater or lesser extent (levies were still SOL), citizens of the polis were expected to provide their own arms. So while a soldier would have an extended family for support in terms of equipment, that extended family would have many sons to outfit, so it was not a bottomless reservoir of funds. Gear was very expensive and passed down for generations.

Okay, I happen to think that they are not all that very different at all, but for the sake of the cohesiveness of this argument I'm willing to stick to discussing Ancient Greece pre Peloponnesian War.
Do note, though, that Scipio, Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Crassus, Caesar, Augustus and so on... all actually had large parts to play in the funding of their armies and the equipping of their troops. If anything, the Marian reforms ushered in the era of the legtimate personal army at Rome or rather, the era of the Warlord. I don't view this as a break, though, but as a slight adjustment.

Further, before the Peloponesian war, yes, hoplites really did fight without support, or at least VERY little. That was one of the shocking attributes of the war, the failure of open hoplite battle to end the fighting and settle the dispute in an afternoon. This is why the Marian reforms were so startling, the notion that the state would provide gear instead of the soldier himself was somewhat unheard of.

What about at the battle of Platea (479 BC)? Herodotus tells us that there were at least as many Light Foot as Heavy Foot at that battle. Indeed, aside from the Spartans he suggests a one to one ratio of such troops.
The shocking thing about the peloponnesian war was not so much that Hoplite battle failed to end the war, but that the Athenians actively avoided seeking it for long periods.
The Marian reforms were no great shakes; warfare was always state funded, this was just an extension of that with an eye towards standardisation.

Also, you are missing a bit of logic inherent in my argument. The rich bought armor, because it kept them alive and they thought it was the best way to fight. Even the middle class fought as heavy infantry if possible. Hence even though all poor did not fight as missile troops, all missile troops were from the lower rungs of society. I am stating that their inability to buy better equipment such as armor and shield also meant they were unable to buy the best bows, perhaps leading to the general notion that bows were not too useful in warfare.

This is not a view I would take. Military Class was not determined by Equipment, wealth determined Military Class. A Low Class Citizen could have a full Hoplite Panoply and still not be admitted into the Phalanx. Similarily, a Middle Class Citizen could turn up with only Spear and Shield (and some no doubt did) and still be enrolled into the Phalanx.
What I mean is that Light Foot were not Light Foot because of the equipment they could afford, but because of their wealth determined class; they are not quite the same thing.
Also, Light and Heavy Foot are a bit misleading. People tend to think of Heavy meaning Heavily Armoured and Light as Lightly Armoured. The distinction between Heavy and Light Foot, though, is not primarily a matter of equipment, but of mode of combat. An individual with Spear and Shield could, perhaps, have equally served as a Hoplite or Peltast.
In short, I see no reason to think that the inability of an individual to provide a Hoplite Spear or Shield, let alone Body Armour, equates to him being unable to provide an effective Bow. How much did a Bow and a Quiver of Arrows cost relative to a Spear and Shield? Do we know the answer?

It also occurs to me that deficiencies in the mass production of quality arrow heads might lead to a lowered ability to penetrate armor of the period. Corinthian helms and the breast plates of the hoplites were made from ~.25" thick bronze, and were notoriously tough. Factor in a shield wall of very large round shields, and you have a force nearly impervious to arrow fire, at least from the front. The Romans might have had similar experiences, though their armor was lighter and more flexible. (The Romans certainly learned the value of bowmen later, however.) It is possible the concussive force of the sling stone carried through armor better than that of an arrow, should both fail to penetrate.

This will have to remain speculative; the extent to which an individual Hoplite was armoured, the quality of that armour, the composition of the Shield and the effect of weaponry are hotly contested and debated.

However, this is all getting a bit complicated, so I think some sort of untangling of the issues is necessary here.

Q1. Prior to the Pelponnesian War, did the Ancient Greeks despise the Bow?

Q2. Prior to the Pelponnesian War, did the Ancient Greeks make use of the Bow?

Q3. Was the War Bow employed [by non Hoplites] of inferior quality?

Wehrkind

2006-09-25, 04:38 PM

They -were- different. Those names you listed were post Marian reforms, when the poor were inducted into the heavy infantry and given state provided equipment, as well as lands and wealth from their commanders. That was a HUGE difference from how it was done previously, both in the kingdom era and the republic. Not only did it put the lower classes in equipment they could never have provided themselves, thus increasing their civic importance, it also shifted the soldier's loyalties from the Senate and Rome to their particular general who provided them with booty and security, exacerbating the civil wars that eventually caused the collapse of the republic. This was the beginning of what might be called the fuedal model, where professional troops owed loyalty and support to a leader who provided goods, rather than the previous model of troops being citizens first, and providing their own equipment and fighting based on what they could provide. You are really missing the significance of Marius' sweeping changes to the military if you ignore that. He has been credited for almost single handedly making the Roman army into the juggernaut that was able to conquer the world. (At least a lot of it.)

Platea was an aberration, where foriegn invaders and other Greeks attempted to take over the entire peninsula, not the usual fights between city states. Also, the entire battle is open to debate, as Herodotus' account is questionable in the extreme (159 Greek casualties vs 1360 described by Plutarch), and many historians question whether there were light troops at all on the Greek side.
And again, I am not saying they DID NOT USE BOWS. I am saying they were considered inferior to heavy infantry, and also to the sling apparently. The Greeks definitely did not consider light infantry the way to go, either for winning or "fighting properly" or living.
Also, a sarrisa (hoplite long spear) and a javalin (peltast's throwing spear) are VERY different things. You don't just switch between applications of the same item. Also, wearing the Greek panalopy definitely determined how you fought, and it wasn't as rapidly moving light infantry. Records describe soldiers tearing off their armor as they run, as it was too heavy to get away in. What equipment you could afford not only determined how you fought, but what rank you were in society to an extent.

As to the price of a bow and arrows vs a spear and shield, who knows? It is likely however that the best bows were expensive, and that the bows common to the lower classes were much less effective, even if sufficient to hunt etc. So while a cohesive unit of skilled bowmen with excellent bows might be roughly on par with a mediocre phalanx, it would seem that excellent bows were out of the hands of those who would use them in combat to the exclusion of other weapons.

I like bows too, but they were not the decisive arm of the military for some time, and apparently were not as useful as slings to many an anchient mind.

Your 3 questions are... well questionable... but I will answer them.

1) No, they did not dispise the bow; it was quite useful to hunt and great and powerful bows were handed down from father to son. It was, however, considered inferior in warfare, as archers can not stand against a charge of infantry or cavalry, and most likely was not going to punch through a large shield and armor. Hence, they were seen as weak and cowardly weapons, though it turns out they have a great many uses, something made painfully clear to the hoplites during the peloponesian war.

2) Yes, they used it for hunting, and it was used by those too poor to carry armor and melee weapons to fight. The sling was very popular too.

3) There is likely no such thing as a "war bow" as opposed to "the bow I use". Most lower class combatants would not be able to afford multiple bows for killing different things. They would use whatever weapon they had for killing rabbits and deer. Likely this weapon would not be of top quality; they are by definition poor, and not able to afford top quality. That is part of my explanation for why composit bows were so uncommon in the west. When combined with how difficult composits are to keep working in more humid climes, it makes a lot of sense that your average fellow would have a more durable and practical bow, good enough for killing soft targets, but perhaps lacking the power of the more fabulous bows of the rich and powerful.

Fhaolan

2006-09-25, 05:15 PM

Interesting. I need to do more research on ancient bows. I never considered the effect of climate on the development of bows, just the effect on the care and usage of bows. It makes a lot of sense that you can't develop or adopt composite bows until you develop a laminating glue capable of withstanding your climate.

Even when you have such a glue, the resulting bow would be extremely expensive due to the needed skills and knowledge of the bowyer.

In effect, that would mean that to create a nomad-style horsebow in England would cost far more than creating the exact same bow in Mongolia, because the glues would cost that much more to develop. And there would be a higher resistance to new bow designs (extreme recurves) due to the longer tradition of the existing self- and longbows.

Fascinating. I've always found the *development* of weapons to be far more interesting than the weapons themselves. :)

Matthew

2006-09-25, 05:42 PM

They -were- different.

As I said, I think their differences are exaggerated, but that's another debate.

Those names you listed were post Marian reforms.

I know. I was commenting on your 'after Rome fell' Warlords / Generals armed their troops; I was just pointing out that immediately after the reforms Generals were equipping their own troops and immediately prior to them they were too (as in the case of Scipio, the only name I listed before them).

when the poor were inducted into the heavy infantry and given state provided equipment, as well as lands and wealth from their commanders. That was a HUGE difference from how it was done previously, both in the kingdom era and the republic. Not only did it put the lower classes in equipment they could never have provided themselves, thus increasing their civic importance, it also shifted the soldier's loyalties from the Senate and Rome to their particular general who provided them with booty and security, exacerbating the civil wars that eventually caused the collapse of the republic. This was the beginning of what might be called the fuedal model, where professional troops owed loyalty and support to a leader who provided goods, rather than the previous model of troops being citizens first, and providing their own equipment and fighting based on what they could provide. You are really missing the significance of Marius' sweeping changes to the military if you ignore that. He has been credited for almost single handedly making the Roman army into the juggernaut that was able to conquer the world. (At least a lot of it.).

He has been credited with it, but it is not as cut and dry as all that; there is still debate:

Roman-Empire.Net/Army
To Marius are attributed some of the major reforms of the Roman Army. Yet his were the final touches to a process begun much earlier. Rome, and Rome's army in particular, by its very nature tended to resist any radical changes of direction. Far more it moved gradually.
Minor reforms of Gaius Gracchus had been such to make the state responsible for the supply of equipment and clothing to the legionaries and to forbid the enlistment of youths under seventeen.
Also the practice of filling in the ranks of depleted troops by raising extra troops and calling for voluteers from the so-called capite censi (meaning: head count), the Roman poor who owned no property, was common practice.
Marius however took the final step and opened the army to anyone who was poor, but fit and willing to fight. Rather than supplementing his ranks with the poor capite censi, he made an army out of them. These volunteers would sign up as soldiers for much longer periods then than the six years which conscripts had been obliged to serve. To these people drawn largely from the poor from the cities, being a soldier was a profession, a career, rather than a duty performed to Rome. Marius so created the first professional army Rome had ever had.
Marius, too, was careful to enlist experienced soldiers as well, by offering special inducements to veterans.
It was with this new army that Marius saved Italy from massive barbarian invasions by defeating the Germans at Aix-en-Provence and, together with Catulus, against the Cimbri at Vercellae.

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/army.html

As you can see, the changes may not have been as sweeping as we might imagine and, indeed, it is worth pointing out that there is an academic debate as to whether writers, following classical procedure, simply attributed these things to Marius because he was a famous general, much in the way Philip / Alexander are credited with the altering of Sarissa length.

Platea was an aberration, where foriegn invaders and other Greeks attempted to take over the entire peninsula, not the usual fights between city states. Also, the entire battle is open to debate, as Herodotus' account is questionable in the extreme (159 Greek casualties vs 1360 described by Plutarch), and many historians question whether there were light troops at all on the Greek side.

Are you quite serious? So, Herodotus' description of Marathon is okay, but Platea is not? Regardless of whether it was an abberation or not, the facilities to deploy both Light and Heavy Infantry were clearly there. What about the 5,000 cavalry that Thebes supplied the Persians with? Where did they come from? As far as I can see, things are simply not as cut and dry as you are implying.

And again, I am not saying they DID NOT USE BOWS. I am saying they were considered inferior to heavy infantry, and also to the sling apparently. The Greeks definitely did not consider light infantry the way to go, either for winning or "fighting properly" or living.

I know, in fact my first post in this debate entirely agreed with your view. The question, though, is did the Ancient Greeks use Light Infantry before the Peloponnesian War and did these Light Infantry employ Bows and / or Slings. I'm not saying that Hoplites fought battles with Bows.

Also, a sarrisa (hoplite long spear) and a javalin (peltast's throwing spear) are VERY different things. You don't just switch between applications of the same item. Also, wearing the Greek panalopy definitely determined how you fought, and it wasn't as rapidly moving light infantry. Records describe soldiers tearing off their armor as they run, as it was too heavy to get away in. What equipment you could afford not only determined how you fought, but what rank you were in society to an extent.

Yes, I know the Thrusting Spear and Javelin could be very different, I was admittedly being a bit trite. The point really, though, is that to function as a Hoplite all you needed was a Spear and Shield.
There is a vicious debate concerning the Greek Panoply and no agreement as to the extent to which any given Phalanx was armoured. Wealth and family determined what rank of society you were in. Your War Gear reflected that. You could not achieve social mobility by donning a Cuirass and picking up a Spear (at least not by only doing that).

As to the price of a bow and arrows vs a spear and shield, who knows? It is likely however that the best bows were expensive, and that the bows common to the lower classes were much less effective, even if sufficient to hunt etc. So while a cohesive unit of skilled bowmen with excellent bows might be roughly on par with a mediocre phalanx, it would seem that excellent bows were out of the hands of those who would use them in combat to the exclusion of other weapons.

Well, I would like to see some evidence for that. All I have ever heard about the Bow was that compared to other gear it was very cheap.

I like bows too, but they were not the decisive arm of the military for some time, and apparently were not as useful as slings to many an anchient mind.

Bows were never the decisive arm of any military, but the Long Bow is often touted as a 'super' weapon. The latter is what I am interested in; what is the evidence for the sling being considered superior? Aside from what Sun Dog has mentioned, I have heard nothing convincing.

Your 3 questions are... well questionable... but I will answer them.

1) No, they did not dispise the bow; it was quite useful to hunt and great and powerful bows were handed down from father to son. It was, however, considered inferior in warfare, as archers can not stand against a charge of infantry or cavalry, and most likely was not going to punch through a large shield and armor. Hence, they were seen as weak and cowardly weapons, though it turns out they have a great many uses, something made painfully clear to the hoplites during the peloponesian war.

Archers are very much a part of a combined arms force and like most unsupported groups, will get beaten when deployed by itself against a composite enemy. That is why Herodotus' description of Marathon is so interesting and why there are those who consider his whole account ludicrous.
Arrows don't have to 'punch' through armour to be effective. See the description of Crassus' ignominious defeat. However, I cannot stress enough that the penetrating power of Arrows and the protection afforded by armour is a vigorously contested field of research.

2) Yes, they used it for hunting, and it was used by those too poor to carry armor and melee weapons to fight. The sling was very popular too.

Fine.

3) There is likely no such thing as a "war bow" as opposed to "the bow I use". Most lower class combatants would not be able to afford multiple bows for killing different things. They would use whatever weapon they had for killing rabbits and deer. Likely this weapon would not be of top quality; they are by definition poor, and not able to afford top quality. That is part of my explanation for why composit bows were so uncommon in the west. When combined with how difficult composits are to keep working in more humid climes, it makes a lot of sense that your average fellow would have a more durable and practical bow, good enough for killing soft targets, but perhaps lacking the power of the more fabulous bows of the rich and powerful.

I know, I was using the term to be clear about what I meant. Without knowing the relative price of Bows to income I think you are making a very difficult argument here , especially when we are discusiing something as (so I am led to believe) inexpensive as a Bow.

The whole view that before the Peloponnesian War Greek Armies were only composed of one type of Hoplite smacks of untruth to me.
Indeed, it reminds me of [i]La Chanson de Roland, where all the many thousands of combatants ride horses and are Knights.
Is it merely coincidence that the Peloponnesian War is the first Greek War that we have really good sources for and the armies depicted are suddenly become composites? Just a rhetorical question, really.

Don't get me wrong, I can see what you're are saying, I just think there is a case to be made for an alternate view point

Dervag

2006-09-25, 08:13 PM

Man reckons 100,000 per 1000 man regiment, with around sixty as a quiver full - say roughly two quivers of fifty as an average. So the manouver described would cost the troops involved a quarter of their typical ammo load.
Put it another way - Hun troops could perhaps destroy an enemy of four times their size before even thinking about getting into hand-to-hand combat. And this rate of fire would not need to be kept up for long - just long enough to open a gap in the enemy lines for exploitation.
A proportion of the arrows would also be recovered for reuse after combat.My only problem with all this is:
If the Huns were so devastating in ranged combat, how did they ever lose a battle? We can be reasonably confident that there were thousands of Huns. If they could slaughter an army several times their size so easily, they should never have lost to anything that didn't have a very strong fortress to hold onto.

I don't think the Illiad really can be used as a basis for what the Greeks did in battle. Perhaps how they thought of battle, but considering the Iliad also shows heros galloping around in chariots to move around the battlefield, and we know that the Greeks did not do this by the Peloponesian war, their generals fighting in the phalanx instead, we can suppose that it is not exactly what was done by that time.It is clear that the Greeks didn't use chariots much by the time of the Peloponnesian War. But by that point, chariotry had been largely abandoned by advanced cultures all over the Mediterranean and Middle East.

The Iliad is a chronicle of Bronze Age warfare. Iron is almost unknown (bronze is mentioned many times more often than iron). The idea of actually riding horses into battle instead of using them to pull chariots in ancient Indo-European tradition is very new (see the way that the Hector and the Trojans are referred to for their horse-taming). The 'phalanx' concept was in its infancy. The Iliad does not make clear reference to soldiers fighting in phalanx- they use a mix of swords, spears, and thrown stones as their primary weapons.

By the time of the Peloponnesian War, the equation had changed entirely. Chariots were obsolete. Horse cavalry was common, though hard to train and vulnerable in pitched battles. Infantry formation fighting had been refined to a high art by the Greeks. Iron weapons and armor were now available, more common than bronze and tougher.

Further, we know that the Greeks tended to eschew seiges, the Spartans for instance were famous for sucking at them. Typically their mode of fighting was to go out in phalanx, line up on and open field, and crash into each other until one line breaks and panics. At least until the Peloponesian war changed all that.They could do that because farmland was scarce in Greece. If you let the enemy phalanx camp outside your walls, they'd burn down your crops and orchards and your city would starve. So you had to go out and fight a battle with them. Furthermore, the battles were being fought in the same lowland valleys where all the farming was done, so the Greeks invented a fighting style optimized for level ground despite living in some of the roughest country in Europe.

...as a model of heroism, it did not exactly condemn the use of the Bow in battle. The Bow is depicted as effemenite [sp?], but not as despicable.I think it's like this: the ancient Greeks (both in the Mycenean Iliad era and the classical Peloponnesian era) held that trying to avoid a fight was dishonorable. A real man would take his chances of getting hurt along with everybody else.

So if you were using a bow in a fight where others were mostly using melee or thrown weapons, that meant you were trying to avoid the fight by standing off and shooting your enemies from outside their range. That was dishonorable. But if you used a bow when your enemies were using bows too, or when you couldn't reach them otherwise (say because you're on the bottom of a wall and they're at the top), that was OK. Because then you were trying to join the fight by the only means available.

The Iliad is a fairly classic incident of the Greeks involved in siege works. After Marathon, Miltiades was involved in two sieges, according to Herodotus, one failed one against the Parians and one successful one against the Pelasgians. Sieges were fairly common as far as I know. I guess I would have to see more evidence before I would subscribe to the contrary view. In the Iliad, the Greeks don't systematically besiege Troy or try to reduce the walls. Instead, they just built their own fortified camp and wandered around the countryside for years, tearing up everything that the Trojans could use to sustain their resistance. This dovetails neatly with the strategy I described above- if your enemy does not come out of their walls and fight, you destroy their farms and satellite communities until they can't take it anymore and give up.

Indeed, but it does not follow that the Greeks despised the Bow, only that the richer Citizens despised the poorer for their lack of wealth.Ah, but then if a rich Citizen tries to use a bow in battle, all his buddies and relatives will laugh and say that he's fighting like a peasant. Which has the same effect. If bows become 'peasant weapons' in a culture with a strong aristocratic value system, then the rich will not use bows. Just as the rich won't eat with their fingers if they're supposed to use forks, or say "ain't" if they're supposed to say "isn't" or "are not." It simply isn't done, not on any kind of large-scale basis.

Poorer individuals did not operate in isolation from the wealthier ones. Certainly in Medieval and Roman times wealthier individuals equipped poorer ones, but only to the degree that they were well equipped for their function.What I'd note is that the poor are more likely to settle for what they can get.

If a composite bow costs several times as much as a self bow, the poor man is unlikely to get a composite bow. Even if he can convince his patron to give him a loan, he'd rather owe the patron a small amount of money for a simple bow instead of a massive sum of money for the best one he can get. By analogy, poor people today don't buy sports cars. Even if the bank were willing to loan them the money to buy a sports car, they wouldn't be likely to buy one. It's too expensive, and will put them too heavily in the debt of their creditor.

However, I was under the impression, correct me if I'm wrong, that in the British army during the height of the British empire; officers did in fact purchase their commissions, and all their equipment would be drawn from their own funds. However, I thought it was also expected that an officer would suppliment his mens' equipment from his own funds as well?No.
Officers in the Victorian era did indeed purchase their commissions to command a regiment. However, lower officer ranks were earned, as were ranks above that of regimental command. The entire British army was organized around regiments, so that was pretty important.

However, the equipment of British Army units was mass produced in major industrial arsenals to government specifications, and outfitted to the troops for free. The notable exception (I think) was cavalry horses; many cavalrymen used their own horses. But infantry firearms and 'kit' were government issue, and 'better' weapons were not for sale. Officers could outfit themselves more or less as they saw fit, but their wealth was neither sufficient in principle nor used in practice to outfit their men.

Fhaolan

2006-09-25, 10:14 PM

Just as the rich won't eat with their fingers if they're supposed to use forks, or say "ain't" if they're supposed to say "isn't" or "are not." It simply isn't done, not on any kind of large-scale basis.

Funny thing is, "ain't" was an upper-class affectation during the late Edwardian period in England. Odd that, isn't it? It was probably just to piss off their parents, just like most upper-class strange behaviour. :)

Subotei

2006-09-26, 06:57 AM

My only problem with all this is:
If the Huns were so devastating in ranged combat, how did they ever lose a battle? We can be reasonably confident that there were thousands of Huns. If they could slaughter an army several times their size so easily, they should never have lost to anything that didn't have a very strong fortress to hold onto. For a long period they basically didn't lose - and you're right that fortresses were their problem - they owned the countryside but could never challenge the fortified towns - Byzantium etc. Effectively a stalemate situation, but one which favoured the Romans as Atilla needed gold to keep his troops happy. Sometimes to win a war, rather than beat an enemy all you need to do is not loose and hope the opponent falls apart politcally (eg Vietnam, and obviously the tactic of the insurgents in Iraq)

Their problem was their loose tribal structure and their federation of allies, which meant they were riven with internal disputes, and required a strong leader to hold them together. When Attilla died they basically descended into infighting and their threat dissolved. A situation the politcally astute Romans hastened.

