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

[Joran]

Is it physically possible to mount a laser sight, illuminator, and scope on a Desert Eagle without making it impossible to shoot properly? How would a character go about mounting these three items without blocking the sights and unbalancing the gun?

Thanks.

P.S. Can a scoped gun still be aimed with the iron sights?

[Sundog]

I don't personally know enough about the Desert Eagle to be able to answer the first part of your question, but for the second, the answer is: it depends. Most scoping systems mount on or over the iron sights of the gun, making them unusable, but some of the more unusual mounts place the scope on the side of the rifle, and leave the top of the gun free. So, it would depend on the weapon itself, and whether or not there was a side mount scope for that weapon.

[Joran]

Thanks Sundog,

I guess I shouldn't have been so specific about the type of handgun being used. My character has an obsession with having the right tool at the right time, hence all the attachments.

I guess what I'm asking is if it is possible to put all three attachments on a gun without screwing up anything. Are there parts that have to be in the same place on the gun?

Thanks a lot :)

[Norsesmithy]

Thanks Sundog,

I guess I shouldn't have been so specific about the type of handgun being used. My character has an obsession with having the right tool at the right time, hence all the attachments.

I guess what I'm asking is if it is possible to put all three attachments on a gun without screwing up anything. Are there parts that have to be in the same place on the gun?

Thanks a lot :)
I would go grip laser, underbarrel light, tall hollow mounts for the scope. Definatly taticool though.

I wouldn't want a weapon light on a handgun because the badguys tend to aim at those, so I will hold it offset from my body, in my left hand. If your scope is a red dot, and I suspect that is what you would want, the laser is redundant.

[Norsesmithy]

Question: Would a plasma cutter (you know, for cutting metal without having to burn acetylene gas) slough off skin, give you burns, cut you like it does aluminum, or just zap you?

Anyone know?

[Raum]

Here's a quote of the dangers:
There is much less danger with a plasma cutter than other equipment, yet there are still hot sparks generated. There is also ultraviolet radiation. Because the process doesn't seem as bright or intense as welding, some users are tempted to perform plasma cutting without proper safety wear, but your skin can still be burned. So wear long-sleeved shirts with the collar and cuffs buttoned up, and wear leather welding gloves and a full-face shield. If you ever have to work on your machine, it should be unplugged, even if all you are doing is changing the electrode. The machine's output is high enough voltage to cause severe shock and injury. Also, if you are cutting any painted, plated or galvanized metals, ensure that you have adequate ventilation. The plasma process doesn't create fumes by itself, but what's on the surface of the metal can.Here's an accident report. (http://www.hanford.gov/rl/?page=513&parent=506)

[Norsesmithy]

I know the occupational hazards associated with plasma torches, but I want to know about their feasability as a weapon or torture device. Has it ever been tested if they can cut human flesh?

I know that they can (Theoretically) cut anything the conducts enough electricity, but are humans conductive enough to cut? Does our aqueous nature inhibit the cutting process? Are we thick enough to (relatively) safetly disperse the electron force?

[oriong]

All that seems to be required is that the plasma cutter be able to create an arc from the generator to the object being cut. It's not the actually electricity that does the cutting, the arc of electricity is just used to turn the gas used in the plasma cutter to plasma, which can easily burn human flesh (it can melt metal obviously).

The accident report pretty clearly shows that a spark can ground itself on a human, so it shouldn't be a problem. Tasers do the same thing with a lower amount of power after all.

Of course, reasonably it's a horrible offensive weapon (you'd probably need to be quite close for the arc to form) and an equally inneficient torture device (just use a burning stick for more or less the same effect and less chance of killing someone)

[Mike_G]

This question came from an unnecessarily heated gaming argument, but is a real world weapon question:

Does anyone know of a point-only shortsword? All the examples I've seen or heard of are point and edge, like the gladius, the katzbalger, the cinquedia, and so on.

The only exclusively thrusting swords I know of are later period deuling weapons, like the smallsword or some rapier desgns, or specialized armor piercing blades.

Did a shortsword virtually unable to deliver a good cut exist? I know that they lack the weight and heft for a good chop like a broadsword, but most seem to be able to give a decent cut.

No tangents on the superiority of the thrust. I am just trying to find any evidence that doesn't refute the "piercing only" deignation for the shortsword in D&D.

[Raum]

Some Smallswords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallsword) were edgeless. The caveat is simply that many smallswords were more of a gentleman's accessory than a weapon. I'm not sure if any of the smallswords intended for dueling were edgeless...hopefully someone else can answer that one.

[Maquis]

To my understanding most short swords are intended to be stab only weapons, there is not enought room in a tight, legionary quality formation to swing a gladius.

The shortsword is really more of an overgrown dagger, and should be used as such, they lack the wieght and length to be swung with any great power. However their typically thin blades are perfect for thrusting, and once the initial hole has been made the edges of the blade (assuming the blade thickens towards the hilt) continue to open the wound.

The edges of a short sword are like the flat of the blade, or the pommel of a larger sword, or using a gun to pistol whip someone, they can be used like that, but their not the primary use.

but I may be wrong, I am no expert on the subject, just an amatuer enthusiest.

[Norsesmithy]

Does anyone know of a point-only shortsword? All the examples I've seen or heard of are point and edge, like the gladius, the katzbalger, the cinquedia, and so on.
Peircing only and Slashing only Shortswords, longswords, bastard swords, and greatswords is simply oversimplification for the sake of brevity. In reality, all of these weapons could, and were used both for stabbing and for slashing, some were better for one than the other, but almost all were certainly capable of both.

When I DM, I rule that all of these straight edged swords can be used for both, at no penalty.

[Mike_G]

That was my though and feeling. I just didn't know if there was any basis for a point only shortsword.

It would seem silly to me to have a close quarters weapon that you couldn't at least draw cut with.

[Fhaolan]

I've always been puzzled by the D&D shortsword. There are three different blade types that could possibly be described as 'shortswords' and the D&D classification doesn't seem to cover them properly.

There are the 'gladius'-type weapons that most people visualize when they think of a shortsword. These are made for thrusting, but still have the mass and edge to be passable chopping and cutting weapons. Short archer's swords, celtic and roman gladius, etc.

There is the smallsword, which is a thin triangular