At Chalons - the major battle which is percieved to have ended the Hun threat to western Europe - the Hun army was not what it once was, as their force was made up mainly of Hun and allied foot troops, and would've probably resembled that of the Roman/Visigoth opposition quire remarkably. The change has been put down to the lack of space once in Europe to maintain enough horses for their needs - each mounted troop would need a phenomenal number of remounts to stay effective. Once out of the open steppe their advantage would dwindle and horses would become a possession of a smaller elite, as was the case in most of Europe.

Also the damper climate may have had an effect on the efficiency their bows, as has been mentioned previously in the thread. Hard to quantify the effect though, and damp/wet conditions have an effect on all types of bows. Reducing the killing range of thier bows would mean they would have to come closer to the enemy to engage them, increasing the risk of counterfire and counter charges from the enemy. Reports indicate that the majority of their mounted troops and horses were lightly armoured so a close approach would be risky.

Wehrkind

2006-09-26, 04:09 PM

Ahh, good, Fhaolan understands what I am getting at. Yes, composite bows were known. No, they were not cheap or common in the moist west. I further suspect that is why some special bows, Odysseus' in the Odessey comes to mind, we noted for being of special construction. If all bows were the same, or of commonly high quality at least, one wouldn't bother mentioning how one in particular was made.

I think you should have read a little farther on that web page Matthew. It goes on to describe just how sweeping the changes really were. (It also makes 0 mention of Roman bows, saying they used Eastern Archers.)

Also, I didn't say anything about Herodotus' description of Marathon. I wasn't even aware you had edited your posts to say anything about it. All I was saying is that people do not agree on the numbers and description of the battle, and that it was not the typical "lets line up and stab at each other" fights of normal Greek city to city fighting.

In answer to your question "Did the Greeks use light infantry before the Peloponesian war?" the answer is obviously "Yes, to a greater or lesser extent." There are always going to be some light troops in any conflict. Did they consider them useful? Apparently not. Were they always present at battles? It would seem to be a good possibility they were not. It is entirely possible you either showed up with at least a spear and shield, or you didn't show up. Most Greek battles were not large campaigns but rather short affairs where lines were drawn up at an appointed time and place agreeable to both sides, who fought for a few hours untl one side broke. They didn't maneuver, there was no worry about supply beyond what to eat on the way there and back. They showed up, fought over a border or the like, then went home.

Archers don't require combined arms to fight them, just either infantry with good formation discipline and large shields, or cavalry. Both are nice, but not required. Archers just can not hold ground, but rather have to hit and run when faced with serious attackers who can either defend against their attacks while moving (shields) or just out maneuver the archers and assault (cav). Keep in mind Thermopylae (I think I mispelled that...) featured swarms of Persian archers who seemed to have difficulty doing truly serious damage to the Greeks assembled. Whether this was due to terrain, equipment or what have you, they were unable to shake the Greeks loose, eventually requiring a costly assault.

You did not get upward mobilty by donning a shield and spear, but it was the first step, and required. If you could afford to get the gear and fought for the polis, you were held in esteem.

Now, I would agree that a general bow would be much cheaper than other gear. Metal was expensive relatively speaking, and armor is always pretty salty. Plus bows have the advantage of being somewhat universal, since a great many people use them to hunt. The question though is how much various types of bow cost relative to each other. I really don't see how anyone would use self bows or long bows if composit bows worked as well and were as inexpensive in the more moist western climes.

Now, all I am saying is that the fact the missile weapons were the purview lower escelons (I know I misplled that) might result in lesser quality bows than might be available otherwise. Just as Dervag really hit on the head with his car example (I was thinking of the same thing last night considering how to explain it.) Everyone has a car (more or less) but poor people don't drive Jaguars and Hummers, they drive Corollas and Jettas. If a Corrolla was your basis for comparison, you might not be really impressed with how well a car compred to a big rig, say.

I also note that the Japanese yumi seems to be a non-composit construction. Can anyone go into detail on that? I am curious why they don't use the composite type, being so close to the land of it's inception, and having lots of cultural and material imports from the mainland. (To be fair, I am still pretty mystified about why they did a lot of what they did.)

Matthew

2006-09-26, 05:33 PM

Well, the prevailance of the Composite Bow is exactly the question. All of the Bows described in the Iliad are of Composite construction, as far as I know. I know exactly what you are getting at, but there is a total absence of knowledge about what were the prevailant Bow forms in Ancient Greece. As far as I can see, they didn't use Self Bows (I would be interested in any evidence to the contrary).

I did read the entire Web site, but I only quoted the relevant parts; that's why I posted the link. I did study Marius long ago, which is why I remembered there was an alternate view of his reforms. It is the interpretation I am inclined towards at the moment.

I did indicate at the top of the post that you must have read that I had gone back to the other posts to edit them to respond to previous posts.

What is the evidence for Hoplites showing up to battles without Light Infantry to support them during the Fifth Century BC? The Sixth? The Seventh? As far as I can tell Marathon is the primary example, closely followed by Thermopylae. As far as I can see, the image of the Hoplite 'going it alone' is as romanticised as Medieval armies composed only of Knights. The servants who follow them and perform military functions are simply ignored. I am interested in the answer, though, I'm trying not to be close minded.

You are missing what I am saying about Combined Arms forces. They almost always defeat armies with a single arm. That is why Marathon is so interesting, especially when Herodotus says the Persians could not conceive of an attack unsupported by Cavalry or Archers (translation, mind).

Thermopylae is very interesting indeed, as Herodotus gives quite a lot of information concerning the composition of the Persian forces and which were involved in the fighting. The equipment of the Medes and Persians, the troops involved, was Body Armour, Bows, Short Spears, Shields and Daggers, according to Herodotus. He makes no mention of them employing Arrows at all until the final defeat of the Hoplites. In fact, he points out that the Hoplites were at an initial advantage because of their Long Spears. What Herodotus doesn't mention until a short passage later is the presence of Helots at this battle on, perhaps, a 1:1 basis, depending on your inclination. Herodotus is writing a literary work intended for glorification, not a rational history and his failure to mention Light Infantry in several major battles may be a symptom of that.

As for the prevailance of Bows. I am actually not inclined to think that Bows played a major part in Greek on Greek warfare, much more likely is the Javelin. However, I do not rule it out and I am yet to encounter any evidence that would suggest the Bow of the Lower Class would be less effective than that of the higher, whether composite or not.

It is worth mentioning that in the same passage that Herodotus describes the Persian host (7.61-80) he describes both Self Bows and Composite Bows as signifiers of national groupings.

The army that Gelon, Tyrant of Syracuse, offers to the Greeks in Herodotus in 7.158 is pretty interesting with regard to all this:

200 Triremes, 20,000 Hoplites, 2,000 Cavalry, 2,000 Archers, 2,000 Slingers, 2,000 Light Cavalry.

Now admittedly, he is not strictly Greek (though at this juncture the Athenians and Spartans are willing to consider Sicily Pan-Hellene) and he is very powerful, but it is nonetheless a very interesting occurence.

On the poor not spending beyond their means thing, I think that is a poor analogue. Especially considering the prices the supposed modern 'poor' are willing to spend on designer trainers and the like. ;) Of course, how poor is poor? Land owning? Labourer?

Japanese Long Bows (Yumi) are very confusing. Modern ones seem to have a *very* low pull. We were discussing it in the last thread.

Fhaolan

2006-09-26, 05:37 PM

I further suspect that is why some special bows, Odysseus' in the Odessey comes to mind, we noted for being of special construction. If all bows were the same, or of commonly high quality at least, one wouldn't bother mentioning how one in particular was made.

This might be true, but it is a relatively dangerous assumption. In Celtic and Anglo-Saxon myths, for example, mundane objects might get described in excruciating detail for reasons only known to the bards/skalds themselves. They are very fond of describing hero's weapons and armor, and every bite of food they eat, no matter how common they are. I remember one tale of Cuchalain that when written out has the description of him putting on his armor lasting three pages, while the actual battle took about one page.

Not to say you're wrong here, just that it may not be a valid assumption. :)

Edit: Actually, to further reinforce your point, though... I have a vague recollection of some Norse references to a bow that was described as being made of whale bone, sinew, and horn. From that description, it was probably composite. However, in the story the bow was treated as the most precious object the weilder owned, being of value approximately equal to a longship of not more so. I wish I still had those references, as that would lend credence to your theory.

Wehrkind

2006-09-26, 06:26 PM

I know what you mean about combined arms forces faring better than one trick armies. What I am saying is that if someone doesn't know that as theory, they might say "An archer unit can not stand against heavy infantry, nor against cavalry. Therefore, they must be weak." I see that in the SCA (shudders at applying SCA to real world...) when it comes to spear vs sword and board. 1 spear vs 1 shield usually results in a spearman with a head ache. Probably 90% of the time. (We are talking 2 handed spears by the way, 9 feet long.) However, 3 spears vs 3 shields is a VERY different story, almost always resulting in the opposite outcome, so long as the spearmen are decent at working together. So while not true, many people unfamiliar with large scale combat think a spear (or long pole arm) is inferior to a sword and shield since 1v1 the shield usually wins.

I agree that anchient writers were often questionable. I will have to check Hanson's references he cites in A War Like No Other when I dig it out of it's moving box. You really should read it though, very interesting. I do know the Sicillians were known for their surprisingly pervasive use of cavalry, using it to defeat the Athenians.

One thing though, I don't see how the poor population's bows wouldn't be worse than the elites. There are vast differences in the amount of workmanship required for various types of bows, and considering that the degree of functionality does not always increase linearly with the price, and indeed there is a low threshold of "good enough", it seems to me that there would be plenty of low end bows that someone who was low on funds could get. There are always degrees of functionality in man made items, particularly if there are people willing to pay a lot more for a little more gain. Look at any given tool or weapon today, and I can show you a way to spend WAY more money than you need to on it, as well as getting a similar item cheap.

So, given that there are expensive and cheap versions of an item such as a bow, one can look at the different types and extrapolate which is probably which. Given that self bows exist at all, one can probably assume they are cheap, since they under perform composits, and are simple to make. If they were equally or more expensive, then no one would own one. So one just has to guage where in the scheme of things these items fall, considering other issues like ease of use, durability in the climate etc. [huge speculation] Considering that most bows mentioned that are of horn etc are spoken of in reverence and as though they are hand me downs, they are probably rather expensive and rare. [/huge speculation]

Matthew

2006-09-26, 07:14 PM

Check out the Wikipedia Yumi entry and be sure to read the discussion. The weapon was a composite of Leather, Wood and Bamboo; apparently, in modern times, any Yumi with a pull of over 45 lbs is considered strong, but I don't know what the upper limit might be... [Edit: ah, found a reference to a 90 lb Yumi, sounds reasonable]

Yumi Wikipedia Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yumi)
Long Article (http://www.fightingarts.com/reading/article.php?id=393)
Short Article (http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_denig_0301.htm)
Short History (http://www.taots.co.uk/content/view/19/28/)
Possible Asymmetrical Explanation (http://eclay.netwiz.net/translat/kyudo.htm)
Shinto and Kyudo (http://www.atarn.org/japanese/shinto.htm)

Vazzaroth

2006-09-27, 12:24 AM

Thank you to those that responded to my Claymore Question. It stemed off an arguement I had with my DM about historical swords. :-/

And yes, I realize the sword I bought was a replica (I guess my father did not however, he could not understand why some of the swords there costed 45$ and others cost 175$) and it is in the Highland style with an angled crossguard. I plan on purchasing a histirically accurate two-handed sword sometime in my life, but it's out of my budget for now, I'll just have to stick to nice looking replicas.

Subotei

2006-09-27, 05:04 AM

Pilum

2006-09-28, 11:27 AM

Well Vazzaroth, when you have the money, and more time than I do ;), here's a page of links to traders currently supplying the UK reenactment scene.
http://www.histrenact.co.uk/histrenact/traders/mainpage.php

Not always cheap and I can't vouch for all of them (it's a pity Bailiff Forge closed its doors, I've got a fantastic 17th C rapier from him, a delightfully crafted weapon) and I don't know what the import/export policy is, but it could give you a place to start.

Some nice piccies on there, if nothing else :)

Mistborn

2006-09-28, 12:47 PM

There has been a lot of bow discussion here, and I'd like--if I may--to throw a slightly different question into the mix. (And, if this has been discussed already in the thread, I apologize. I scanned through it and didn't see anything, but this is quite the large thread!)

Q: I see a lot about using a bow in large-scale combat, but one question I've always had is did people in earlier times look at the bow with any of the same feelings we regard guns? You see in movies (yeah, I know) people sometimes using a bow to hold someone captive. A kind of "Stick 'em up" philosophy.

I'd never use something like that in a book, but I do wonder. Would any type of city guard consider carrying bows? Would they be useful in shooting toward a fleeing captive? Are they a weapon you could have 'on hand' to use in a situation like that, or would the preparation required (stringing them, keeping them dry, that sort) keep them from being used in such a way?

And, even if it was possible, did people even regard them like that?

(Guess I'm just worried about the "Bow=Gun" mentality that a lot of writers seem to have. I would like to know the basis, if any, for this sort of thing.)

Raum

2006-09-28, 01:02 PM

By "city guard" do you mean those patrolling the streets for crime (police) or the militia used against raids and bandits?

I don't know of any instances where "police" type guards have made extensive use of bows. A simple cudgel is more likely. Remember, the policeman needs the capability of taking out unruly characters with less than deadly force. Additionally, the bow simply isn't nearly as useful in limited space as it is outside of town. Even outside of buildings, the streets were narrow and not necessarily straight. Inside a longbow would be awkward at best, and I'm not sure a shorter bow would be much better. In a normal sized room you're already in reach of a swordman. And finally, the rulers may not want police to have effective weapons. This does depend on the times and customs of society though...while denied weapons in some eras and places, others limited sports to archery and made other sports illegal to ensure a populace capable of using the bow.

Mistborn

2006-09-28, 01:08 PM

Sorry--I realize this one is hard to explain. I'm trying to sort out exactly in my own mind what I mean.

Sometimes, in my writing, I am tempted to have someone whip out a bow ala the way you see in Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves or even Legolas in LotR. Close combat, trying to shoot down someone who is fleeing, or even do a "Drop your weapons" type thing. I generally resist--not because I think it isn't accurate, but because I really don't know.

I don't want to be one of those authors who is always getting things wrong when it comes to the way real weapons work. So, I try to do research, but this is one question I've never satisfactorily been able to answer. How did people regard bows? If someone pulled one up and knocked an arrow in close quarters, would you drop your weapons--or would you treat them like they were wielding any other weapon and attack.

We have a psychological fear of guns. Even the best trained marksmen miss over half the time at close range with a handgun. If you had a sword and were facing a guy with a glock on the street, chances are good that you'd be better off just attacking (assuming you could get to him in a reasonable amount of time.) However, psychologically, we stop and put our hands up when even threatened. (Or, at least, that seems to be the mentality.)

Mike_G

2006-09-28, 01:17 PM

I think being trheatened with a bow or crossbow would be incentive to drop one's sword, assuming your enemy was outside your reach.

Bows would be perfectly suitable for shooting down a fleeing captive. Nice broad back, no chance to duck.

The time to string one, or even just to draw an arrow, nock it draw the bow and aim, means it's not a quick weapon and would be a poor choice for close combat. Most swordsmen could probably cover fifty feet and stab you by the time you went from "Bow Strung in Hand," to "Loosing Arrow."

Fhaolan

2006-09-28, 01:20 PM

Q: I see a lot about using a bow in large-scale combat, but one question I've always had is did people in earlier times look at the bow with any of the same feelings we regard guns? You see in movies (yeah, I know) people sometimes using a bow to hold someone captive. A kind of "Stick 'em up" philosophy.

I'd never use something like that in a book, but I do wonder. Would any type of city guard consider carrying bows? Would they be useful in shooting toward a fleeing captive? Are they a weapon you could have 'on hand' to use in a situation like that, or would the preparation required (stringing them, keeping them dry, that sort) keep them from being used in such a way?

And, even if it was possible, did people even regard them like that?

(Guess I'm just worried about the "Bow=Gun" mentality that a lot of writers seem to have. I would like to know the basis, if any, for this sort of thing.)

One issue is that there are two types of modern attitudes towards guns. One is the 'tool' attitude. This is a hunting tool, a military tool, etc. The other the 'symbolic' attitude. This gun proves I'm a bad-ass, this gun gives me power over you, etc.

From my research, the bow and crossbow were far more the 'tool' than the 'symbol'. The sword was the symbolic weapon, on average, although some cultures put the spear into that category as well.

In Medieval Europe, and before, the bow took a lot of training and experience to use effectively. Guns are far easier and faster to use, with minimal training required until you get into the more complex guns. Bows also require a high level of care and maintenace, and should not be kept strung unless you have a reasonable chance of immediate need. Crossbows are not as bad as bows, because they can be made with rougher treatment in mind, but the reload rate makes them definately not-gun-like.

There are references to highwaymen using crossbows similarly to the way later period highwaymen using guns. There are also references to them using bows, but I've noticed that it only appears to happen when there are multiple highwaymen (such as the ubiquidous Robin Hood and his merry men).

As for shooting down fleeing captives, remember that prisoners were treated far worse then than they are now. Prisoners would not be allowed outside the dungeon without being completely shackeled in iron, and that would only be on the way to their execution. No prisoner would be allowed beyond the reach of the guard's club/blade/whatever and if they did move as if to go beyond that range, they would be struck down by the guard. There would be no 'oh, let's see if they turn around first', no 'oh look, he's running', it's 'he moved, he dies.'

EDIT: Reply to Mike_G:

In the time it takes an armored person to cover fifty feet, I can put two arrows into him/her. With additional practice, I think I could get three. All provided that I have ample time to set myself up before he starts running. i.e, the bow is strung, one arrow is nocked, another arrow is in my stave-holding hand in such a way that I can nock and pull in one smooth motion, and another arrow is in my teeth or stuck into the ground in such a way that I know the exact nock alignment when I grab it. That last arrow is the hardest, and even with more practice, I doubt I could get more than a partial pull on the bow which means I'd have to hit an unarmored spot.

Of course, the chances that I'd have this kind of time to set up like this is pretty much nill, but it's an interesting experiment. The group I work with actually does this as part of our performance. :)

Matthew

2006-09-28, 02:07 PM

Just an addendum. Prison conditions varied from circumstance to circumstance; certain prisoners were kept very well in conditions similar to House Arrest, but these were more hostages than prisoners. In the overwheklming majority of cases conditions appear to have been harsh.

Covering somebody with a Bow for long periods would be quite a strain, much moreso than simply standing by with Spear or Sword. However, the mechanism involved is still fear, rather than physical force, so it is entirely subjective. A Cross Bow might have been another matter, but for what it's worth, I think a Spear or Sword would have been the weapon of choice for keeping someone under guard.

Mistborn

2006-09-28, 02:36 PM

I just remember some episode of a fantasy series where a barkeeper reached under the counter and pulled out a crossbow, like it was a sawed-off shotgun he kept under there to threaten unruly bar patrons.

Something about the scene just seemed so wrong to me. But, I could be projecting.

So, another question for the gurus. I assume you have read fantasy novels or seen movies that treat weapons terribly wrong. What are some of the big mistakes you see us guys doing? What sets your teeth on edge when you see it? (Relating to the use of weapons and armor, of course.)

Lapak

2006-09-28, 03:22 PM

I just remember some episode of a fantasy series where a barkeeper reached under the counter and pulled out a crossbow, like it was a sawed-off shotgun he kept under there to threaten unruly bar patrons.

Something about the scene just seemed so wrong to me. But, I could be projecting.I imagine that even if a bartender could afford and was allowed by law to have a crossbow, keeping it loaded and fully wound all the time would be bad for it.

Fhaolan

2006-09-28, 05:02 PM

*chuckle* You do kinda need to wind and load a crossbow only when you intend to use it. Bolts/quarrels have a tendency to fall off them when they're moved around too violently, and the triggers tend to be sensitive enough that they can go off accidentally very easily. At least, that's with the RL experience I've had with crossbows. They weren't top-of-the-line ones by far, so a better crossbow might be better for that. :)

Things that tick me off in movies:

Edge blocking. Blocking with the edge of your blade is a hold-over from when movie swordmasters were trained in modern fencing. Epees, foils, and smallswords (from which most modern fencing evolved) have no 'edge' as such, being triangular or v-shaped in cross-section. Everything's point-work. When they started to use broadswords in Holywood, they tried to use them like epees. Someone got it into their head that blocking with the edge gives the strength of the width of the blade against the blow. With the thick aluminum broadswords that they tended to use, that almost makes sense. With a real sword, that's a very thin steel edge that gets very badly damaged with an edge-block. To the point that if there is any flaw or crystalization in the steel the blade will shear off due to micro-fractures.

Full Plate Immobility: If the armor doesn't fit properly, you are in fact struggling with the armor. If it fits properly, you should be able to do cartwheels in full plate armor. Anyone who can afford to get full plate can afford to have it made right.

Gigantic horses: Modern draft horses have increased in size measurably in the last hundred years. Yes, warhorses were big. No, they weren't *that* big. Even comparing American versus European draft horses today will show that the American ones are a almos a full hand taller on average than the ones from European bloodlines, and are definately heavier all round.

Gunpowder: The world knew about black powder for many, many years before the first cannon was built. Black powder made a very nice bang (firecracker), but it takes a lot of effort to get enough of the stuff in a quality necessary to make a real explosive without blowing your own hand off. Which makes it expensive.

Even then, cannon was used on the battlefield years before most people realize. Why didn't cannons immediately revolutionize the battlefield? Because cannons that didn't just explode themselves were very hard to make, very difficult to control, and were very expensive.

Stupidity: Okay, this one is a bit more generic. For some reason that escapes me, people from the past are portrayed as stupid. On a regular basis I get asked "Why didn't they just do X?" Why didn't they just make swords out of titanium? [Because titanium makes a sucky sword.] Why didn't they always strap a shield onto their back and front? [They did, and they even formed them to fit your body! It's called a breast and back. i.e. a breastplate and a backplate.] Some movies even play this one out, with some 'genius' building seige tanks out of wood or rapid firing artillery. Cute, but ultimately annoying. No, our ancestors weren't stupid. They didn't do X because X probably doesn't work or it would have been too expensive to make it worth while.

Mike_G

2006-09-28, 05:22 PM

EDIT: Reply to Mike_G:

In the time it takes an armored person to cover fifty feet, I can put two arrows into him/her. With additional practice, I think I could get three. All provided that I have ample time to set myself up before he starts running. i.e, the bow is strung, one arrow is nocked, another arrow is in my stave-holding hand in such a way that I can nock and pull in one smooth motion, and another arrow is in my teeth or stuck into the ground in such a way that I know the exact nock alignment when I grab it. That last arrow is the hardest, and even with more practice, I doubt I could get more than a partial pull on the bow which means I'd have to hit an unarmored spot.

Of course, the chances that I'd have this kind of time to set up like this is pretty much nill, but it's an interesting experiment. The group I work with actually does this as part of our performance. :)

I was going with the "bow in the hand, all your arrows in the quiver" kind of setup, which would be the most aggressive I could see for a city watch patrol. I can't see patroling with an arrow nocked, short of actual combat patrol, no like a city watch situation.

I can't see many people getting an arrow out, nocked, drawing and aiming and loosing in the time I can run up and samck them with a sword or axe. Even if they got off one shot, it would be a hurried shot.

Fhaolan

2006-09-28, 05:59 PM

I was going with the "bow in the hand, all your arrows in the quiver" kind of setup, which would be the most aggressive I could see for a city watch patrol. I can't see patroling with an arrow nocked, short of actual combat patrol, no like a city watch situation.

I can't see many people getting an arrow out, nocked, drawing and aiming and loosing in the time I can run up and samck them with a sword or axe. Even if they got off one shot, it would be a hurried shot.

Very true, which is why I put my disclaimer it 'Only if I can prepare ahead of time'. :)

Which makes archers good for guards on towers and other fixed locations that are hard to get to or have *lots* of forewarning for whatever reason. Otherwise, a guard with a bow is pretty useless. :)

Subotei

2006-09-28, 06:32 PM

Gunpowder: The world knew about black powder for many, many years before the first cannon was built. Black powder made a very nice bang (firecracker), but it takes a lot of effort to get enough of the stuff in a quality necessary to make a real explosive without blowing your own hand off. Which makes it expensive.Gunpowder filled ceramic catapult ammunition was used in China way before cannons. Fitted with a fuse which was lit before it was fired (I believe from hand powered trebuchets) they hopefully exploded like a frag grenade somewhere near the enemy. Given these must've been unbelievably dangerous to handle and use they must've been effective to be used in any serious quantity.

Edmund

2006-09-28, 06:38 PM

Alright, hold on.... I sincerely do not buy the idea of categoric Hunnic victory by prolonged arrow barrage. That just seems silly.

I mean, look at other bow-loving peoples: The Saljuk Turks, the Cumans/Qipchaks/Pechenegs (they have many names), and the Mongols. In all of these cases, arrowfire was never the sole method of attack during warfare. In the case of the Mongols and Cumans, as is the case with all steppe peoples, cavalry archery was the primary method of warfare. But this did not make it inherently superior. As shown by the Mongol defeat of the Rus' force at Kalka, and again at the Muscovite defeat of Mamai's Horde at Kulikovo, not to mention the defeat of the Byzantines at Manzikert, that it was always hand-to-hand combat which killed more than anything else. Archery is very good for a number of things. It makes soldiers break formation, or breaks formation by killing a few soldiers. It will do a great job of killing horses (as Arsouf and Agincourt show). It will, on occasion, score a lucky hit (Harry Hotspur).

Shields alone, however, provide a very effective defence against them, and when combined with good back and limb defences it becomes an even less effective method of killing. It is immeasurably important, however, in disruption of troop formation or killing of particularly vulnerable, close-knit targets (Swiss pike squares, anyone?). There is also a very deep, often understated psychological impact that being showered with arrows has.

As for shooting these bows at a shallow angle, this was done, but only at very close ranges because, generally, the enemy that you are trying to shoot is charging straight at you. This means that you can either a) Try and hit his horse at ranges too close for you to get off more than a single arrow, which is highly unlikely to kill the animal, not to mention that, even if you did, there's another cavalryman right behind this one, b) turn tail and hide behind someone with a spear, or c) get out your sword and buckler/simple polearm and try to fight.

There are definitely exceptions to this rule, the most important being Agincourt, in which French men-at-arms on foot were pelted with arrows at close range because they were having trouble travelling through the stakes set up by the longbowmen.

Crossbows/arbalests are a rather different matter for two reasons: The first is their power compared to the bow. They are, especially with steel-prodded arbalests, more powerful than bows. What is most important about them, however, is their angle of fire. Because while bows produce a 'rain' of arrows, crossbows have a distinct inability to be fired in this manner. As such, they are always fired approximately horizontal or downward in the case of a siege, allowing for a higher concentration of projectiles to hit a single person and, given the more powerful nature of crossbows, hopefully kill them.

A quick note on keeping crossbows cocked: Bad, bad, bad idea. You would have to arrange it so that the firing lever was never pushed, and that would require some awkward storage, not to mention that it would provide for some serious wear on the prod, and would also have an impact on the bowstring itself, near the nut.

Phew!! I hope all that makes sense.

Oh, and Fhaolan, about gunpowder: Alot of the problem with it originally was that the recipe for it did not have the proper ratios of charcoal (carbon) to saltpetre to sulphur. The first evidence that I know of for really good ratios of these comes around in the 1400s from a Hussite manuscript. So there had obviously been some great improvements.

Since you're on the topic of things that bug you, Fhaolan, and somewhat expanding on your 'tanks out of wood' thing, is Leonardo da Vinci. I quite frankly am sick of the unwarranted praise he receives. He was neither ahead of his time nor particularly innovative, and he was a hack besides.

Case-in-point: His tank.

It would be a highly ineffective and predictable vehicle, slow moving and very hard to control. Its weapons have very little mode of angulation, and so this would only be of use on a very flat battlefield. Its wheelbase is too close to the centre of the vehicle, and its chassis is too low to the ground to allow it to surmount anything but the gentlest of hills. Its payload of cannonballs and gunpowder would be very dangerous in such an enclosed space. It would be hot and poorly aerated, as any kind of breathing ports for the crew could quite easily be used as murderholes by any opportunistic enemy with a spear.

The recoil of the internal cannons would prove very hard to control. Furthermore, the possibility of a direct hit from enemy heavy cannonfire is never fully addressed. True, the sides are sloped and armoured, but the armour would prove heavy, and in all likelyhood too much of a burden to maintain any sort of movement unless it was only designed for the deflection of smaller arms fire.

Leonardo's tank is just so terribly impractical it makes my head hurt.

He was no military engineer. He made novelties, at best, he stole ideas from other inventors. He was a good artist (though not great) and he had a good understanding of the natural world.

Mike_G

2006-09-28, 06:55 PM

Projectile motion is projectile motion. The use or longbows as a long range barrage of steep angled shooting is a matter of tactics, not physics.

You can arc a crossbow bolt as easily as an arrow. It may be a bit harder to aim than a bow when poiinted 45 degrees up, but it will work. You just need to practice that way, and have a reliable way to spot and correct where your shots land.

I've seen and talked to Marines who have fired machine guns indirectly, hitting targets on the other side of a hill. If you have someone in a position to spot and direct fire, it's not that tough.

Edmund

2006-09-28, 07:09 PM

Well, I doubt the issue is arcing it, as I know that is done with bullets. The issue is probably somewhere between 'keeping the bolt in the groove' and 'keeping the bolt on target'. I also have a feeling that since a shower of bolts would be much more intermittent, it would lack the great psychological impact of an arrow shower.

I have to do a double-check on sources, but I am quite certain that crossbows were never fired at the angles that bows were, though I am unsure of the reason, per se.

Edit: I should also say that my suggestions as to why crossbows were fired at a comparatively shallow angle are merely wild postulations without any real basis, and should be treated as such.

Mike_G

2006-09-28, 07:29 PM

I concede that a "rain" of bolts would only be around one per archer per miute, so more of a light drizzle of bolts, and that you can aim a bow at a 45 degree angle and still see your target, while the crossbow obscures your vision more, and you lose any aim point from your eye to the bolt's point to the target, but my physics brain seizes when I hear how bows shoot in a arc and crossbows shoot flat.

A friend of mine who designs grenade launchers and machine guns for General Dynamics by day and builds crossbows (fairly well reseacrhed, historically accurate ones) as a hobby has demonstrated that you can shoot bolts in an arc, and a side mounted sight which may never have been developed by could be with medieval tech, you can do it very accurately.

Subotei

2006-09-28, 07:44 PM

Alright, hold on.... I sincerely do not buy the idea of categoric Hunnic victory by prolonged arrow barrage. That just seems silly. I never said it was prolonged - a quarter of your ammo gone inside a minute of battle doesn't make for prolonged barrages. High intensity attacks for brief peroids I can believe.

In the case of the Mongols and Cumans, as is the case with all steppe peoples, cavalry archery was the primary method of warfare. But this did not make it inherently superior.True - all war is a massive game of scissors, paper, stone, with one tactic or weapons briefly successful until someone comes up with a way of trumping it. That is one of my pet hates about the range of weapons in D&D - they span such a wide range of historical development. Roman troops (basically shortsword armed) would look destinctly under-armed if put up against a medieval knights with greatswords. But then they were separated by 1000 years or so of weapon development.

it was always hand-to-hand combat which killed more than anything else. Archery is very good for a number of things. It makes soldiers break formation, or breaks formation by killing a few soldiers. It will do a great job of killing horses I quite agree - breaking formations would be the prime aim of such an intense barrage, as I mentioned. The follow-up would win the battle.

Shields alone, however, provide a very effective defence against them, and when combined with good back and limb defences it becomes an even less effective method of killing Not too sure I agree with you on that point - at 50-100m their bows were able to penetrate half an inch of wood. Also shields are not 100% cover and in RL even a non-fatal arrow to the arm or leg would mostly likely take you out of the battle. Keep in mind also the poor state of the Roman Army in the later period - I think it is Vegetius that mentions putting the troops with good armour in the front rank - the inference being the majority had poor or little armour at all.

Matthew

2006-09-28, 08:06 PM

Not too sure I agree with you on that point - at 50-100m their bows were able to penetrate half an inch of wood. Also shields are not 100% cover and in RL even a non-fatal arrow to the arm or leg would mostly likely take you out of the battle. Keep in mind also the poor state of the Roman Army in the later period - I think it is Vegetius that mentions putting the troops with good armour in the front rank - the inference being the majority had poor or little armour at all.

I think that might be under perfect conditions and assuming a direct hit, though? Modern tests of Body Armour / Shield penetration are notoriously varied and highly contested. It is a *really* big problem. It's also worth mentioning that penetrating a Shield is not the same as wounding the guy holding it, but you are right, it is not one hundred percent proof. Arrows wounded and killed people; the more Arrows, the more people are wounded and killed. The more men in Armour and bearing Shields the less casualties. In what proportions? Well, who knows? The Huns were successful, the reasons are likely to be many and varied.
I do recall something like that in Vegetius, but I couldn't find reference to it just now. The thrust of his argument in general is that everybody ought to wear Body Armour and, if possible, carry a Shield. His claims that 'modern' soldiers do niether of these things are often attacked; he might be just saying so for rhetorical effect, he might be mistaken or he might be right. It's hard to say. However, even in earlier periods there were plenty of unarmoured Romans, maybe even some in the Heavy Infantry, depending on your point of view.
That the Hunnish Bow was a 'Battle Winner' I wouldn't be prepared to support. That the Huns were 'Battle Winners' I probably would, but then they were a confederation of many different peoples by the end, each presumably with its own mode of fighting (some no doubt similar, others likely dissimilar). People always want to look to one primary cause for explaning things (not that I am saying you are), but military success rarely has only one cause.

Dervag

2006-09-28, 08:54 PM

Gunpowder filled ceramic catapult ammunition was used in China way before cannons. Fitted with a fuse which was lit before it was fired (I believe from hand powered trebuchets) they hopefully exploded like a frag grenade somewhere near the enemy. Given these must've been unbelievably dangerous to handle and use they must've been effective to be used in any serious quantity.
I, for one, would have wanted a very long fuse on such a weapon. Bombapults are a good idea with a lot of potential drawbacks.

As for the Huns, I think that most of their success would have come from a combination of archery and (more importantly) mobility and organization. The Huns weren't the only people in the world who knew how to fire a bow. Even Hunnish horsebows wouldn't give them much of an advantage over foot based archery (especially since the Huns did not wear particularly heavy armor).

What really did it, I think, was their ability to send half their army galloping off to an unexpected place while the other half reliably did what was expected of them. The classical Romans had that ability; the 'fall of the Empire' Romans did not have it to anything like that degree.

Subotei

2006-09-29, 07:44 AM

re the above post: yeah - its difficult to say what was the vital factor(s) in the Hun's success - it would be a combination no doubt, and unfortunately nobody around today was there - oh for a time machine so we could really see what went on!

Its like the sweeping statement that the Spitfire won the Battle of Britain - it wouldn't have done without radar; the advanced command and cotrol systems this allowed; Dowding's careful conservation of reserves and, perhaps mosy crucially, the enemy's mistakes.

Success on the Hun's part was probably down to a combination of speed, mobility, good weapons, good tactics, good discipline, good leadership and some luck.

I think that might be under perfect conditions and assuming a direct hit, though? Modern tests of Body Armour / Shield penetration are notoriously varied and highly contested. It is a *really* big problem. It's also worth mentioning that penetrating a Shield is not the same as wounding the guy holding it, but you are right, it is not one hundred percent proof. Arrows wounded and killed people; the more Arrows, the more people are wounded and killed. The more men in Armour and bearing Shields the less casualties. In what proportions? Well, who knows? The Huns were successful, the reasons are likely to be many and varied.
Good points - nobody will really know as we can't test these thing under battlefield conditions today. Someone mentioned earlier the psychological impact of being on the receiving end of a barrage, which I imagine is immense. Being told that the worst thing you can do is break and run and actually being able to stand there and take the punishment are two different things

Myatar_Panwar

2006-09-30, 04:03 AM

Q: Lets say I'm a druid with a dire wolf animal companion. If I tought the wolf the necessary tricks so that I could ride it, could the wolf and I attack on the same turn, or is it only the rider? I noticed that when it talks about riding, its typically about horses, but a dire wolf has some good attacks.

Sorry, wrong thread

Nifty_Knickers

2006-09-30, 07:23 AM

Have a look at this guys! A clip on some extremely accurate archery: http://www.break.com/index/ultra_accurate.html

One thing I noted, the Japanese have always pulled the arrow to the chest rather then the eye. Now I've heard some comments that this is a weaker way of pulling, and probably because of weaker bows in general etc. Curiously, I noticed that these guys with their modern bows still pull to the chest, and very accurately at that. Any thoughts on it?

Matthew

2006-09-30, 07:40 AM

Pretty amazing last shot, there. Interesting things they televise in Korea.

It was my understanding that the Japanese generally pulled the Arrow back until it was behind the ear, which can be a bit dangerous, rather than to the chest. I would be interested in any alternative views.

The method of pull employed and the advantages involved are hard to gauge. Many people will tell you that you get less accuracy and power when you pull to the chest, others that you get more power and less accuracy and so on... It probably doesn't make a huge difference, but it might be related to Bow type and Arrow length. Draw method also varies and some will advocate one clearly over another, but again I think it is largely a matter of preference, any real advantage being subject to the individual, his Bow, Arrows and the conditions under which he is shooting. Fhaolan probably knows more about the practicalities of all this.

Nifty_Knickers

2006-09-30, 07:44 AM

It was my understanding that the Japanese generally pulled the Arrow back until it was behind the ear, which can be a bit dangerous, rather than to the chest. I would be interested in any alternative views.

Nah, it was to the chest. You've seen Oyoroi right? The cloth cover over the front of the armour was to prevent the bowstring from accidentally snagging on the lamellar plates.

I wish I had some bows and some space myself so I could test the various methods of pulling and aiming.

Matthew

2006-09-30, 08:01 AM

Hmmn, maybe it is situational? Modern day practioners of Kyudo definitely seem to draw the Arrow back behind the ear. However, even when the Arrow is drawn back behind the ear the Bow String would still be in danger of snagging on Body Armour; check the article links I posted above to see what I mean.

Fhaolan

2006-09-30, 11:45 AM

[Out of topic note: I think we need to sever this thread and start another soon, the reply-to screen is getting a bit hard-to-load for my connection. :) ]

I've seen a lot of different techniques for drawing the bow, to the ear, to the chin, to the chest, and to the shoulder. I've played around with all three, and it seems to be very situational which is better.

To the ear: This is the form most modern archers tend to advocate. As such, I'll use it as the base form.

To the chin: A friend of mine who studied North American Native archery said that this was the way they did it. Personally, I think he was full of it, as I couldn't find any supporting evidence myself. To me it seemed awkward, and due to archer's paradox I can't see it being any more accurate.

To the chest: According to my research, this is a common form for horse-archery. There are stories of European longbow-men actually using their longbows on horseback while crossing rivers to deplete the enemy forces on the other side. The only way I've been able to fire a longbow from horseback over the horses head is by holding the bow parallel to the ground and pulling to my chest. From what I've read about mongol archery, they may have done the same thing.

To the shoulder: This one's odd. The only time I've seen this is by some historical recreation archers in England shooting clout. i.e. Firing up so to arc the arrow down to hit a cloth target lying flat on the ground. As I've had it explained to me: When you hold your bow over your head it's closer to your ear, so to get the same draw you have to pull the string further so that it ends up at your shoulder instead.

Nifty_Knickers

2006-09-30, 01:06 PM

Interesting.

I know that the Japanese could easily shoot their bows from their horses while holding them vertical normally, but, there's no evidence of said horsemen shooting arrows over the heads of their horses. Arguments against it would be that it is an awkward motion and a little to likely to spook the horse.

So, is there anything more you can tell use about the difference between pulling to the ear and pulling to the chest? Do you feel it's more accurate, less accurate, easier pull, harder pull or anything else? Don't worry about getting too technical :)

PS: 9 more pages to go, and your browser will be relieved!

Wehrkind

2006-10-01, 11:06 AM

I suspect that there is a "best" way to pull any given type of bow that may or may not be different from the "best" way of another bow. I think the problem with deciding on it is that many ways work really well if you practice them a lot, so it is tough to say whether a certain practicioner has a great way of doing it, or if he is just more skilled.
For example, I know there is a Dutch pistol champ who fires his gun sideways (ghetto style in the States). Most everyone who knows what they are doing say it is silly, but it really works for him.

As to using a bow to hold someone up, an unarmored or lightly armored person probably would not try and fight if you had a nocked arrow and their weapon was undrawn. They would probably figure their chance of reaching for their weapon and striking before you pulled and fired at close range was very small.
As to a marksman missing half their shots, that probably holds true in a combat situation when you are being shot back at and trying to snap off shots without exposing yourself. Even shooting fast and worried, missing a person in front of you is sort of a neat trick, since the angles of success are enormous at 10 feet. Now, if you are shooting stupidly and more concerned about spraying lead than hitting (the aforementioned ghetto style) than that makes sense, but anyone trained is not going to miss at close range very often at all.

Were-Sandwich

2006-10-01, 11:09 AM

What type of sword does Li Mu Bai use (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU83DH5rfbA)

Nifty_Knickers

2006-10-01, 11:20 AM

What type of sword does Li Mu Bai use (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU83DH5rfbA)

I have some bit of knowledge on the subject and I'd like to help, but my old screen is getting dark, and that combined with the dark clip means I can't see the sword :P I feel rediculous now... Do you have a picture or something else with the sword on it?

grrr... really really need to buy a new screen.

Fhaolan

2006-10-01, 12:42 PM

What type of sword does Li Mu Bai use (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU83DH5rfbA)

I couldn't see the clip, unfortunately, but from a google search for the Li Mu Bai, I discovered that his sword was called 'Green Destiny Sword', and several movie replicas are available. Looking at the replicas it looks like what is commonly called a Tai Chi sword, or 'Taijiquan Jian'. Tai Chi also uses what is known as a 'Wushu' sword that has an extremely flexible blade. Unfortunately, I don't know Tai Chi so I can't tell you what the purpose of the Wushu blade is. It seems too floppy for use as a real weapon, but what do I know? :)

Back to archery:

Loosing an arrow over a horses head takes some training of the horse, but not as much as firing a gun from horseback! :)

With a chest draw you are not pulling the bow as far as with an ear draw, so you're not getting quite as much potential power. Accuracy is purely dependant on what you're used to doing. Because of the nature of bows (and slings, for that matter), aiming is at least partially instinctual and the rest is experience. The first time a person picks up a bow, if s/he tries to 'sight' down the arrow, they'll miss, and very likely they'll miss badly. :)

Here we go into a bit of a rant involving 'archer's paradox'. I apologize ahead of time. :)

Okay, envision a bow (if you don't have one to look at). Place an arrow in the proper place. Notice that the arrow is actually pointing off to the side somewhat, because the body of the bow is in the way. If somehow the body of the bow wasn't there, the arrow would point straight at your target. Because it *is* there, the arrow points off to the side.

Now, most people when they first pick up the bow try to sight down the arrow, and they get very confused as to why the arrow doesn't go where they aim it! This is due to 'archer's paradox'. Basically, the arrow when loosed will bend around the body of the bow and from there will occillate in flight. The center of mass of the arrow will travel in a straight line *as if the body of the bow hadn't pushed the arrow to the side*. In order to do this, the arrow has to be flexible, which is rated as the arrow's 'spine'. If the arrow is too flexible however, there will be too much occilation and the arrow will wobble off into never-never land. Therefore, the more powerful the bow, the stiffer the arrow needs to be, so it needs more spine.

Many modern bows have a shelf built into the body of the bow which allows the archer to actually aim down the arrow. That means the arrows have to be stiffer (have more spine) or the arrow will loose off to the side. This also allows more modern materials for the arrow shafts like alluminum and carbon fibre, which are stiffer than the older wooden arrows while still being light to allow long flights.

The really good archers spend a *lot* of time tuning their arrows to get the right weight, balance, spine, etc. for their bows. Each bow getting a different set of arrows because each bow has different characteristics.

Now the rant part:

Mongolian horse-bows have gotten very popular on the west coast of North America over the last few years because there is a business selling them that goes to all the ren faires up and down the coast. There is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is that somehow somebody has gotten it into their heads that the archer's paradox doesn't apply to mongolian horsebows. Why? Because the bows they sell range from around twenty to forty-five pound pulls, but they're selling the *same* arrows for all bows, probably spined for the owner's own bow. Because the arrows aren't spined properly for the specific bows, the arrows are too stiff or too flexible to follow the archer's paradox properly and the arrows are being loosed off to the side in some random direction. The people using the bows are getting used to it, and are trying to compensate, but they'll never be accurate. And they'll never get better beyond a certain point because every time they buy new arrows, because they think spine is irrelevant to horse-bows, they won't look at the spine and will get an arrow that will fly in a different direction off the bow.

Basically they are fighting against the equipment, rather than using it. All because somebody decided that mongolian bows are just that uber that they don't have to care about the stuff other archers need to learn.

Okay, rant over, thanks for listening. :)

Matthew

2006-10-01, 12:58 PM

I couldn't see the clip, unfortunately, but from a google search for the Li Mu Bai, I discovered that his sword was called 'Green Destiny Sword', and several movie replicas are available. Looking at the replicas it looks like what is commonly called a Tai Chi sword, or 'Taijiquan Jian'. Tai Chi also uses what is known as a 'Wushu' sword that has an extremely flexible blade. Unfortunately, I don't know Tai Chi so I can't tell you what the purpose of the Wushu blade is. It seems too floppy for use as a real weapon, but what do I know? :)

Yup, it is what is broadly classified as a Jian, corresponding loosely to the Roman Spatha, Migration and Viking type Swords [categories which are themselves problematic]. It is a much less common sword than the Dao, which corresponds very loosely to the Seax. In D&D terms, I would classify it is a Long Sword, rather than a Bastard Sword, Short Sword or Great Sword.

You can read some basic stuff about them on the links to Wikipedia below:

Jian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jian)
Spatha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatha)
Dao (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dao_%28sword%29)
Seax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seax)

Okay, rant over, thanks for listening. :)

No problem; that was quite an amusing tirade and I even learnt a little something. It is always frustrating to *know* something is so, but have a different opinion popularised to the point where it has become 'the truth.' Stirrups that make 'all the difference', Maces that 'don't shed blood', Swords that 'are like 10 lbs and usually blunt', Romans that 'only use the thrust and all wander around in Lorica Segmentata' and so on... but then I can't prove these are not accurate representations, I can only make strong arguments for why they probably are not.

Dervag

2006-10-01, 07:16 PM

Actually, you probably could prove that bit about maces 'not shedding blood'.

Find a rock of the approximate size and weight of a mace head. Find a proponent of the theory that maces do not shed blood. Now hit the proponent with the rock, several times, forcefully.

They will be bleeding.

QED.

Likewise, you can point to specific accounts by Roman historians of troops not wearing Lorica Segmentata. Although it is not unreasonable for moderns to have an image of Roman legionnaires wearing Lorica Segmentata, just as their image of modern soldiers always means men with rifles and not artillerymen or truck drivers.

Matthew

2006-10-01, 07:30 PM

Heh, heh. No I was referencing the commonly misheld belief that Christian Priests, such as Odo of Bayeux (in fact often only him), used Maces to avoid shedding blood. Proving that they did not is unfortunately more than a matter of showing that hitting somebody with a Mace is liable to cause bleeding. Just type Mace, Blood or Odo of Bayeux into Google to be swamped by misinformation...

Yeah, Lorica Segmentata. It is the prevailance that is hard to pin down. Looking at Trajan's Column, the conclusion usually drawn is Legionaries wear Lorica Segmentata and Auxillaries wear Lorica Hamata. It is repeated so often (and reenacted) that it becomes quite exhausting to have to repeatedly say, "there is plenty of evidence for Legionaries of all periods wearing Lorica Hamata." The proof is, of course, not so hard to come by... (on the other hand it is so far impossible to prove the reverse, that Auxillaries ever wore Lorica Segmentata).

lsfreak

2006-10-02, 07:05 PM

Fhaolan

2006-10-02, 07:53 PM

Does anyone know anything about various types of arrows, beyond "bodkin" and "not?" If anyone knows a web site, that'd be great. I know there were dozens of different types of arrowheads, almost every one with a certain use, but can't find any information I would be willing to quote as fact, beyond "broadheads cause more damage to uncovered skin" (obvious) and "bodkins have a higher chance of punching
through chain" (again, obvious).

Okay, here are the types of points I am familiar with:

Broadhead: Flat, broad blade. The most recognizable ones have backward points, but many are just leaf-shaped.

Bodkin: Long thin point for penetrating maille. Sometimes the term 'long bodkin' is used to differenciate between this and the 'short bodkin' or 'plate bodkin' described under pile below.

Pile: Short point, commonly used for target practice. A heavy pile was used for penetrating plate. Sometimes this heavy pile is called a 'short bodkin' or 'plate bodkin'. Whether the 'plate bodkin' was called a 'bodkin' or a 'pile' is still subject to debate.

Frog or Y-point: Supposedly used for severing ropes, but in my experience more likely used to do extreme levels of damage to sheets of cloth like banners or sails. You have to be *really* good to sever a rope with one of these, as arrows spin in flight making the timing very, very difficult.

Gall point: Looks like a quarter moon. Very much like the frog point above. This is used to do extreme levels of damage to large unarmored animals, such as horses.

Twine point: Made with a loop on the head for attaching to some string/twine/cord/whatever. Usually for fishing. Supposedly could be used to deliver the cord to a distant point, but my experiments show that to be very unlikely. The cord provides too much drag, so the arrow tends to not fly far enough to be useful. At least not with an 80lb pull bow. Maybe a 100+ lb bow?

Bulb point: Made to deliver a small amount of flamable liquid, much like a miniature molotov cocktail.

Flame arrow: Not so much a point, but having tarred cloth wrapped around the existing point.

Whisle point: Broadhead with a hole in it, made to go 'whheeeeeee' as a signal arrow.

Metal Blunt: For hunting birds and small game where a blade would do too much damage. Very rare, as this role has been taken over by the rubber blunt below.

Rubber Blunt: Even more so than the metal blunt above.

I feel like I'm missing something... but I can't remember... Huh. I'll have to think about it for a bit longer.

Edmund

2006-10-03, 08:42 AM

Matthew

2006-10-03, 11:09 AM

I have been meaning to post this link here for a while, with regard to the earlier Roman discussion:

The Column of Marcus Aurelius (http://rubens.anu.edu.au/raider7/panoramas/italy/rome/monuments/column_of_marcus_aurelius/)

The pictures are a great resource for anybody who is interested in the Roman Army of that period (Second Century AD)

Here are some Wiki links for more information:

Marcus Aurelius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius)
The Column of Marcus Aurelius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Column_Of_Marcus_Aurelius)

Sundog

2006-10-03, 11:14 AM

Oooh, pretty! Pity it's not in as good a condition as Trajan's, though.

Fhaolan

2006-10-03, 11:15 AM

To supplement what Fhaolan hs already put up, I think there is some degree of further classification under the heading of 'broadhead point'. Those with barbs and those without, and then the barbs themselves have various shapes and lengths... but maybe that's just getting too specific.

There are also points which have three 'fins', linking in the centre. The only examples I know of are made of bone, but I'll probably be able to find metal examples if I take a good look through a few books.

I've seen modern arrow points with three 'fins', but the only historical ones I've seen like that were for crossbow bolts/quarrels so I didn't include them.

Of course, arrows aren't just classified by the points. There's the feathering and the shaft as well.

I've run into three types of feathering.

1) Flight: relatively small feathering, used to give stability to the arrow in flight. Comes in all sort of 'cuts' including shield, hyperbolic, classic, etc. Note that arrow feathers are normally taken from the wing feathers, and come in left and right wing. Don't mix them as they curve in opposite directions and that will mess up the arrow's flight.

2) Flu-flu: Massive feathers, sometimes even just a mass *of* feathers. Used to slow down the arrow quickly. Usually in combination with the blunt points for hunting birds.

3) None: No feathering at all is used on many african-style arrows. I've not worked with any of these, I'm just aware of them, so I don't know how this works.

Now the shaft also tends to come in three different 'shapes'.

1) Plain: Just a straight dowel-like piece of wood or whatever. Standard now-a-days, and common to historical war arrows that had to be made fast and in massive quantities.

2) Barrel: These taper towards the point and to the nock. This allows you to create a stiff arrow, but have it be lighter than the plain arrow above. That makes the arrow fly farther, and possibly more accurately, but has less penetration. I've only seen this in competition archery. Nobody else seems to bother.

3) Javelin: I'm including this here for lack of anywhere else to put it. I've seen a lot of african arrows that are insanely long (3-4 feet), and very, very thin. As mentioned before, I've not worked with them myself, so I don't understand why they are this way. Hopefully someone else here knows.

Subotei

2006-10-03, 01:07 PM

I've seen modern arrow points with three 'fins', but the only historical ones I've seen like that were for crossbow bolts/quarrels so I didn't include them.
I'm pretty sure I read recently that Hunnic arrows had three 'fins', but I'm not sure where.

lsfreak

2006-10-03, 01:36 PM

Thanks very much. Would anyone happen to have a link to some site that has much rarer types of arrows (I thought I heard of extremely tough fish scales being used for some arrowheads, for example), or the different types of barbs? If you really feel like posting them that'd be great, but I have a feeling a good web site would be easier :P

Edmund

2006-10-04, 08:53 PM

I've seen modern arrow points with three 'fins', but the only historical ones I've seen like that were for crossbow bolts/quarrels so I didn't include them.

There are arrows from Kazan' with such points, from around the 11th century.

Good note about the shaft and flights though. Like swords, arrows have a complex typology of their own which someone needs to write up, in my humble opinion.

Gorbash Kazdar

2006-10-04, 09:37 PM

Reposting a discussion from FB here for ease of reference:

There's considerable debate between the effectiveness of either caliber.

It's my personal opinion that the 9mm round is more versatile and ultimately more useful for the average person than Colt's .45 ACP round for several reasons:

-The trauma of a .45 is only slightly better than that of it's 9mm cousin.

-9mm weapons have bigger magazines, and thus are more versatile.

-9mm rounds are cheaper.

So what do you think? Lock this thread, if it's not appropriate by the way...

...

I will give you benefit of the doubt and assume there is a perfectly good reason for asking that.

And for your question, I'd say 9mm. I went shooting once, and we used 9mm. They were good, and the backlash wasn't nearly as bad as the bigger ones.

Heh, I know it's random, but I really don't want to kill anybody. In fact, I oppose most of what the NRA does, and I'm never buying one. I'm just a gun enthusiast, and I was simply arguing with my friend today in a conversation that was orignally about video games. FPSs to be exact.

I see. *stops dialing 911*

Also, why would trauma matter in an FPS?

Well, because that's how you kill someone, in games, and in real life. Bigger caliber means more damage, generally. But it also means smaller clip size, and also a longer lock time.

9mm, definetly. There's a reason it's the standard caliber for police, it provides significant trauma, and it has less kickback, so it's reasonable for the average person to shoot accurately and consitantly.

Although, If I were to go up against a non-humanoid target (i.e. a bear) I'd go for the .50 cal Desert Eagle.

.50 Action Express to you, mister!

If I were shooting a bear, I'd do it with a 20mm antimaterial rifle... 2 miles away. I don't want to be anywhere NEAR an angry bear.

Meh, I don't feel like typing out the full name, sue me :P

If I had any choice, regardless of portablility, I'd go for a cannon, but since those are a little hard to move around I'll go for the handgun equivalant.

I'd use a ICBM... tho it is a bit of overkill..

Personally, I'd pick option C - the .40 S&W. It has more power than the standard 9mm Luger, but produces less recoil and weighs less than the .45 ACP (the round is designed to fit 9mm firearm frames). I know of several police agencies that are either switching wholesale to the .40 S&W or are offering it as a standard option for their officers.

For most purposes, the 9mm is a fine round. It's a lot of fun to shoot, and easy to teach people on. Also, for most uses a civilian would face, it will do the job plenty well enough. However, the .40 S&W is a nice midpoint round, which makes it very attractive for police, as it gives them the extra bit of power they often need, but still fits into a smaller sidearm, generally allows more shots, and overall weighs less than a similar sidearm and number of rounds in .45 ACP.

Casualgamer

2006-10-04, 09:48 PM

Excellent points. However, there is the consideration of cost. The common conception of the 9mm round is that there are tons of them, for eye-catching deals, and for the most part, it's true. The .40 S&W is a more hot-loaded round (that, or it's necked), I'm assuming, from it's superior power over the 9mm, but that extra gunpowder has to count for more money.

Furthermore, 9mm Parabellum is used by multiple weapons throughout multiple countries, and it's prevalence makes it economic for the average shooter.

Performance-wise, you are absolutely correct, the 9mm is not a very effective round, but for the most common use of a pistol round (ie self defense), the economy of the round, and also it's lower lethality, make it the prime bullet for pistols.

Darkie

2006-10-05, 12:49 AM

My only comment is that around here, local police use Glock 17/19s (9mm), while the provincial (equivilant to states, for those of you who are extremely geographically challenged) police carry Glock 23s (.40 S&W).

I'm tempted to make a comment on the different roles the departments cover, but I'm too tired and don't want to mis-state anything.

Edmund

2006-10-05, 06:04 AM

My one main question is: Are we talking about 9mm Luger, Parabellum, or Short (aka .380 ACP).

I, personally, would go for the Luger, simply because in the context of self-defence ammo capacity isn't too terribly much of an issue, provided I have more than three bullets. Power, then, is the next-best thing.

I mean, unless you're defending against a large-scale home invasion -in which case you'd probably want an assault rifle too- I can't see why a few bullets makes that terribly much of a difference.

Of course, I will defer to the judgement of those who actually use the weapons, rather than my piddling postulations.

luthais

2006-10-05, 07:19 AM

For the bear, I'd have to say S&W 500 magnum. For home protection, my Browning Hi-Power 9mm works fine. If that happens to fail, the SKS has never EVER let me down before. But, I do agree that the 9mm is the more versatile calibur user-wise. My next purchase shall be a Glock .357, can't remember which model number it is at the moment.

Democratus

2006-10-05, 08:14 AM

The .45 does signifigantly more damage than the 9mm. The reason the army swiched to the Baretta 9mm is because it could hold much more ammo then the old Colt 45.

I personally use the Colt 45 1911A1. It's the most comfortable gun that I've ever fired and it is (for the most part) very reliable. Just be sure to carry lots of extra ammo clips if you are going to expend lots of ammo.

Casualgamer

2006-10-05, 11:10 AM

Are you serious? It was certainly a good gun for it's era, but nowadays it's definately obsolete.

My favorite pistol happens to be the FN five-Seven. The 5.7mm necked round works GREAT.

Dervag

2006-10-05, 01:01 PM

From what I've read, I seem to recall the 9mm being more user-friendly than the .45 (there are a couple of ways to hurt yourself with the .45 that aren't possible with the 9mm).

The magazine capacity issue is definitely important. 2X 9mm bullets are greatly preferable to X .45 bullets in a wide range of situations.

Gorbash Kazdar

2006-10-05, 06:02 PM

I think it's important to note that, in general, there isn't a singular best round, just rounds better for certain applications, just as there is no best sword, just better swords for certain situations.

For a civilian interested in personal defense, I think the 9mm Luger is a great round. There are many very reliable and well made sidearms that are also relatively low cost and readily available for the round, and it's powerful enough for self defense without being so powerful that it's intimidating to a novice shooter.

The .40 S&W is more expensive, but that expense is worth it to certain police agencies due to what they need it for, whereas it might not be for a civilian shooter.

The .45 ACP is an older round, but it's a very reliable and well made one. If you need a lot of stopping power and only expect to fire a few shots, and weight and concealability aren't as much of a factor, it's a great round. It's excellent for home defense, if the civilian shooter isn't intimidated by the round, and it's great for certain police uses as well.

I should note that personally I favor the .357 Magnum, because I prefer shooting revolvers and I like (and am not intimidated by) a powerful round. I also like that most .357 Magnum revolvers will also accept .38 Special rounds, since this means I can let novice shooters try the sidearm out without worrying whether they'll be intimidated by the powerful round. It's also a good training tool, since you can step them up with it - they familiarize themselves with the sidearm and the concept of shooting on the .38, and then step up to the .357 on the same sidearm. However, .357 Magnum sidearms tend to be a bit large, making them less desirable for personal defense.

The .38 Special has a bad rep, but it's not entirely deserved, IMHO. For a civilian shooter interested in personal defense for whom concealability and reliability are major factors, it's a very good choice. .38 Special sidearms tend to be very reliable and quite small, so they can be more easily concealed under a coat or in a purse. They don't have as much power, but they have plenty to get the job done at the close ranges you'd find in personal defense applications.

I find the .22 pistol rounds to be too weak to rely on for personal defense, but they're great for target shooting and have uses in covert ops applications.

Anyways, save for some poorly designed rounds that generally fall out of favor very quickly, most rounds have strengths and weaknesses, and the "best" one is the one that most closely matches the needs of the application and the preferences of the shooter.

Darkie

2006-10-05, 06:05 PM

My one main question is: Are we talking about 9mm Luger, Parabellum, or Short (aka .380 ACP).
Well, the Glock 17 uses para.

I'm thinking they just want a lot more control... or something. I have no idea. I'll find out eventually, I suppose.

The US Army is looking into switching to a higher caliber pistol, although I don't know the status of that...

Norsesmithy

2006-10-05, 07:00 PM

CausualGamer, You have combat or self defence experience with the FN 57? I would love to hear an evaluation.

However you cannot be serious when you say that the 1911 is outdated or obsolete. The .45 APC is still considered, by most professional pistoleros, from SWAT team leaders, to the Secret Service, to the Navy SEALs, to Jeff Cooper and Masaad Ayub (sp) to be the premier self defence or combat handgun round.

Despite the fact that the basic design is now 106 years old, the 1911A1 remains superlative combat arm.

US government research, over the last 70+ years of fighting shows that an officer with a 1911a1 generally earns more kills per magazine (with his 7 round magazine) than an average officer with the M9 Beretta with his 17 round stack of 9X19 NATO.

Further, the 1911a1 has proved more reliable in combat than any 9mm handgun fielded by any army.

This is why the special forces, and a good deal of the regular forces, have purchased 1911A1s for their officers, at times disobeying direct orders to do so.

Jeff, The Pentagon's procurement people have issued a competition for a new handgun using a single stack magazine of .45APC, with some features not present in the old 1911A1, like a firing pin block and a double action trigger.

Personally I prefer a single action gun because of the superior trigger.

Casualgamer

2006-10-05, 07:25 PM

And I suppose you have a self-defence evaluation of your Colt?

Great, so there are a lot of people who like the weapon. Does that actually prove anything from the standpoint of actual performance? Sure, it may give an indication of it's popularity, which is an indication of actual performance, but to create an actual evaluation of something, you must do it from specs.

You know what, lynching black people was once popular, does that mean we should do it today? Someone hasn't read enough Socrates.

Let's look at the specs:

The FN five-Seven has nearly twice the ammunition capacity of your Colt, and due to it's necked round, better range as well. The Colt is a single action pistol, a mechanism that has been praised for its easy trigger and short lock time, but supposedly is less safe. The necked nature of the 5.7mm round also lends itself to increased armor penetration, a problem encountered by increasingly large numbers of law enforcement and military personnel, but at the same time, its hitting power has been compared to that of a .44 Magnum round. The Colt fires... .45 ACP.

The fact of the matter is, that times have moved on, and while the Colt 1911A1 still has it's place in history as the premier weapon of police and soldiers during WWII, one must accept that the advent of technology has made weapons better.

The Colt, if I remember correctly, was succeeded by the Beretta 92F, right?

To Gorbash:

Right again, but there are still swords that are good all around.

Fhaolan

2006-10-05, 08:21 PM

To Gorbash:

Right again, but there are still swords that are good all around.

Here's where we enter into a problem with language, because the term 'good' will mean different levels of ability to different people. To me, a good all-around sword would be a 15th century Dutch longsword for many reasons I won't go into here. A lot of people would disagree with me, citing that this particular sword is functionally useless against heavy plate armor. I then confuse them by agreeing with them, and then go on about how a good all-around sword will not be as good at specific functions as a specialty weapon. That is the point of specialty weapons. A 'good all-around' weapon is reasonably good at a lot of things, but will rarely be exceptional at anything. Everything costs something. Even the most over-hyped sword in existance, the katana/gatana/whatever has things that it's good at and things that it isn't.

If I was to actually equip myself for melee combat, I would probably use a german hanger (short hunting sword), a long-hafted axe, or a lugged spear, all depending on the situation. The fact that I would deal with three different weapons indicates that I think they are not equally good all-around. One is better at certain things than the other.

Dervag

2006-10-05, 09:20 PM

Casualgamer

2006-10-05, 10:36 PM

Here's where we enter into a problem with language, because the term 'good' will mean different levels of ability to different people. To me, a good all-around sword would be a 15th century Dutch longsword for many reasons I won't go into here. A lot of people would disagree with me, citing that this particular sword is functionally useless against heavy plate armor. I then confuse them by agreeing with them, and then go on about how a good all-around sword will not be as good at specific functions as a specialty weapon. That is the point of specialty weapons. A 'good all-around' weapon is reasonably good at a lot of things, but will rarely be exceptional at anything. Everything costs something. Even the most over-hyped sword in existance, the katana/gatana/whatever has things that it's good at and things that it isn't.

If I was to actually equip myself for melee combat, I would probably use a german hanger (short hunting sword), a long-hafted axe, or a lugged spear, all depending on the situation. The fact that I would deal with three different weapons indicates that I think they are not equally good all-around. One is better at certain things than the other.

Ah, good point, but here's the problem with that:

Medieval melee weapons did different things.

No matter how you make a gun, however, the principle remains very much the same: put a piece of metal in the enemy.

Allow me to clarify my comment: I meant to say, that in terms of balancing cost, range, power, use, and controllability, the 9mm round (all incarnations of it) is probably as close as you can get to the "best". This is, of course, my opinion.

Mike_G

2006-10-05, 10:51 PM

Ah, good point, but here's the problem with that:

Medieval melee weapons did different things.

No matter how you make a gun, however, the principle remains very much the same: put a piece of metal in the enemy.

Ummmmmmmmmmm...

Usually that's what you want a sword to do.

Some cut deeper, some pierce armor better, some move quicker, some have more reach, some are better in close quarters.

Just like guns.

You'd choose a different weapon to snipe with versus to lay down suppressive fire, versus to conceal, versus to use in home defense at a range of a few feet instead of a range of a thousand yards.

An MP5 is great if you are an SAS comando kicking in a door and shooting terrorists at ten feet away. It's lousy if you are in battle on the steppes of Russia, with visibility of a few miles. It's lousy if you want a weapon you can hide inside your ankle holster. It's not particularly good at punching through body armor, particularly military armor at any kind of range.

Allow me to clarify my comment: I meant to say, that in terms of balancing cost, range, power, use, and controllability, the 9mm round (all incarnations of it) is probably as close as you can get to the "best". This is, of course, my opinion.

The 9mm is like Fhaolan's longsword example. Pretty good all around, but not best at anything. 30-06 is better for sniping. 5.56 is better for an assault rifle (better range and penetration) .45 or .44 or .40 (or .50, but that's killing a mosquito ith a cannon) have more stopping power at handgun range. .22 is more accurate.

Zincorium

2006-10-05, 11:01 PM

As for pistol rounds, I'm planning on getting something in .357 Sig when I turn 21 (dang arbitrary age limits...). I enjoyed shooting my older friend's .357 magnum, and from what I've seen the Sig round accomplishes that in a round that you can get in normal handguns, instead of having to plop down the cash for a desert eagle. Also is supposed to reach higher speeds from a short barrel, but that's hearsay and I'd like to see for myself. If anyone has a concrete opinion on it, I'd be interested in hearing it.

On the 5.7mm, does it actually have enough stopping power as a defensive round? Looking at how light the bullet is, it seems like it'd have minimal effect even at the speed that it goes, but as with the .357 sig I'd be interested in knowing for sure.

Fhaolan

2006-10-06, 12:13 AM

Which weapon is for which purpose?

Excelent question, and one that actually forces me to think through my answer. :)

Okay, let's start with the long-hafted axe, because this is the easiest. http://www.armor.com/2000/catalog/item024.html I would use this against armored opponents in general, and anyone else with larger weapons like a greatsword or pollaxe. The axe can be used with either blade or butt to deal with the armor, and gives me enough mass to counter their blows. If the opponent is too quick to allow me to get up enough momentum for armor-warping blows, the shaft is long enough to allow me to bind the opponent giving me to time to switch to the hanger.

The hunting hanger (I can't find a picture of the precise one I mean, but this is close: http://arms2armor.com/Knives/gerhdag1.htm) is basically a big knife. The one I particularly like has a relatively narrow blade and curved edge while having a straight, and very thick back. This is for up-close-and-personal. It is *fast*, and has a thick enough back that I can put a lot of force behind a thrust, punching through maille, and other relatively weaker armours, while having a good edge for cuts against unarmored opponents. The one I like also has a fairly good three-quarters guard on it for deflecting incoming blows providing they're relatively light weapons.

The lugged spear:http://www.costumerating.com/emed/ I would use this in any situation I was facing a large animal, or a mass-combat situation. This gives me distance, which is what I want in mass-combats, and the lugs prevent anything really nasty coming up the spear at me. :) I am also capable of using a center-punch round shield while using a spear, so this gives me more protection.

My wife prefers to use a pollaxe as a combined axe and spear, but I find I appreciate the lighter spear for the additional speed and the ability to use a shield, which means I need to axe as a separate weapon. She also prefers two releatively heavy gladius-type short swords to my single hunting hanger, but she's more comfortable with chopping attacks at close range where I've been in enough knife fights in RL that I appreciate draw- and push-cuts, and I like to have a hand free for grapples, pins, and pushes. It's all a matter of what you're used to.

Norsesmithy

2006-10-06, 12:32 AM

CasualGamer, I have never fired a handgun in anger, but my uncle has (actually he is like a second cousin or something, but I call him uncle).

In 1984 he killed two men that had broken into his house in Colorado, both were armed. He killed each with one shot at 12 feet in range. His 2 year old daughter was sleeping in the room behind where the burglars were.

A high velocity small caliber round would tend to exit the body and carry on, a possibly disastrous possibility.

Also a small caliber round would tend to not drop the man as quickly, even if it had been a full powered combat rifle round like a 5.56 NATO, much less a "intermediate" round like 5.7 FN

I know people who have killed with several handgun rounds, .45 apc and 9mm para included. I do not, however know anyone who has even bought a FN 5.7, much less killed with one.

Most handgun combat takes place at less than 20 yards, so the extra range the 5 7 gives you is not an advantage.

Most pistol combats involve fewer than 10 people on both sides, so the higher capacity is only an advantage if you don't have the discipline to aim.

I have not heard anyone, not even a factory rep trying to sell me a FN Five7 handgun (at a gun show), compare the cartridge's power to the Colt Anaconda I carry. And if anyone was to extol that particular virtue of the cartridge to me, it would have been him.

I will only believe that claim when it has been verified in cadaver tests. Ballistic gel and ballistic clay are both poor evaluations of "Stopping Power".

The Beretta M92f (M9 in military parlance) did replace the Colt 1911A1 in US service, but the special forces and certain units of the marines never gave up their Colt 1911A1s. Further units in the Secret Service point blank refused to adopt the M9 calling it "Inferior".

Now, as I said earlier, the government has decided that the Green Berets and the Secret Service was right, and is moving back to pistols in .45 APC in a low capacity 7-10 round mag, albeit in double action.
(Buddy who is intern at Pentagon says this is political, because the generals have egg on their collective faces for adopting the M9 and it would only be worse if the 1911A1 won the competition for a new handgun.)

Against foes in body armour a small diameter high velocity round is superior, but the military, police, Secret Service, and I have rifles for that.

The 5.7 FN is a fine PDW cartridge, but the pistol's highest point is ammo compatibility, and that isn't a very high point.

As for a single action being less safe than a double, that is true, if you carry it with a cartridge in the chamber, but if you buy the (Colt 1911A1 clone) P1911 by Taurus the difference becomes negligible, because it has a firing pin block, so it literally cannot be fired unless you take off the safety. And when I take off a safety, I have already decided I am ok with killing the person I am aiming at.

The faster lock time and better trigger feel is more than worth it. (I know that my current carry gun, the Anaconda is a double, but I put up with that because .44 Mag is awesome +10.)

Matthew

2006-10-06, 07:59 AM

If I was to actually equip myself for melee combat, I would probably use a german hanger (short hunting sword), a long-hafted axe, or a lugged spear, all depending on the situation. The fact that I would deal with three different weapons indicates that I think they are not equally good all-around. One is better at certain things than the other.

This sounds like fun. For good all roundness, I would go with a Short Bladed Unwinged Thowing / Thrusting Spear (Six Foot Ash Wood Shaft), Large Wooden Iron Bossed Oval Shaped Shield (probably 3/8" Thick), some sort of Spatha / Migration / Viking Sword (Oakeshotte type X, Xa or possibly XI Blade) and maybe a 'Hond Seax'; definitely some sort of Dagger or Knife.

Casualgamer

2006-10-06, 09:38 AM

Nifty_Knickers

2006-10-06, 11:39 AM

@Fhaolan: A little late (was ill for a while) but, thanks for the info on archery! It has helped my research :)

@Casualgamer: The FN isn't 'new'. I've known about it for years and have yet to be convinced that it has enough stopping power in very close quarters. The bullet may tumble and cause massive internal bleeding, but will it stop the guy pointing a gun at me from still pulling the trigger (before or after he's gone down), even if I shot him in a sub-optimal place? Will it stop a crazed man in his tracks when he's lost all sense of self-preservation and seeks only to plunge a knife in my head? Sofar, the only guns I trust with sufficient stopping power are the larger calibers.

@Melee loadout: Ooooh, fun indeed! What would I take...

One thing I would certainly carry with me is a long-hafted warhammer. As much as I like axes, for sheer all-round stopping power vs armour, I prefer a warhammer. So long-hafted warhammer as secondary weapon.

Personal defense weapon... I would want a long messer with a long grip for two-handed use. I don't think any reproductions have been made, but there have been reports of such weapons been used in medieval times. Messer because I expect most opposition to be unarmoured, two handed because I'm a firm believer that two-handed weapons are king when it comes to aggressive use and ambushing.

For my main weapon, I'd like a glaive. I know glaives weren't the best of weapons, being mostly cleavers on poles, but for me it's good enough. It's very light (very important in my opinion when looking at an all-round weapon loadout you have to lug with you) and I expect most opposition to be no more then lightly armoured, if armoured at all, so the cleaver head will do, and I can use it as a spear to hold of attackers when neccesary. If anything armoured comes up, I'll have ample backup in the warhammer.

And finally, I'd like a rondell. For up close and personal work when it comes to dealing with armour when neccesary.

Sundog

2006-10-06, 11:46 AM

Casualgamer, two major problems with this statement:

Yes, a necked round would normally just go through some one, but the 5.7mm round is a "reactive" round. Meaning, when fired at armor it goes through, but against flesh it "tumbles" and causes massive internal damage. You do know that 5.7 mm is a larger caliber than our current standard NATO 5.56mm round, right?

First, ALL bullets tumble the instant they penetrate ANYTHING, from someone's skin to a sheet of paper. It's a natural effect of bullet ballistics.
Second, no, the bullet you are talking about is NOT bigger than the 5.56 NATO, because it is a pistol bullet, while the 5.56 NATO is a rifle bullet. The 5.7 may be WIDER, but is would be nowhere near as long nor propelled by anything like the same quantity of propellant. Therefore, it is lighter and has a much lower muzzle velocity.
5.7mm is only a little bigger than .22 caliber. Too little mass to make an effective combat pistol load.

Nifty_Knickers

2006-10-06, 12:09 PM

Norsesmithy

2006-10-06, 12:25 PM

As for the Melee load out (My, this is fun!), the four (why limit yourself to three) weapons I would take are my bastard sword, the halberd I am trying to make (haven't got it right yet), this spear I saw that had a lugged Frankish head on one end and a modern track and field javelin style spike on the other, and a tomahawk.

The bastard sword because it is vicious fast and with a 40 inch blade you can dish the hurt before most other swordsmen get in range.

The halberd because it can be used in so many different ways to dish the pain.

The spear because it would be effective behind a sheild and if I am flanked I can stick one guy with the lugged end and then skewer his buddy in the backstroke.

Finally the tomahawk because it has a very powerful strole, with blade or the back spike, and in a tussle I can hit them with a spike on the but end of the haft as well (also I can throw it pretty well).

If I am mounted I'll bring a lance as well.

Nifty_Knickers

2006-10-06, 12:29 PM

The halberd because it can be used in so many different ways to dish the pain.

The spear because it would be effective behind a sheild and if I am flanked I can stick one guy with the lugged end and then skewer his buddy in the backstroke.

Wouldn't having both be hard to carry around, as well as making for a heavy load on the whole? (not technically heavy, but a load like this will start to feel quite heavy if you have to lug it around for an extended period of time).

Norsesmithy

2006-10-06, 12:49 PM

Wouldn't having both be hard to carry around, as well as making for a heavy load on the whole? (not technically heavy, but a load like this will start to feel quite heavy if you have to lug it around for an extended period of time).

Not so much because I can tuck all three of the larger weapons into the frame of my Duluth Pack, so that it isn't really harder than carrying say 10 lbs of anything else (in a hard frame backpack). They are also readily acessable there,and are quick to draw.

I have hiked 19 miles a day with 65 lbs in that pack (on a 5 day trip, 49 miles in, 49 miles out) so my opinion of getting a little heavy is probably more forgiving of a 3 lb sword and 5 lb axe-spear-hook than yours.

Nifty_Knickers

2006-10-06, 12:55 PM

But hiking allows you to conserve your energy if you walk at a constant pace, leaving you with enough oomph to fight as well as allowing you to carry your stuff around easily.

I assumed the criteria to be: Being actively hunted in the middle of unfriendly territory. Meaning that with my load-out, I'd have to be able to make multiple short sprints, fight my way out of a few scuffles, hide and take cover wherever neccesary, navigate tight corridors and thick undergrowth frequently etc.

Now If I were just going to fight after a hike, I'd being a renaissance two-hander with me. Versatility and range FTW!

Norsesmithy

2006-10-06, 01:08 PM

As I would probably be carrying less than 65 lbs of loot, I think I could run. Hiding may be difficult though.

The pack was only 65 lbs because I was carrying the tent and it was a military surplus six man canvas elephant that weighed like 45 lbs. If I wasn't carrying the tent, and I was alone behind enemy lines, I would have the weapons I described, 10 to 15 in food, probably 15 to 20 in loot, (why else would I be behind enemy lines), a bow, and some arrows, a bed roll, rope and bells, and a mess kit.

Probably less that 45 lbs all together. This allows me to wear some armour, and carry a sheild. I could hustle, and use terrain impassible by horses, the likely means of transportation of the search party. I would want to have something to trow off the dogs though, perhaps a low dose of poison, not enough to kill them, but rather enough to sicken them to the point of needing to stop tracking me.

Nifty_Knickers

2006-10-06, 02:01 PM

^ cool. The only thing I would still find awkward is carrying two polearms around. Sticking only one in the frame of your pack would still make it a shifting weight on your back during fighting or trying to make your way quickly through difficult terrain, as well as make it exceedingly hard to make your way through bushy areas. In my case, I would always carry the glaive in my hands. The moment I need one of my other weapons, I will be dropping the glaive on the floor in the interest of maintaining my combat agility as high as possible, as well as minimising the chances to get snagged by anything (partly also why I picked a cheap glaive rather then a more expensive polearm, it wouldn't hurt too much to drop it and leave it behind).

Actually, I think this is a really cool concept to keep working around; Everyone, show us your choice of loadout based on this scenario:

The Scenario: The infiltration of Douringrad

Normally, such a mission would be carried out by a small group. For this excercise tho, assume you are alone.

The city of Douringrad is a large city under the occupation of an invasion force. The bulk of the army is camped in a closed circle around the city, near or in the surrounding forests. The city itself has been abandoned by the populace, and officers of the invading force have taken up residence in the various houses of the city. It is winter, and snow has fallen only recently. Although it is chilly outside, there is very little wind, and thus the cold is quite bearable for a well fed man or woman.

The city is comprised of a main castle of old design, with many points of entry. Although the main points of entry are well guarded, the various other ways of entering the castle from outside it's small ring of walls are not well known to the current occupants. Surrounding the castle is the district of nobles, with large expensive houses and wide streets. Surrounding that are the workmen's districts, made up of smaller yet proper houses and tighter streets. Surrounding that, and making up the last 'layer' of the town is the poor district. Haphazardly built houses and winding, narrow, confusing streets characterise this district. The workmen's district and poor district are quite large, and it could take a man walking on a peacefull day up to a hour to reach the castle from the outskirts of town.

The city is surrounded by large pine forest. in some areas, the trees are short and stocky, prividing excellent concealment but making the area hard to navigate. In other areas (mostly closer to the city) the pine trees are larger and more open, making for areas that are easier to navigate, but harder to conceal yourself in.

The camping army is located on the outskirts of the forest. Small groups of soldiers frequently patrol the forest for spies and intruders. The cold weather and tedious days during their stay around the city has dulled their vigilance. Poor communications between the various elements of the army means that you'll be able to get away with being seen for some time. Although there are mounted soldiers in the army, those have a hard time patrolling anything but the outskirts of the city and the main roads leading in and out. The soldiers do not have hunting dogs with them, though some of the higher ranking officers might as his personal pets.

You, start in the forest, outside of reach of the patrols. Your mission: Make your way into the city, enter the castle, take any documents you find regarding the war-plans of the invading force and return to your starting point in the forest alive (from which you'll be picked up by friendly forces etc). If possible, eliminate as many of the officers as you can. You are a mercenary, and one of the perks of this job is that you can keep any and all valuables you might find in the course of the mission.

Okay, not a great or super-thought out scenario yet, but it will suffice for now :P

So, if you were in this scenario and you have accepted the mission, how would you outfit yourself? What weapons will you carry, how would you armour yourself and what supplies will you be taking? And most importantly, why?

Hope you guys'll like messing with this :)

Deadmeat.GW

2006-10-06, 03:03 PM

Hum, anyone do know that the pistol uses the same bullets as the P90?

I am assuming that the P90 is without stopping power then according to some of you guys?

This bullet has a pretty hefty impact for the actual size due to the way the bullet has ben made, a lot of people actually thought it could not work due to way it was made (and I mean the form it has).

The SS90 ammo is very good concerning stopping power and very good at penetrating most standard body armor.
A standard vest is not a problem but a full on military vest with inserts is a lot tougher and there this bullet does lack the penetrating power...hence why a high velocity version was also designed.

All in all that pistol has the stopping power and the punch to beat a colt or some of the standard magnums BUT...

You have a non-standard bullet that is not going to be self-cast if you need to, you cannot make the proper ammo yourself with standard tooling for making your own bullets.
It is too specific and due to this non-standardised ammo you have the issue that the bullet and the weapon is great but in most places not easy to get hold off.

The gun may be exceedingly good but if you cannot do the major self repair yourself or in a pinch make your own ammo you will be limited in difficult situations.
It is incredibly sturdy, very resilient and able to withstand being mistreated through all terrain but if you do manage to break it you are going to be somewhat in a spot to fix it.

I have fired both and at ballistic gel blocks, the stopping power of this round is quite excellent in both cases and it went through 30 layers of kevlar and a kevlar vest.
Even a kevlar vest with inserts was no match for the P90, the pistol however had some trouble penetrating that as out 50 rounds 8 were stopped by the inserts (partially shattered inserts, semi-penetration and on that just slid off to the side)and the P90 just went through every single time.

All in all this pistol with these rounds does stop people quite well but other considerations (if you have tons of firms that produce standard rounds and you have rounds that can fit in other guns then just the 2 57 weapon systems you have a serious opposition to change over to something like the 57) will be the biggest obstacles.

If special ops teams use the pistol as main back up there has to be a reason and if it really would lack stopping power it would not be used.

Darkie

2006-10-06, 03:53 PM

Further, the 1911a1 has proved more reliable in combat than any 9mm handgun fielded by any army.Wait, even more than the Browning HP?

As for the 5.7 round, while I am a fan, that's more useful in the PDWs than in pistols... given that pistols should be more 'general purpose' while PDWs are most likely going to be used against armored soldiers. And also better in bursts than a few shots when looking at stopping power.

So I like it, I think it's a good round... but for SMG-types, not for pistols. I do like the Sig .357, which is an odd little round... but I'm a Sig Sauer fanboy. German engineering and Swiss precision... mm...

Matthew

2006-10-06, 04:08 PM

By the way, Matthew, I like the idea of everyone posting their preferred loadout for going into a dangerous situation involving close quarters combat (in medieval times). Mostly, I'm curious as to the reasons for various load-outs, i.e. why do you take what you take? Could you share your reasoning behind your load-out? Thanks :)

Sure. Fhaolan was talking about which weapons one could define as 'good all rounders'; Melee and on foot was what I primarily had in mind.

Short Bladed Unwinged Spear: I chose this because it could be both thrown before contact or thrust during combat, rather than being specialised for either purpose. In combat, a Spear gives you plenty of reach and the potential to repel both Foot and Horse. Ash is the usual construction material, sturdy, but with some give.

Large Oval Wooden Shield with Iron Boss (3/8" Thick): I was tempted to go with a Round Shield, but I think an Oval gives better coverage against projectiles. A Heater probably wouldn't be big enough and a Kite Shield is designed for use with Horses. The thickness is the average of the usual range, providing reasonable stopping power without being too heavy. All in all, I would think this kind of Shield would be useful prior to and during Melee and likely effective in offensive combination with a Hand Weapon of some sort.

Oakeshott type X, Xa or XI Sword: This type of blade, as I understand it, is a compromise for thrusting and cutting; it is a single handed weapon good for use in combination with a Shield and relatively quick (so I'm told). A blade length of around 30" or so was what I had in mind, leading with the Shield and following through with the Sword.

Hond Seax: I chose this mainly because I just like the design, but also I think it would be as good as any other in very close quarter fighting [i.e. when things have gone wrong].

All this, of course, assumes that I don't have access to a great deal of expensive Body Armour; a Mail Hauberk and Helmet being most likely.

Norsesmithy

2006-10-06, 05:24 PM

Wait, even more than the Browning HP?
The paper I read that listed the reliability of the various handguns had the Colt 1911A1 and the Browning HP within the predicted error of each other, with the 1911A1 slightly ahead. So for all intents and purposes they are equivalent, and I fudged a little.

As for the infiltration mission put forth by Nifty, I would not carry the load out I had specified before.

New load.

Steel breast plate, soft leather shoes, soft leather gloves, hard leather chaps, steel vambrances, and steel bracers (under loose wool clothing).

Composite bow, with horse hair silencer and owl feather arrows. Leather covered oak round shield, 30 inch diameter. Morning star. Oakeshott type XVI, 28 inch blade. Dirk and Stiletto. A cudgel, perhaps 2 lbs of lead shot in a leather sack at the end of a 18 inch oak shaft. Rope, lots of rope, and plenty of cloth for gags

In other words, weapons heavy enough to work when it gets hot and heavy, and discrete enough to hopefully escape detection until I am on the way to the pick up point.

The lack of trained war or hunting dogs is a severe advantage, because if the dogs are the property of ranking officers, the search party will be reluctant to put them in danger, and if they are willing to put them in danger, there aren't so many that I can't snipe them out.

Edit: Fixed

Nifty_Knickers

2006-10-06, 05:37 PM

^ Very nice:

1) Compound bow, with horse hair silencer

2) Rope, lots of rope, and plenty of cloth for gags

3) The lack of trained war or hunting dogs is a severe advantage, because if the dogs are the property of ranking officers, the search party will be reluctant to put them in danger, and if they are willing to put them in danger, there aren't so many that I can't snipe them out.

1) Composite bow you mean? Shortbow probably? And the horse hair silencer, I haven't heard of it before, how does that work?

2) This reminds me of the Boondock Saints ;D "Do ya know what we need man? Some rope!"

3) The search party definatly won't use them. They won't be all that easy to snipe tho. Most likely, they'll be in the officers quarters close to their owner, meaning that you probably won't run into em outside, but they might note your presence if you're trying to get close stealthily and cause alarm.

Matthew, would you use the same gear in the scenario, or would you take other equipement based on the info?

Norsesmithy

2006-10-06, 06:09 PM

Yes a composite, and no, not a short bow. A composite war bow with the same draw weight and length of a self long bow would be around 48 inches long, and unstrung, that would fit across my back from my left shoulder to my right thigh under a cloak (I am a big target, this is why I like armour).

A silencer is a tuft of hair or ribbon that goes on your bowstring above your nock that dampens lateral vibrations and reduces the noise firing the bow makes. These were and are used to prevent big game from "Jumping the arrow," I figure when hunting man that sort of feature would be useful as well. Specifically using owl feathers to fletch the arrow has a similar effect, but not so much that it really would make much of a difference except in a totemic sense.

The dogs are really only a threat if used to track me down, as a colonel's pet isn't going to be investigated if it barks for the 15 seconds or so it takes me to silence him and his master forever.

Seriously, How many times have you ever checked up on your barking dog if it wasn't barking so long as to annoy you.

If I say, came through a window, made the dog bark, and killed the man before he cried out, the guard would likely assume that the dog had been barking at a rat or something.

Raum

2006-10-06, 06:47 PM

Wait, even more than the Browning HP?
I have the Browning HP, it's a good gun and very forgiving of my occasional mistreatment.

While I think the Browning was the right choice for what I was looking for in a pistol, it doesn't have the stopping power of a .45. But since I'm more of a casual shooter (I'm lucky to get a 5" grouping at the range) I need the extra magazine capacity more than I need single shot stopping power.

In my experience, weapon choice is always situational. And differences in experience and size matter as much as the intended use. There aren't many women I'd recommend a .44 to for example...

----------
As for a melee load out, I'd take a leaf bladed spear about seven feet long, a flanged mace, and a leaf bladed dagger for close work. If we're adding ranged weapons I'd take a crossbow...easier to fire from a prone position. :)

Nifty_Knickers

2006-10-07, 04:55 AM

A silencer is a tuft of hair or ribbon that goes on your bowstring above your nock that dampens lateral vibrations and reduces the noise firing the bow makes.

Ahh, I see. Thanks, my knowledge on bows is very limited, I hadn't heard of this yet, cool.

And true enough on the dogs :)

As for a melee load out, I'd take a leaf bladed spear about seven feet long, a flanged mace, and a leaf bladed dagger for close work. If we're adding ranged weapons I'd take a crossbow...easier to fire from a prone position. :)

Nice :) And I presume very light armour? Probably only padded clothing and the like? From the crossbow being easier to be fired prone I gather you're going to do some crawling and sniping.

As for myself, I'll stick to mostly my original loadout:

A light 7foot glaive with a thick-backed cleaverlike head, carried in hand unless I have to drop it. This will give me ample offensive and some defensive ability vs most of the enemy, and it's cheap enough that I won't feel a pain if I have to drop it and leave it behind at any time.

A long-hafted prong-headed warhammer with a pick-end opposing the hammer head. No spike on top (so it's no bec-du-corbin) as I'll be expecting to use it indoors a lot, and don't want any extra risk of snagging the weapon during a swing. This will give me ample ability to deal with any level of armour I might encounter.

A long-gripped messer, for either close quarters or for if I've lost the glaive for dealing with unarmoured soldiers. Straight-backed so it's still quite stabby. Long-gripped because I prefer two-handed weapons in such situations.

A rondell for if I might need to grapple with an armoured foe. The stiff, thick blade will allow me to try and stab between plates or into maille without fear of breaking the blade.

A knife for grapples with unarmoured foes, and for any other tasks. A knife is always quite a useful tool.

Rations for two days. So I got something to chew on incase I decide I have to hide out in the city for a while and pretend to the soldiers that I'm long gone. A small water pouch, but not much will be neccesary as the snow will be able to provide extra water when needed.

No rope and gags. I'm not planning on leaving people tied up behind, but if I do want to, I can probably scavenge up enough material from the abandoned houses.

A crossbow, because I have next-to-no shooting experience with normal bows. With a crossbow I can still snipe any target I feel I need to snipe.

For armour, I'd wear a short padded coat (tigh lenght) and padded chaps, with soft-soled snow boots. Over the that I'd wear a maille shirt (slightly shorter then the coat) and over the maille shirt perhaps a (what's it called again? I can't remember) cloth front and back. And I'd want padded gloves and bracers, with metal plates sown ontop the tops. Because whatever happens, I want all my fingers to be present and accounted for.

And a simple open-faced helmet over a padded hood.

I believe this set-up with provide me with ample protection against attacks, allow me to move around fast enough, keep me warm enough in the cold, allow me to move through any potential difficult areas without hinder and thus render me able to deal with all encounterable situations in the scenario.

kingofthesofas

2006-10-08, 12:57 PM

Lets see a crossbow for sure for the afore mentioned reason of it being able to be fired from the prone position. A sling for small game and for the simple reasons that it is light, has an infinate supply of ammo (as long as you can find a stream or something to get stones from) and quiet (it only makes sound when it hits the target.) A short sword, a spear, and a sap would be my only other weapons. I would have light armor padded or leather, and an oval shield that could be easyly be carried on my back.

Belkarseviltwin

2006-10-08, 04:57 PM

Slightly OT Russian interlude-
Doesn't Douringrad translate (roughly) as Foolsville?

As for weapons, I think I'd go for some form of rapier as my sword (purely because I'm a sport fencer, and good for 1-on-1 fights, which I hope to end up in a lot of). I'd also take an axe- for armour penetration- and an iron-shod walking staff about 6 ft long. The axe would be a one-hander, single-bladed, with a spike on the back.

This gives me all three sides of the sword-axe-staff triangle (sword beats axe, staff beats sword, axe beats staff). I know that's a simplistic view, but it doesn't seem too wildly inaccurate to me. For range, I'd go for a sling (easy to carry). I would also carry a crossbow for officer-sniping.

The axe and staff also have other uses. I can break trail with the axe, and the staff is a walking stick and can be used as a tent ridgepole, in addition to the old helmet-on-a-stick trick.

I would wear mostly padded armour, with a visorless helmet (probably sallet or barbute, or a bascinet with an aventail), leather gloves backed with iron, and a brigandine. Plenty of fur trim between me and the metal, hopefully, and good pair of boots. As for shield, probably just a buckler, as a larger one would be useless with the rapier, I can't use it with the staff anyway, and if I'm being shot at I'm probably dead no matter what shield I'm carrying (barring a mantlet!). I would carry 2 days' rations (mostly dried meat), 2 tarpaulins, hunting knife, bedroll and tinderbox, and wear a hooded cloak.

Fhaolan

2006-10-08, 10:13 PM

In the given scenario, what would I take with me. Simple, but well-made clothing, a somewhat long eating knife. Most importantly, a leather apron and a selection of hammers, saws, files, rasps, augers, and wood chisels in a bundle.

Basically, the problem is that with the scenario as written, I would be unwilling to fight my way into the castle, and having anything even vaguely resembling a military weapon would make me an automatic target. However, I do have enough woodworking experience to pass as a journeyman carpenter. Any and town recemty occupied by an army will be desperate for carpenters and stonemasons, and willing to pay well. I might as well get paid twice for this. Given that they are an occuping force, they won't be familiar with all the townspeople, so it's harder for them to spot me as an outsider.

If I need a real weapon, I'll take one from whatever soldiers I kill when I make my move to get the plans. With the long knife and the carpenter's hammers, I am sufficiently armed to take down any servants in the castle, change clothing with them, and move on to officers, and from there to the commander and his plans.

This mission doesn't call for a soldier. It calls for an assassin and spy. :)

Norsesmithy

2006-10-08, 10:40 PM

This mission doesn't call for a soldier. It calls for an assassin and spy. :)
True, but I don't see myself devoting more than 2 to 3 days, I think that your plan may take longer to bake than you expect.

I see it as bypass the troops, assasinate the officers, gather any intelegence, burn part of the city and walk out as the newly promoted officers try to put out a fire and search a panicing camp for a lone man no one got a good look at.

Also, I forgot to mention lamp oil. I would have at least a gallon and a half in pint containers.

The encampment seems disorganized enough that 'bout anyone could slip unnoticed into the officer's quarters, especially if he can nick a sergents uniform.

Your plan's weakness, as I see it, is that the civilians have deserted the city, so the invading soldiers are alone in the mainly empty burg.

So volunteering your services as a carpenter may mark you as suspect, if you are one of very few enemy citizens left in the town.

Also, if worse comes to worse, and you have to fight your way out, you are depending on what you find in the way of armour and heavy weaponry.

That means trouble, and it is my experience with games or pranks, that fighting your way out is the most likely outcome, so you might as well plan on it.

If you end up able to just walk out, you are better off walking out prepared for a fight than fighting out with scavenged gear.

Nifty_Knickers

2006-10-08, 10:45 PM

This mission doesn't call for a soldier. It calls for an assassin and spy. :)

Not quite :)

This is a large city now recently occupied by part of an invading army. None of the original inhabitants of the city are left, all having been evacuated a long while ago. The army itself is camping out the worst of the winter there before it will push on further into the land. They are effectively camping out in the middle of enemy lands. I doubt they would be trusting of Any traveling merchants or craftsmen in the area, especially not in that time of the year (keep in mind that this is part of an invasion force, meaning that the army will have it's own dedicated craftsmen along for the ride).

Edmund

2006-10-09, 09:24 AM

I'm going to include armour in my medieval loadout, because I am rather picky.

My main weapon is probably my horse. I'm a huge proponent of mounted combat, despite the fact that I don't know the first thing about riding... But let's suppose that I do.

My next weapon is my spear/lance, a simple, non-lugged head. http://www.armabohemia.cz/imgnew/epees/reste/LanceC.jpg

After that, we have a single-handed horseman's axe, the head holding a long, somewhat more narrow-than-usual blade and a hammer end, similar to the leftmost blade here (http://www.xenophon-mil.org/rushistory/medievalarmor/russ38.htm).

Then we have your cruciform sword somewhat similar to the XII or XVI. An in-between sword, really. Thrusting capabilities, but mainly slashing.

The ubiquitous dagger, of course, of the rondel type.

Last is the shield. My preference leans toward triangular forms, like the heater presented here (http://www.merctailor.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=112&osCsid=abb4347d1d 4d5222f3fd403a701efb83)

Moving on to armour:

A pair of milanese-style plate legs, a good hauberk of maille, a pair of naruchi (a Russian vambrace related to the Persian bazuband), a helmet similar to the one shown here: http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/albums/userpics/13507/normal_DSC01094.JPG but with the addition of a maille aventail, and of course the appropriate padding underneath.

In my opinion this armour is light and mobile and, though it does not offer the protective qualities of a full suit of plate, the shield, in my opinion, makes up for that.

Oh, and Belkarseviltwin, could you be more precise in your definition of a rapier? Perhaps finding a photographic example? Because, as my recent trips to the Kelvingrove Art Gallery/Museum have shown me, it seems anything with a swept or cup hilt is being called a rapier. And I had never heard of a sword-axe-staff triangle.

Edit: I'm also considering adding lamellar or coat-of-plates cuirass in there... I dunno.

Belkarseviltwin

2006-10-09, 04:59 PM

Raum

2006-10-09, 09:10 PM

The "sword / axe / staff triangle" you mention seems overly simplistic to me. Even if skill is assumed to be equal, what armor is being worn? What type of sword or axe is being discussed?

There's a big difference between a spatha, a German "bidenhander", and an 18th century smallsword. There's a similar range of differences in axes and potentially in staff weapons depending on how inclusive you wish to be.

Nice :) And I presume very light armour? Probably only padded clothing and the like? From the crossbow being easier to be fired prone I gather you're going to do some crawling and sniping.
Not too light. Probably a combination of leather and brigandine. Brigandine because it protects better than leather alone, isn't going to make too much noise or have bright reflective spots, is easy (relatively) to care for in the field, and distributes weight better than chain. It also won't catch on things as easily as chain while crawling around.

Norsesmithy

2006-10-09, 09:57 PM

The "sword / axe / staff triangle" you mention seems overly simplistic to me. Even if skill is assumed to be equal, what armor is being worn? What type of sword or axe is being discussed?

There's a big difference between a spatha, a German "bidenhander", and an 18th century smallsword. There's a similar range of differences in axes and potentially in staff weapons depending on how inclusive you wish to be.
Not to mention that what proves true in a friendly sparing match isn't going to prove true in a vicious death match.

If the man with the sword isn't willing near to the point of enthusiasm to kill, a staff wielder is going to be much more effective, but if he is aggressive to the point of folly, the staff man is going to have great trouble dropping the swordsman before the range has closed too much for the staff to be effective at offence or defence.

Edmund

2006-10-10, 06:51 AM

The sword-axe-staff triangle is:
A good staff wielder will normally beat a good swordsman (see George Silver). A good swordsman will normally beat a good axeman (speed advantage, mainly). A good axeman will normally beat a good staff wielder (staff blocking becomes ineffective against an axe).
I heard about it on another forum (I think it was dicefreaks).

I don't think that triangle is logical. Aside from the fact that I think Silver isn't worth very much when it comes to the Staff or the Bill against other weapons (as they are weapons where his opinion of them are strongly tainted with nationalism) the idea that axes are inherently slower than swords isn't strictly true and furthermore the 'axe beats staff' part I find particularly hard to believe, especially because it neither takes into consideration the presence of a shield, nor does it give consideration toward the specific type of weapon involved, as others have said.

Going back to the rapier: Unfortunately, the link you provided doesn't work.

Nifty_Knickers

2006-10-10, 07:59 AM

Slightly OT Russian interlude-
Doesn't Douringrad translate (roughly) as Foolsville?

You know, I pulled that name out of my ass when I was making that scenario :D If that's what it means, I love it!

@Edmund: Is... that loadout... for the scenario? O.o

If so, you get a 10+ for style. But, going to have to give you a -1000 for practicality.

@The triangle theory.... eh, sorry, it doesn't make sense to me in any way. :-/

Edmund

2006-10-10, 02:24 PM

@Edmund: Is... that loadout... for the scenario? O.o

If so, you get a 10+ for style. But, going to have to give you a -1000 for practicality.

Hah, no! That's my general medieval battlefield loadout.

Medium-heavy cavalry is my comfort zone, rather than heavy (full plate armour) or super-heavy (plate for you and your horse, or Maille or Lamellar in Byzantine/Persian/Turkic style)

For the given scenario, all I can think of is starting a plague in the army, or poisoning their water supply (not necessarily fatally) to the point that their patrols become infrequent, then slipping in, pretending to be a mercenary member of the aforementioned army, with your general mercenary loadout (arming sword, buckler, dagger, arbalest, quarrels, padded armour, barbute) and sneaking about, shooting/cleaving/stabbing as I go. Not the most practical, but then again the whole proposition is a bit outlandish.

My other solution is to genetically modify myself into a Modern Action Hero (tm) and take out the army singlehandedly.

Wehrkind

2006-10-11, 06:16 PM

Yea, that weapon triangle nonsense is just that. There are too many different kinds of axes, swords both single and two handed, and staves just are not weapons of war. Axes are no more difficult to block than swords, just different. A two handed sword is going to rock a guy with a staff's world, since he can use it the same way if he has a mind to (half swording) except that the shots are going to cut and gouge instead of bludgeoning. The whole thing is just silly.

On pistols (sorry, been busy at work): A .22-9mm round is sort of silly in home defense. Any tiny, 110 pound asian girl can fire a 1911 .45 without too much trouble (mine certainly could her first time holding a gun) and you don't need to be terribly accurate at the 5-10 feet most home encounters occur in, nor do you need to fire a lot. Unless you are firing a round that won't reliably put someone down even if you gut shot them, such as a .22 or 9mm. Total lethality matters a lot less in personal defense than instant dropping power. If your enemy goes down immediately, who cares if they die from the wound? Sure, you may want to shoot them again for safety and liability reasons, but if he is on the ground and not trying to stab you, you win. On the other hand, if you shoot him in the belly and he keeps coming to stab or shoot you, then dies 3 minutes later, you lose. Internal bleeding is great eventually, but you need a round that is going to stop someone dead in their tracks, whether or not your round placement does. Big hollow points are the way to go in that respect.

Now, weapons load out:

For general combat: Oval scutum, gladius or broad sword are my typical "I want to live in mass combat" picks. The defensive abilities verses arrows, spear points and the like of a shield are immense, and not to be ignored unless you have the heaviest armor, in my opinion. In singles, I still favor the shield against most weapons, but the pollaxe is a great deal of fun as well. It is heavy enough that even blows to shields need to be solidly blocked (as opposed to a more passive defense) as the impact will still throw someone off balance, but at the same time is managable enough to defend and retaliate when the opponant rushes in on you. If you can get your hands on the head for one from... ah hell, can't remember the name of the company, but search for pollaxe and it comes up, put it on a rattan shaft as tall as you are, and start womping your buddies, SCA or other armored sport rules applying of course. I highly recommend it. (Get a good pair of gauntlets with solid set thumbs though, mine got smashed pretty baddly, and now I am waiting for a better set.)

Mike_G

2006-10-12, 12:30 AM

Generic Medieval combat load:

I. Assuming a set battle where I would be standing up with a hundred of my closest friends.

Mail hauberk, greaves and vambraces, lobstertail hem with a nasal. A good sized shield, but nothing so cumbersome as a tower. Maybe a heater or kite shield.

A lugged spear, short heavy sword like a Katzbalger for close quarters, a long knife, and a warhammer for any heavily armored enemy.

II Typical D&D scenario, small unit combat

Add a longbow. Lose the spear and katzbalger and add a single edged backsword, straight blade with a decent point, even though it'd be mostly an edge weapon. Make the shield a targe.

III Lighter combat, like the scenario above

Change the armor to padded, in a dark neutral color. Change the sword to a well balanced cut and thrust sword. Lose the shield and add a parrying dagger, simple, like a long kinfe with upswept quillons. Make the longbow a short recurve. Keep the hammer in case I do meet a guy in heavy armor.

IV Civilian duel

Smallsword. I dislike the traditional rapier's heft. For walking around in a dangerous city, I'd prefer the cut and thrust sword and the dagger or buckler.

Norsesmithy

2006-10-16, 01:08 AM

InaVegt

2006-10-20, 03:08 AM

I've heard somewhere that when you replace the tip of a bullet with a keramic tip it becomes armor piercing, is this true?

Thomas

2006-10-20, 04:06 AM

I've heard somewhere that when you replace the tip of a bullet with a keramic tip it becomes armor piercing, is this true?

Seems like a ceramic tip would shatter. You don't want armor-piercing bullets to shatter; you want them to stay together. Small arms AP rounds tend to be a metal core in a metal jacket (FMJ).

Sounds like a myth along the lines of the "teflon-coated cop-killer" (teflon on an AP bullet is a lubricant that protects the gun; the solid metal penetrator is what does the armor-piercing).

Sundog

2006-10-27, 12:45 PM

There have been some experiments with super-hard cerametal composites that suggest that they could create a very lethal armour-penetrating round, but we're years away from anything coming on the market (and they'll be hideously expensive to boot). Ceramic tips sounds more like someone trying to make a better dum-dum.

Subotei

2006-10-29, 01:51 PM

I don't think that triangle is logical.

I agree - give me something with reach any day. IMHO a good hunting spear would beat any of the three most of the time.

Norsesmithy

2006-10-29, 05:46 PM

Any input on my bow?

Are the materials too stiff?

Does anybody have any experience as a bowyer?

Fhaolan

2006-10-31, 02:17 PM

Speaking of bows, I have thought up a visually and thematically awesome concept for a full size composite Hungarian style bow I want to make, and I was wondering if any of you would know if these materials would coalesce into a workable bow.

It would have Wapiti antler forearms, Whalebone and Baleen belly, and brown bear sinew backing.

It would probably be in the 100-115 lb draw range, about the best I can draw accurately.

Technically, this would produce a workable bow. Be careful in selecting the antlers, as I've been told that there is a disease wandering around the wapiti population producing brittle antlers.

Also, you may have some difficulty getting the materials. Legal harvesting of whale and bear parts is restricted in many countries.

Whalebone was considered a 'upscale' material for composite bows back in the late fourties. The only one I've seen was from Glenn St. Charles, one of the old-time american master bowyers. I've been told that it's a quirky material to work with, but I have no personal experience with it.

Norsesmithy

2006-10-31, 11:26 PM

Oh, I'll have no problem getting the materials, I have a few Inuit friends for the whale parts, and if I wanted, I could probably legally get Kodiac or Polar bear sinew.

The issue is time. I am a little too busy to do much but lay the theoretical ground work for the many projects I want to undertake.

Mr Croup

2006-11-01, 11:32 AM

Oh, I'll have no problem getting the materials, I have a few Inuit friends for the whale parts, and if I wanted, I could probably legally get Kodiac or Polar bear sinew.

You could only legally get those materials in the US if your yourself are Native American, or if you recieved them after they had been worked into a finished product. Not to say that you couldn't get them, just that it wouldn't be legal.

Beta

2006-11-01, 12:37 PM

Norsesmithy

2006-11-01, 12:40 PM

You could only legally get those materials in the US if your yourself are Native American, or if you recieved them after they had been worked into a finished product. Not to say that you couldn't get them, just that it wouldn't be legal.

I am 1/16 Ojibway, but that is irrelavent, unless I want polar bear sinews. The rest can all be had by anyone, legally, if they know where to look.

If I don't want to get treaty protected whale parts, I can get Danish, Norwegan, or Japanese sourced baleen and bone. The antlers are completely unregulated, and I could go out and hunt brown bear myself, legally.

Mr Croup

2006-11-01, 01:30 PM

Most definitely true about the antler, meant to mention that. As far as the kodiak goes, to my knowledge, and this restriction could have been lifted in the last year or two, kodiaks were listed as having the Endangered conservation status, and thus hunting and sale of their carcass or parts (outside of indigenous peoples with cultural ties to the practice) was subject to the same restrictions placed on polar bears. As far as getting whale parts, I believe that Native American hunted whalebone is subject to the same regulations in most cases (that it need be in a worked and finished form for sale). I could be mistaken on the whalebone issue, as there are entirely too many organizations involved in whaling regulations to keep track of.

Fhaolan

2006-11-01, 02:25 PM

I got a new Real-World Weapon or Armor Question.

With melee weapons, in a one-on-one fight, why is it better to have the high grounds? Is it better to have the high grounds in a one-on-one melee fight? Is it ever beneficial to have the higher grounds when not receiving a +1 in melee attack rolls?

The advantage of high ground is your opponent has to climb a slope of some kind to reach you. This takes effort which you, having the high ground, don't have to expend. It takes less energy to attack down a slope than up.

In more extreme high grounds, continuously swinging at an opponent above your head is very tiring. And annoying.

Beta

2006-11-01, 03:08 PM

In more extreme high grounds, continuously swinging at an opponent above your head is very tiring. And annoying.

Alright, it might be slightly more tiring to swing a sword above your head than down towards your feet, but won't it take quite some swinging before the difference actually becomes noticable? Before that happens the fight could be long over, especially in the real world, where one hit could finish you off easily. Or is that only true in my mind?:smile: guess I really had the finishing blow from obi-wan vs anakin from star wars 3 in my mind when i wrote this question. In that example obi-wan had the higher ground and won, but i still dont understand why.

Anyhow back to the real world, what if I was duelling in a bar, and I jumped on the table, while my opponent remains on the ground. Wouldn't that be his advantage, since he can now easily chop through my legs but I dont have any extra reach upon him compared to standing on the ground?

oriong

2006-11-01, 04:12 PM

Well, applying any 'realism' to that situation is pretty silly, but obviously it was a bit different than the standard 'higher ground' and definitely goes beyond the 'real world weapons'

First, Anikin could not fight in front of obi-wan, he would have caught on fire from the lava (if I recall the set up correctly). The situation forces him to leap over obi-wan (which he did). If obiwan had been been lower than or equal to anikin's height then likely a good jedi leap could have taken him completely over obi-wan and out of reach of his saber.

But he was higher, so anikin could not remain out of reach of obiwan. By leaping over him he put his lower body within reach of obi-wan's sword, but out of reach of his...meaning he could not parry the sword effectively. So he basically gave a supernaturally skilled warrior with a sword that can cut through super-steel a free shot at his lower extremities with no way to block and no means of dodging (he was in the air at the time).

So yeah...it was stupid.

Beta

2006-11-01, 04:23 PM

hey... you know what? ... that makes perfect sense!!
tnx!:smallsmile:

Got any ideas about the standing-on-the-table-problem?

MaN

2006-11-02, 08:48 AM

Fhaolan

2006-11-02, 01:14 PM

So what's the deal with the absurdly long pointy-toed footgear on some plate armor? Aerodynamic? Use it to guide the horse? Kick infantry in the face? Fashion trend? Not really important I guess, just curious.

This one's easy. Fashion. Absurdly long pointy-toed sabatons (foot armor) coincided with absurdly long pointy-toed shoes.

I can't find a link to it, but I swear there's a suit of armor with a hawk/eagle theme down to the beaked helm and talon-shaped sabatons. Unfortunately, it looks more like some kind of metal chicken than a hawk. This falls into the category of armor called 'grotesques', usually limited to visors shaped like grimacing demons and stuff.

Mike_G

2006-11-02, 02:28 PM

hey... you know what? ... that makes perfect sense!!
tnx!:smallsmile:

Got any ideas about the standing-on-the-table-problem?

Standing on a table is generally bad ground in a fight. You scarifce mobility and expose your legs for a nice, easy cut at a comfortable height for you opponent, and make it hard for you to defend them. You do get a nice angle to strike down at his head, but he can move back easier than you can. It's also easier to parry a head shot than a leg shot most of the time.

The legs are a nice target anyway. Examination of bodies from a Scandinavian battle (forget the name, Visby, maybe) showed many of the dead with leg wounds. The leg is hard to defend, generally less armored, and full of nice, juicy arteries fairly near the surface. A good cut or crushing blow to the leg will put you out of the fight nicely. Even if it's not fatal, you may well be hobbled and unable to bear weight on it, which means you're basically out of action.

Norsesmithy

2006-11-02, 05:04 PM

I really don't like the Higher Ground rules for melee. When in a melee fight, you shouldn't be thinking like a fighter pilot or an artilleryist. You should be thinking like a tanker. You want to be "Hull Down", not skylined.

In a tactical sense, you want the high ground, but only because it makes it easier for you to advance, and harder for you enemy to advance on you. Even then, the elevation differences most often simply weren't so great as to make a difference on say a 10 foot scale.

lsfreak

2006-11-03, 04:23 PM

For fighting on higher ground... it my limited experience, in a one-on-one fight, it does make it easier to get around shields and such, and you can use your own shield held out a about a 30 degree angle or so to force your opponent even farther away, making it more difficult for them to hit you. Of course, that works both ways. On fairly steep ground it leaves your lower parts exposed.

Now for a question of my own:
Anyone know a good site for getting bullet dimensions? A few years ago I discoverd a site that had metric and English/common names, example guns, and exact bullet length and width, and after finally recalling the name (I've been looking for a few days now), the site has vanished.
For example, I cannot find anywhere the REAL dimensions of a 10mm Auto, or .45APC, or even a .22LR. The case dimensions are a little easier to find, but they're not what concern me. Can anyone help?

daggaz

2006-11-06, 01:11 PM

Having read about a hundred posts on the staff/sword/axe triangle, I just gotta shake my head...

One of the worst is the axe beats staff automatically thing (cuz its so good at chopping and staffs are made of wood)... seriously.. First, a decently weighted sword is pretty good at chopping as well, especially if you aren't attacking a thick and dense block, like a solid tree. Second, any good fighter worth his salt with a staff wouldn't use it in a direct blocking action against any heavy, bladed weapon. At the most, you would use a motion which would ensure the blade glances or slides off to one side.

But mostly, and I mean seriously, pay some more attention to martial arts. A staff, tho longer and perhaps heavier (actually I would say most of the swords I have held were heavier than your typical staff, but I'll let this go just to illustrate a point) than a typical sword , is two handed, and with the proper grips and bodily motions, is quite capable of astonishing speeds. In addition to this, there are far more moves a capable fighter can make with a staff. LOTS of them. Add to this the fact that a staff has an enormous reach advantage. Short of using it as a improvised spear which does work, you can also get the momentum up and swing it in a large arc using only a strong grip on one end. Thats for maximum reach, just standard holds are still well over the typical swordfighter's reach, without overextending your balance.

All in all, I would say that if the same fighter, equally skilled in all weapons and given free range of motion, were to fight himself using these weapons, then the staff would come out with an advantage over both the axe and the sword.

Of course, this is still simplifying things, as their are many types of staffs, axes, and swords. But in general..

Oh yeah, and as for the people who give the staff big minus points cuz it can't slash and is easily stopped by armor, think 'blunt-force trauma.' Specifically, "cranial blunt force trauma", tho keyed strikes at the joints, the armpit, the groin, etc.. do just as nicely.

Edmund

2006-11-08, 11:32 AM

Daggaz, I agree with you towards the beginning of the post, but at the middle we fall in to some disagreement.

First, your side note:

actually I would say most of the swords I have held were heavier than your typical staff, but I'll let this go just to illustrate a point
Then you have been handling some hefty swords, perhaps just longswords or (heaven forbid) gaudy wallhangers?

Now, according to the stats on the Purpleheart Armoury's website for their staves, http://www.woodenswords.com/WMA/index.htm, the heaviest they give a weight for is their 8' one-and-a-quarter-inch round section ash staff, at 1.45 kg, followed by the 6', one-and-a-quarter-inch round section hickory staff at 1.4 kg. Their lightest is a one-and-a-quarter-inch, eight-foot, octagonal section ash staff at 1.36 kg.

Albion Swords' heaviest sword currently in production is their Museum Line Svante (http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/johnsson/sword-museum-svante.htm), at 1.81 kg followed by their Baron (http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-baron-xiia.htm) model at 1.67 kg.

Now, averaging the weight of all their current production swords excepting their Roman era Next Generation swords, I come up with a weight of 1.19 kg. Even without the addition of the Viking era swords, which gives a large preponderance of lighter, single hand swords, I get an average of 1.284 kg, lighter than the average staff weight of 1.403

In addition to this, there are far more moves a capable fighter can make with a staff. LOTS of them. I'd like to know of them as, given the ability to half-sword, many longswords can be used in a fashion similar to that of staves, in addition to the ability to attack with the crossguard and pommel, which staves lack.

Add to this the fact that a staff has an enormous reach advantage. Short of using it as a improvised spear which does work, you can also get the momentum up and swing it in a large arc using only a strong grip on one end. Thats for maximum reach, just standard holds are still well over the typical swordfighter's reach, without overextending your balance.

Arguably, the reach 'advantage' is no advantage at all. The biggest problem with polearms in general is that they have a very small 'danger zone', if you will. Think of it as a kind of broad, short cone which extends outward from the head of the polearm be it stave, spear, halberd, or otherwise. The issue is that the enemy needs to be kept in front of or within that zone. If they are able to pass through it, towards you, without being harmed, then you, my friend, are in serious, serious trouble.

Shields and bucklers, in general, are excellent for moving through this region of peril relatively safely. By placing your shield or buckler against the head of the weapon and setting it aside, you have created an ideal, if momentary, gap during which you can move in and strike the wielder down, as the Spanish sword-and-buckler men did to Swiss pikemen.

Arguably, the polearm user could step back, but there again so could the shield user step forward or, if using a buckler, could grab the weapon in question with his buckler still in hand, and continue inwards to slay his opponent.

Thus, the battle of sword/axe/mace-and-shield/buckler v. polearm is one of the former attempting to move beyond the head of the polearm, protecting himself with his shield or buckler, while the latter attempts to kill the former before they find their polearm thwarted by the shield.

That is one reason why I find the 'broad swing' idea hard to swallow in a one-on-one situation. By making a large swinging arc, you must move that 'danger zone' away from your target in the wind-up. A good fighter will exploit this by moving in and killing you.

In the last thread, where two-handed weapons are discussed, I show a number of plates from Talhoffers 1459 manuscript that show polearm users being killed again and again by longsword wielders. This shows, at least, that fighters skilled in the use of the longsword could triumph over fighters skilled in the use of polearms.

All in all, I would say that if the same fighter, equally skilled in all weapons and given free range of motion, were to fight himself using these weapons, then the staff would come out with an advantage over both the axe and the sword.
As I have suggested above, sword-and-shield/buckler actually has an advantage over polearms, at least in formations. Now, if the shield or buckler is removed, and you have a man with a single-handed sword fighting a man with a staff, then you enter a wholly different kettle of fish.

Oh yeah, and as for the people who give the staff big minus points cuz it can't slash and is easily stopped by armor, think 'blunt-force trauma.' Specifically, "cranial blunt force trauma", tho keyed strikes at the joints, the armpit, the groin, etc.. do just as nicely.

I'm thinking 'blunt force trauma' but, due to the staff's lack of any kind of club head -that is, the weight of the weapon, and therefore its force, is not concentrated near the business end- I realise that there are other weapons which can deal with armour much more effectively without the need for a big wind up, and so put the quarterstaff in the 'discard' pile for warfare, where it belongs.

As for the edge, well, edges and points are often advantageous. That's why you find them on all kinds of weapons, with few exceptions. This is because they do an excellent job of concentrating force onto a very finite area. Warhammers, heck, even many maces, to some degree, had points. And all flanged maces had edges. Not sharp edges, but edges nonetheless.

Norsesmithy

2006-11-09, 12:30 AM

Sundog

2006-11-09, 01:31 PM

Well said Edmund.

Does anyone know anything on Viking ship tactics, or what they used to fight? Did they mount seige engines (oangers, mangonels, balista, or trebuchets)? I though I heard that the Vikings were pretty good with seige weaponry.

The Vikings were pretty good with siege weapons, when they bothered with them at all. The most proficient were probably the Danes, who used catapult-style weapons (I'm unsure of the exact type, but they were rope-tension catapults, not gravity-feed trebuchets) to reduce a number of English fortresses during their establishment of the Danelaw on Albion.

However, Viking longships were usually unarmed. This was in accordance with their raiding/trading concept - fights needed to be over fast, and heavy weapons just got in the way and took up space better spent on plunder and trade goods. Given the longship was probably the epitome of seagoing craft of their time, against a seaborne opponent the Vikings would have had the choice of making a fight into an arrow-exchange, a boarding action, or just refuse a fight and sail away - why fight when you don't have to, where's the profit in it?

About the only time I've heard of the Vikings being challenged at sea was Alfred the Great's attempts to use naval force against them. He had some luck with what were basically archery barges - flat bottomed rafts with as many archers as could fit and work on them, with a protective railing. But then, he was facing outright invasion, not just raiders, and therefore could identify where his forces probably neded to be.

Fhaolan

2006-11-09, 01:44 PM

Well said Edmund.

Does anyone know anything on Viking ship tactics, or what they used to fight? Did they mount seige engines (oangers, mangonels, balista, or trebuchets)? I though I heard that the Vikings were pretty good with seige weaponry.

Surprisingly enough there are a lot of questions around the weapons used by the Norse in different time periods. There were many weapons described by contemporary writers that have no surviving examples. There are items used by the Norse that are called 'halberds' and 'catapults'. However, no illustrations or actual weapons have been recovered. At least, not so that they are recognizable as a halberd or a catapult. Several attempts have been made to produce possible reconstructions but without archeological evidence they may be plausible but not 'for sure'. :)

The closest thing to a Norse catapult I've seen is single-man thing that looks like a cross between a balista and a slingshot.

Blinkbear

2006-11-09, 05:06 PM

Fhaolan

2006-11-09, 05:21 PM

I hope this has not been asked too often (yes, I have already searched this thread, but not the others, since I was not able to find them):

How do you carry a morningstar? Many clerics @ DND walk around with them, even those who do not wear heavy, protective armor. Are they somehow sheathed? Or is it simply unrealistic to carry them with you all the time?

This was addressed in... I think the first version of this thread. But that was a long time ago and I don't blame you for not being able to find it. :)

You carry a morning star in your hand. Or, you have someone else carry it for you, or you stick it in a barrel, or on a cart, or a box. :)

There does not appear to be a way to sheathe a morningstar as such, the way you can a sword. I've seen many attempts, and they were all failures unfortunately. It boils down to needing to cover then entire spikey head of the morningstar, plus the problem of the length of the chain and handle, then add in a desire to be able to 'draw' it quickly... It all starts to fall apart. Much like the idea of sheathing a true greatsword on your back, it's a cute concept, but if you actually try it the guy with the regularly sized sword will have gutted you three or four times by the time you've got your weapon ready.

Blinkbear

2006-11-09, 05:24 PM

Thank you very much, that was fast!

btw: My DM once found a way for my cleric to wear it easily: It was a magic morningstar whose spikes were able to retracting out of combat.

bladesmith

2006-11-11, 03:36 PM

Now for a question of my own:
Anyone know a good site for getting bullet dimensions? A few years ago I discoverd a site that had metric and English/common names, example guns, and exact bullet length and width, and after finally recalling the name (I've been looking for a few days now), the site has vanished.
For example, I cannot find anywhere the REAL dimensions of a 10mm Auto, or .45APC, or even a .22LR. The case dimensions are a little easier to find, but they're not what concern me. Can anyone help?

Hornady (https://www.hornady.com/index.php) is a good start. I'd actually start looking up more re-loading sites, they will probably give you the best information. Although, seeing as rimfires aren't reloaded, you might have trouble with the .22.

shahzadmasih

2006-11-14, 10:00 AM

Hi, This post is very informative, however I would like some specific information. If someone can help me then please send me a private message. Best Regards,

Fhaolan

2006-11-14, 12:10 PM

I'm feelin' the need ta rant! I think it's still technically on topic. Pardon me if it isn't. :)

The poll on 'Katana Damage' made me think of two specific problems that I would like to address. It is 'judging the average quality of something from the surviving examples', and 'just because it's old doesn't mean it's real.'

In the areas we (generalization of all GitP posters, may be innacurate in individual cases) deal with this will show up a lot with arms and armor, but it applies to all antiques. In the area I live, we've recently had a damaging flood. We noticed that most of the very old barns in the area are built very sturdy and on high ground, while a lot of modern barns are underwater or badly damaged because they were built on the floodplains.

So, many people are drawing the reference that the earlier barn-builders were, by nature, much better barn-builders with a level of craftsmanship not seen anymore.

Bullpucky. What we're not seeing is all the old barns that had already washed away years before in previous floods. The *surviving* barns are of better quality and construction because those that weren't didn't last long enough to be included in the sample.

Nearly all antique katanas are judged to be of exquisite craftsmanship, with months if not years devoted to their creation. Because there are few poor-quality antique katanas, a generalization is made that all katanas were of such craftsmanship.

Because few poor-quality true katanas survived does not mean that they didn't exist. They didn't survive because they were poor quality. Either they were destroyed in use, salvaged for metal, or repurposed in some other way. Metal was too rare in that region for poor quality blades to remain intact.

The flip side of this coin is often applied to European weapons. Because many surviving European swords are badly damaged or decayed, it is assumed that they are of poor quality. Most people don't consider what level of quality that these weapons had to be in order to survive at all! If one of the high-quality katanas was found after seven hundred years at the bottom of a peat bog it wouldn't look much different from the European swords that have been recovered there. Actual antique European weapons that have been kept in good condition because they are heirlooms demonstrate the similar high level of craftsmanship to weapons in similar situations in other cultures, including the Japanese, Chinese, and so on.

Now to muddy the waters, there was (and still is) a rousing market for absolutely garbage replica swords. These were used as decoration, symbols of authority or rank, and for many other non-combat purposes. Many of these are old enough to be antiques in their own right. However, they should not be included in evaluations of actual weapons. Due to the fact that European warfare became dependant on guns hundreds of years before the Japanese adopted the practice [About two hundred years, if I remember correctly], Europe being much larger with a higher population, plus the apparant scarcity of metal in Japan metioned before, there are fewer of these antique replicas in Japan than there are in Europe.

All these factors have massively skewed perception of weapons from these different cultural groupings. It is almost impossible to evaluate the 'average' quality of a specific ancient culture's weapons because it is extremely difficult to establish where the lower boundry actually was. Were there more poor-quality weapons that didn't survive? Were the poor-quality weapons that did survive real, or were they symbolic/decorative replicas? Were these actually poor quality, or just poorly maintained?

Surviving antique Japanese weapons demonstrate a high level of craftsmanship. There are surviving antique Spanish swords of similar craftsmanship. [Narrowing it down, because comparing 'Europe' with 'Japan' is somewhat unfair due to the massive cultural and technological differences inside of Europe itself.] This is not to say that the average katana is of better or worse quality than the average estoque. But insisting to the point of insanity that just because it's a katana it's automatically the uber weapon of all time and existance, is insulting to both cultural groupings.

Okay, I'm done now. :)

Matthew

2006-11-14, 02:24 PM

Heh; good to see this kind of discussion in its proper place. Apparently there were a ton of rubbish Katana produced later on in Japan. How many rubbish ones existed during the period they were actively used, remains an interesting question.

Mike_G

2006-11-14, 02:31 PM

A large number were mass produced for officers and NCOs during WWII. While some officers had old, family swords, the Army issue katanas weren't particularly well made. And many were blunted cutting machinegun barrels in half ;)

I have a cheap replica katana that a Navy relative picked up in Okinawa. It's a cheap wall hanger, so it's not just European blades that get that treatment.

Matthew

2006-11-14, 02:56 PM

Yeah, that's part of what I had in mind. What always annoys me about Katana is people get tangled up with the manufacturing tecnique and assume that this implies something about the 'design'.

Adlan

2006-11-14, 04:06 PM

Fhaolan

2006-11-14, 04:41 PM

As Far as I'm aware, a Katanas many layers of folding and refolding is to eliminate the weakness caused by the poor quality of Japanese Iron ore.

Again, as far as I'm aware, Japanese Iron ore is limited to Iron rich sand, which means the Iron and steel has a high number of silicates in, and the many layerd teqnique is to spread out the weaknesses caused by them.

I do know that if you over fold a peice of steel, it will develop weak spots of it's own accord. so it's not a case of purely more layers=better steel.

Many centers of swordsmithing in Europe had very similar issues with the quality of the local iron. It may not have been silica, but it was impurities that were very, very difficult to smelt out of the iron. 'Bog iron' of Northern Europe, for example. Not surprisingly, each of these areas arrived at similar forging techniques to combat this issue. Pattern welding, Damask steel, Japanese folded steel... Each is a variation of the same basic lamination technique necessary to spread out (or drive out) the impurities of the iron and steel, and if done properly actually enhance the sharpness of the edge by creating micro-serrations much like modern high-priced kitchen knives. Technically, you can get laminated steel sharper than straight high-quality steel because of the micro-serrations, but the resulting blade will require more care in maintenance and will damage more easily when struck against a very hard surface such as steel armor... or a gun barrel. ;)

Mr_Teatime

2006-11-15, 07:33 PM

Hi. I was wondering, as it's going to come up in my campaign fairly soon, what are some swords, and the differences between them, common to the Middle East?

Also, is scimitar a catch-all term for any curvy sword? Because it certainly seems to encompass a lot of different weapons.

Adlan

2006-11-16, 01:57 AM

Scimitar is simply a corruption of the persian Shamshamir, which simply means sword.

Persian Shamshamirs and Indian Tulwars generally are generally single bladed, and have at least a slight curve in them. Exsposure to them during the conquest of India resulted in their adoption as sabres by the Napolionic Armys (AFAIK).

Matthew

2006-11-16, 01:32 PM

Indeed. There's nothing about the Middle East that makes the Warriors there dependent on curved Swords. However, the common perception is that Occidental Swords are straight and Oriental Swords are curved, which means your players may well identify with that.
Scimitar is a catch all term in D&D 3.x for a curved Sword, equivalent and differentiated from the D&D Long Sword. The D&D Kukri appears to be equivalent to the D&D Short Sword and the D&D Falchion to the D&D Bastard Sword. I have heard tell of the D&D Great Scimitar, which appears to be the equivalent to the D&D Great Sword.
It's up to you how you decide to interpret these D&D categories, though. There are two schools of thought about how you might interpret real weapons in D&D. One looks towards generalisation (which I favour) and the other towards specification (which looks to find numerous different variations on a weapon and assign each slightly different stats).

The question I would ask you, though, is what are you looking for in particular? I could suggest to you a number of Sword names and designs from the 'Middle East', but they wouldn't necessarily have co-existed or even have originated in that neighbourhood. What period are you particularly looking to and what culture did you have in mind?

Mr_Teatime

2006-11-16, 03:37 PM

Yeah, I probably should've been more specific.

I did plan on using pre-existing stats for the weapons, and just needed specific names and such for RP purposes. As for the time period and place, I was thinking about those used by the Turks, around the time of the Crusades. Also wondering if there were any weapons specific to or especially popular in the region of Afghanistan.

Mike_G

2006-11-16, 03:53 PM

A specific Afghan weapon, not exactly sure of the time period, was the Khyber knife. It was certainly in use by the British occupation in the early 1800's, but I don't know how much earlier it was invented.

Basically, it was a slashing shortsword. Over a foot of blade, shaped like a very long chef's knife or a pointed cleaver, the blade had a thick back, was single edged, and was wide at the base. It had no crossguard, but the blade was wider than the hilt, so no chance of your hand slipping forward. The hilt was often horn.

A decent picture, even if it is a modern reproduction:

http://www.mwart.com/xq/ASP.product/pid.2098/qx/khyber-knife.htm

Afghanistan was a crossroads between India and central Asia, including a lot of former Soviet Republics, and was exposed to Indian wepaons as well as horse nomad, Cossack (Khazakh) style weapons.

Matthew

2006-11-16, 04:49 PM

Okay, try these; they are all interlinked:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamshir
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulwar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talwar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilij
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pala_%28sword%29&action=edit [No proper article, shorter type of Turkish Sword, apparently]

Related Articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dao_%28sword%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scimitar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falchion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutlass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machete
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grosse_Messer

Subotei

2006-11-17, 01:34 PM

This might be of interest to someone (or am I the only sad one here)

http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/mg19225780.151-secrets-out-for-saracen-sabres.html

Matthew

2006-11-17, 03:21 PM

Sounds like the usual nonesense. Apparently, Saladin and his contemporaries particularly favoured Swords produced in Spain. Maybe they weren't aware of the super powers of Damascus Sword Making...

Adlan

2006-11-17, 04:09 PM

Swords from Damascus were usually made in North India and the surrounding countrys, Damascus was only the main distribution center. As far as I'm aware.

Matthew

2006-11-17, 04:29 PM

It's a matter of dispute. Basically, it is highly unlikely that there were never any swords produced in Damascus, what their quality may or may not have been is another matter.

Here's the Wikipedia Article:

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

Reading some of the external links it appears that some of it at least is BS. Apparently, the whole silk cutting thing comes from Sir Walter Scott (to say the least, not a very good source!)

Nifty_Knickers

2006-11-17, 07:41 PM

Hiya guys, me's back! Anybody miss me?

On swords: Well, nothing to say really. Each weapon was made and perfected for the times it was used in, the conditions it was used in and the reasons for its use. My personal maxim.

Zincorium

2006-11-18, 05:52 AM

On swords: Well, nothing to say really. Each weapon was made and perfected for the times it was used in, the conditions it was used in and the reasons for its use. My personal maxim.

Oh, I'm sure there were a few flukes that looked nifty and survived until people realized that they didn't work well enough for the user to survive. Then they altered them until they were mediocre or even good. (see modern corrallary: SA-80 or M-16 series of weapons.)

Subotei

2006-11-18, 12:54 PM

Sounds like the usual nonesense.

Eh? Its scientific research on the quality of the steel - which comes from India. It can't be dismissed as nonsense. It doesn't make any claims regarding the qualities of Damscene swords as swords.

Matthew

2006-11-18, 12:58 PM

As far as I can see, it is making claims about Damascus Swords in general over a period of a thousand years or so, based on one Sword example from around 1650. What I mean is that, although scientifically investigated, it just tells us something about a Sword from the 17th Century and almost nothing about what the quality or type of Damascus Swords were during the crusades... Just how it sounds to me, though.

Subotei

2006-11-18, 01:38 PM

True - one result is not proof, however interesting, and I'm not sure it can be extrapolated back to the crusades era with any confidence. It does suggest there may be a basis for the rumoured quality of the blades though.

grinner666

2006-11-19, 11:02 PM

I have a question ...

There was a two-handed sword that basically looked like a reverse scimitar ... right to the sharp edge being on the inside of the curve. It was used by one of the Roman Empires' (eastern) enemies. I can't remember the name of the weapon, or the people who used it. Anybody know?

Norsesmithy

2006-11-19, 11:56 PM

The Falx, If I recall correctly. Google it.

grinner666

2006-11-20, 12:03 AM

Thanks. I love the Dacians!

*giggles and skips away*

Edmund

2006-11-20, 06:42 AM

About the nanotubes: This is no big surprise. Whenever a carbon source is heated, you are likely to get the nanotubes of some form, along with buckminsterfullerenes. It wouldn't be terribly surprising if some of these permeated into steel, especially a crucible steel like wootz. I wouldn't be surprised to find them in case hardened swords either.

Thank you, New Scientist, for not telling us anything new.

Hoggmaster

2006-11-21, 08:15 AM

Sounds like the usual nonesense. Apparently, Saladin and his contemporaries particularly favoured Swords produced in Spain. Maybe they weren't aware of the super powers of Damascus Sword Making...

Spain has been at the forefront of sword technology, hasn't it.

Fhaolan

2006-11-22, 12:12 PM

Spain has been at the forefront of sword technology, hasn't it.

Spain, or specifically city of Toledo, was one of the major centers for swordsmithing from around 1 BC up to the 19th century. Many of the greatest swordsmiths in the known world were in, or moved to, Toledo mainly because it had an excelent repulation for producing the best quality steel used in swordsmithing. The reputation was so great that one of the major trade goods being shipped to Japan from Europe was Spanish swords. Japanese swordsmiths moved to Toledo in order to be closer to this source of steel, and the what they had learned from working with the poor-quality steel of Japan was added to the communities knowledge of swordsmithing. It is at this point that any effective difference between a Japanese sword and a European sword was purely because of design and purpose of use. Technology was the same across the board.

2006-11-22, 12:23 PM

Spain has been at the forefront of sword technology, hasn't it.
AFAIK there was nothing unique about the technology or techniques used in Toledo. As Fhaolan points out, it was simply the quality of the steel that attracted the best swordsmiths. On the other hand both Damascus Steel and Japanese techniques used different casting/alloying techniques to enhance the properties of the metal and sword.

Dervag

2006-11-22, 02:11 PM

Oh, I'm sure there were a few flukes that looked nifty and survived until people realized that they didn't work well enough for the user to survive. Then they altered them until they were mediocre or even good. (see modern corrallary: SA-80 or M-16 series of weapons.)
Also, if all the swordsmiths in a given area were using the same (bad) technique, it might take a few generations before people realized that the swords needed improvement.

In the modern world, we can import weapons from other parts of the globe to get a look at them in a matter of weeks and use sophisticated scientific techniques to reverse-engineer them in a matter of months. Back in the ancient and medieval ages, this was not nearly as feasible.

If you lived in a place like Scandinavia, where sword blades were often of such low quality that the sagas recorded them bending and having to be restraightened in the middle of a fight as a matter of course, you honestly might believe that inferior swords were the norm, and that the rare exceptions were unusual blades made of special 'magical' ore or otherwise beyond the reach of a normal swordsmith.

Even if you did conclude that people in other parts of the world were making better swords than you did, getting ahold of those swords was a non-trivial problem. There was no way you could deduce the way a sword was made just by looking at it (even today, with microscopes and chemical analysis techniques, we can't figure out exactly how Damascene steel was made, for instance). A nation couldn't possibly import enough swords to arm all its warriors. And it would be very difficult for blacksmiths from a land of inferior swords to learn techniques from the swordsmiths of other lands- those methods were proprietary. Even if a few Scandinavian swordsmiths did learn better techniques, they were as likely as not to keep the techniques to themselves as a way of ensuring a steady stream of business.

So an inferior weapon design could easily last for generations, simply because of the difficulty of obtaining 'blueprints' for a better one.

The Falx, If I recall correctly. Google it.

The Falx was actually a 'countermeasure' weapon, sort of like top-attack shaped-charge missiles were invented as a countermeasure against tanks. The Falx isn't an especially good sword design for general purposes, but it's really good at penetrating helmets. The blade curves to a sharp, inward-facing point which you do not want anywhere near your skull.

The Dacians were able to give the Roman Legions a lot of trouble with the Falx at first, because they punched right through legionnairy helmets. Since the Roman fighting style was heavily reliant on the resistance of their front-liners' armor to any sort of easy-to-make, hasty attack, that was a Bad Thing from a tactical standpoint. The ideal was that the enemy would only get one or two shots at a given front-line legionnaire, which would bounce off his shield and armor, before said legionnaire skewered him and moved on. A weapon that had a good chance to kill the front-line legionnaire with a simple overhead swing was very dangerous to this tactical system.

The legions rose to the challenge by making a simple modification to their helmets- a little steel crest. This acted as a 'fender', keeping the nasty dangerous point of the falx far enough away from the helmet that it was unlikely to pierce it and kill the wearer.

Edmund

2006-11-22, 04:45 PM

Also, if all the swordsmiths in a given area were using the same (bad) technique, it might take a few generations before people realized that the swords needed improvement.
If so, that area would have to be extremely insulated, highly unlikely in the Eurasian mainland/northern half of Africa (including Axum and Timbuktu, in other words). Knowledge was disseminated fairly quickly in the medieval world, especially regarding weaponry. If there was a new 'style' of weapon, it would only be adopted if it worked well, and was better or as good as what was already had. In the later case, the new 'style' might be preferred for reasons of fashion.

In the modern world, we can import weapons from other parts of the globe to get a look at them in a matter of weeks and use sophisticated scientific techniques to reverse-engineer them in a matter of months. Back in the ancient and medieval ages, this was not nearly as feasible.Oh, it most certainly was. It would take much longer, comparatively, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't happen. There is clear evidence of Wootz steel being imported into Medieval Europe

If you lived in a place like Scandinavia, where sword blades were often of such low quality that the sagas recorded them bending and having to be restraightened in the middle of a fight as a matter of course, you honestly might believe that inferior swords were the norm, and that the rare exceptions were unusual blades made of special 'magical' ore or otherwise beyond the reach of a normal swordsmith.It sounds to me like you are confusing a saga with an account by Polybius of a battle between Romans and Celts in 252 BC. The fact that Polybius mentions it could easily suggest that it was the exception, rather than the norm, as the barbarian combatants were of a large confederation of Celts, some of whose smiths might not have been adept at making steel/hardening and tempering.

There are instances in some sagas where swords break, but this is not implausible. Even swords get wear-and-tear.

Even if you did conclude that people in other parts of the world were making better swords than you did, getting ahold of those swords was a non-trivial problem. There was no way you could deduce the way a sword was made just by looking at it (even today, with microscopes and chemical analysis techniques, we can't figure out exactly how Damascene steel was made, for instance). A nation couldn't possibly import enough swords to arm all its warriors. And it would be very difficult for blacksmiths from a land of inferior swords to learn techniques from the swordsmiths of other lands- those methods were proprietary. Even if a few Scandinavian swordsmiths did learn better techniques, they were as likely as not to keep the techniques to themselves as a way of ensuring a steady stream of business.You're confusing swordmaking with steel production. A skilled smith can tell a way something was forged just by looking at it, or at the very least get a pretty good idea. Though there is some variation between sword shapes, much of the work is the same.

Now, getting back to steel.

Medieval European steel was of fairly homogenous carbon content, though it would need to be folded (or 'piled') to expel (rather than distribute) slag inclusions in a way similar to Japanese steel-making. Basically: You have a bunch of lumps of high-carbon steel which have been formed during the smelting process. The bloom of steel took longer to make than one of wrought iron, and had to be carefully monitored to make sure you got decent quantities of carbon in there. The bloom would be fairly homogenous, but would have a decent amount of slag. Now you must fold and weld the bloom a few times to get the slag out. This is much more difficult than welding iron, as the burning/welding ranges for higher carbon steel are lower and smaller, so it's easy to have too little heat or too much heat. In the latter case you have to re-attempt the weld, in the former you burn up some of your steel. The skill needed, along with the extra time, makes steel much more expensive than iron (3-4 times more).

Wootz, on the other hand, works like this:
There is a crucible. You put in lumps of wrought iron, a little glass, and a carburising material. This was either a) charcoal dust b) plant matter or c) cast iron. The amount of the carburising material varies depending upon what amount of carbon you want in your end product. The crucible is placed in a blast furnace and heated for nearly a week. The crucibles are removed and cooled very slowly, then broken open. You now have wootz steel! Feel free to forge, harden, and quench at your leisure.

Wootz is a much better steel making process for two reasons. One: Comparatively little slag. Granted, it takes almost a week to get the final product, but it's much less labour intensive. Two: It requires less monitoring and care. Just know the ratios of carburising material:iron and keep the blast furnace going.

So, why didn't the Europeans make their own Wootz? Well, I'll make two guesses.

Guess #1: They couldn't get their furnaces hot enough for long enough. China, at least, had a huge advantage called anthracite coal. This burns much hotter than either charcoal or bituminous coal, the only real heat sources for bloom furnaces at the time. Of course, it could also be a problem with the shape of the furnace, but whatever the reason, you couldn't keep the steel molten for long enough. (as a side note, melting point goes down as carbon content increases. So it's easier to make cast iron (2% carbon content) than 70 pt. steel (.7% carbon content))

Guess #2: Whatever crucibles were available in Europe were of insufficient quality. This is mostly a shot in the dark, because I'm relatively unaware of the precise qualities the aforementioned crucibles.

As a sword steel, Wootz isn't markedly superior to good European or Japanese steel, but its comparative ease of production, and the 'watered silk' aspect made it highly desirable. The microserrations caused by differentiation in the crystalline structure of the edge (i.e. varying areas of martensite, pearlite, cementite, and ferrite) are really quite neat, but from a combat standpoint aren't much more than that.

Oh, it should also be noted that wootz is a very, very high carbon steel, averaging at around 1.6%. This makes it especially hard and quite tough (though from what I understand with discussions I've had with a metallurgist, the toughness curve basically levels at 80 pts, and goes down with hardening and tempering)

Matthew

2006-11-22, 07:16 PM

Bent Sword Syndrome:
This is an unknown quantity. It is oft quoted, but rarely explained. Many academics simply feel that it was Roman propaganda (primarily because of the high skill of 'Barbarian' Metal Smiths). Personally, I suspect that it might have been the case for some unfortunate warriors and has been generalised to include all Barbarian combatants. However, I would be interested to hear which Norse sagas contain such anecdotes, as it would be a good analogue. Mind you, it is worth bearing in mind that our Scandanavian friends roamed far and wide and, according to Oman, greatly desired Frankish Swords. I think this assertion comes from the prohibitions Charlemagne put on the export of war materials outside of his domains ("Don't sell weapons and armour to my enemies you greedy idiots!")...

The Falx:
What exactly is the evidence that this was developed as a helmet buster? I think you would be hard pressed to prove this. As I understand it, the Romans are reported to have reinforced their helmets and donned additional armour during this campaign, but it is only a supposition that it was to deal with the Falx and it is not limited to breaking open helmets. I could, of course, be wrong and I would be grateful for any evidence to the contrary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falx
http://www.gk.ro/sarmizegetusa/ranistorum/site_eng/arma.html

I noticed something very interesting about an Manuscript Illumination I had never noticed before. You can see it on the front of Thomas Asbridge's book The First Crusade:

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0195189051.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V1128370339_.jpg

Notice that the bottom three figures are demonstrating the three principle usages of the Sword, Cut, Chop and Thrust. I wonder whether this was intentional on the part of the artist and what it sas about his knowlege of arms. Any thoughts?

Adlan

2006-11-23, 05:46 AM

Medival Artists were usually monks, but there is nothing to stop a monk either knowing how to use a sword and paint it, or to have seen it first hand. It's entirely concivable that the monk was formerly a soldier of some kind before taking the cloth.

Matthew

2006-11-23, 09:12 AM

Yes indeed, but I wonder whether it would be necessary for a Monk to be a formerly a man of arms to have or seek to demonstrate this sort of knowledge. Does anybody know of any analogues?

Adlan

2006-11-23, 09:33 AM

War Artists? they may not necessarily soldiers, but they can still draw the battle accurately?

Edmund

2006-11-23, 09:36 AM

Yes indeed, but I wonder whether it would be necessary for a Monk to be a formerly a man of arms to have or seek to demonstrate this sort of knowledge. Does anybody know of any analogues?

Well, one of the more frequently referenced series of illuminations comes from the Maciejowski Bible. The detail of the arms and, more particularly, armour, along with the saddle and harness show a good degree of familiarity with war. Of course, the injuries shown to be inflicted by the weapons are by-and-large ridiculous, but the weapons themselves are quite well drawn.

Another example is the I.33 Manuscript which was probably written by a priest. http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/i33/i33.htm

2006-11-23, 09:36 AM

Yes indeed, but I wonder whether it would be necessary for a Monk to be a formerly a man of arms to have or seek to demonstrate this sort of knowledge. Does anybody know of any analogues?
Well its not exactly a demonstration of complex or obscure knowledge. Its perfectly possible that a monk living circa 1095 would have knowledge of the three basic sword moves. Or it could also simply be a coincidence.

Matthew

2006-11-23, 10:50 AM

Well, it was not the obscurity of the knowledge that I considered of interest, but the purpose behind it. Is it intended to demonstrate the knowledge of the illustrator (illuminations, remember, were a composite effort, likely involving more than one individual) and would the audience appreciate such subtleties? This is, after all, not a combat manual, but an illustartion accompanying a history.
As Edmund points out, though, Medieval illuminations, such as those found in the Maciejowski Bible, could be very detailed and show great familiarity with the subject matter (though obviously the illuminations in the Maciejowski Bible, as with many other texts, are anachronistic, being evidence for contemporary warfare, rather than Biblical combat...).
The idea that there were 'War Artists' is certainly an interesting one; I wouldn't be surprised to find that Illuminators and Illustrators specialised in some subject matter. Saying that, there is often a great deal of uniformity in the style of illuminations in particular Manuscripts that otherwise contain a great disparity of scenes.
So, in terms of explanations:

1) The Illustrator is familiar with Swordsmanship, either through experience, instruction or observation.
2) The Illustrator is not familair with Swordsmanship, but has drawn on artistic convention or otherwise been informed as to what is appropriate.
3) The Illustrator is not familiar with Swordsmanship and it was just a fluke tat he depicted these three blows in a single scene.

I think, on reflection, that it is likely to be a combination of the two former possibilities, with emphasis on convention [something prevailant in medieval (and indeed modern) art and literature informed by experience and observation.

So, does anybody feel that the depiction of these three blows was likely unintentional? I do not, but I am interested in other opinions.

Mike_G

2006-11-23, 12:23 PM

We need to be careful relying on artwork for referrence.

Many medieval battle illustrations show swords splitting armored men in half like ripe pumpkins. We can't assume that they could.

Matthew

2006-11-24, 04:27 PM

Absolutely, and the same goes for using the literary sources, which also depict such things (indeed, the illuminations often reflect the text with regard to the splitting of helms, severing of body parts and such). The combination of the realistic and unrealistic is what makes them so interesting.

Dervag

2006-11-25, 02:38 AM

If so, that area would have to be extremely insulated, highly unlikely in the Eurasian mainland/northern half of Africa (including Axum and Timbuktu, in other words). Knowledge was disseminated fairly quickly in the medieval world, especially regarding weaponry. If there was a new 'style' of weapon, it would only be adopted if it worked well, and was better or as good as what was already had. In the later case, the new 'style' might be preferred for reasons of fashion.If the 'style' was something that craftsmen in area A could readily duplicate by observing the products of area B, you are absolutely right. Most of the changes in medieval armaments were of this kind; you could figure out what your brother smiths in France were doing by observing that they had done this to the breastplate, or that they had put that angle into the design of the sword blade, or that the handle was like so. The result was an improvement in the armor or weapon, and duplicating the change was a matter of changing the details of the process. These things could be copied and doubtless were copied, frequently, by any intelligent person who was skilled in their trade.

Oh, it most certainly was. It would take much longer, comparatively, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't happen. There is clear evidence of Wootz steel being imported into Medieval EuropeWas Wootz steel imported (which I did not say couldn't or didn't happen), or was the technique by which it was made imported? Certainly, medieval Europeans could get a look at Wootz-steel blades. But could they figure out how to make them?

It sounds to me like you are confusing a saga with an account by Polybius of a battle between Romans and Celts in 252 BC...I know I'm not confusing a reference to a saga with Polybius, though I could be entirely wrong about the contents of the Norse sagas. My information on this subject is second and third-hand; I do not know where to find references and I freely concede that my information could easily be wrong. I am not an avid reader of Norse sagas, so I said what I thought was true on the basis of what someone else whom I trusted said. This may well have been a mistake, since I could quite easily be working from mistaken information.

You're confusing swordmaking with steel production. A skilled smith can tell a way something was forged just by looking at it, or at the very least get a pretty good idea. Though there is some variation between sword shapes, much of the work is the same.Certainly, if it's a technique they've actually learned or at least seen. If not, it's going to be categorized as "Oh, yeah! This is one of those blades!". The response to this is usually either an attempt to figure out how to make one of those blades or a shrug. Since medieval European armorers were apparently not successful in duplicating the techniques that went into the making of Wootz steel, we can assume that the ones who tried to reverse-engineer the technique failed. They would surely have been able to duplicate the blades' shape and construction, but not the technique of manufacture. Reverse-engineering 'Damascene' steel would be a challenge much greater than that of figuring out how to make a new shape of sword. The latter is simply an application of old techniques in a new way, on the order of reconfiguring your factory to turn out a new model. It may be difficult, but it is by no means impossible. Trying to figure out the unknown process by which a sword was made by looking at it would probably be like trying to figure out which way the train had gone by looking at the tracks, or like trying to convert a steel mill into a semiconducter fabrication plant.

So, why didn't the Europeans make their own Wootz? Well, I'll make two guesses.
Guess #1: They couldn't get their furnaces hot enough for long enough. China, at least, had a huge advantage called anthracite coal...

Guess #2: Whatever crucibles were available in Europe were of insufficient quality. This is mostly a shot in the dark, because I'm relatively unaware of the precise qualities the aforementioned crucibles...This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Europeans didn't figure out the unknown technique of making Wootz steel for the technical reasons you describe and the general reasons I mentioned above. It's hard to get to the place where the different steel is made. Anyone who does get there will have problems learning the technique. Anyone who comes back after learning the technique will be reluctant to share the secret that they burned so much time and energy uncovering.

As a sword steel, Wootz isn't markedly superior to good European or Japanese steel, but its comparative ease of production, and the 'watered silk' aspect made it highly desirable.Which gave Europeans a strong incentive to discover the method of making it. Which means there must have been some pretty good and compelling reasons why all those very intelligent, very capable, very skilled European swordsmiths and armorers never did manage to duplicate the method (at least, not during the era when blacksmith-made steel blades were important to warfare).

However, I would be interested to hear which Norse sagas contain such anecdotes, as it would be a good analogue. Mind you, it is worth bearing in mind that our Scandanavian friends roamed far and wide and, according to Oman, greatly desired Frankish Swords. I think this assertion comes from the prohibitions Charlemagne put on the export of war materials outside of his domains ("Don't sell weapons and armour to my enemies you greedy idiots!")Again, my information on this topic comes second and third hand; I freely concede that I could very well be in error. I wish I could give you a quotation, I truly do.

The Falx:
What exactly is the evidence that this was developed as a helmet buster? I think you would be hard pressed to prove this. As I understand it, the Romans are reported to have reinforced their helmets and donned additional armour during this campaign, but it is only a supposition that it was to deal with the Falx and it is not limited to breaking open helmets. I could, of course, be wrong and I would be grateful for any evidence to the contrary.See above- I wish I could lay out good solid evidence on this topic.

The Falx is a fully functional sword. Nobody would lug around a weapon like that solely for the purpose of attacking helmets. But it is, perhaps, not as well suited to most other uses as some more general-purpose sword design might be, and it was pretty darn good at breaking helmets. Most swords aren't so good at it.

And when one thinks about it- why would the Romans make modifications to their helmets and put on more armor when fighting Dacians if not because of the new role of some weapon, more or less unique to the Dacians? Why hadn't they made these changes before, or made them more generally?

I would contend that the Romans did have to deal with something a little new in the Falx. It wasn't a decisive war-winning weapon, but it was new enough for them that they had to come up with a new way to protect against it.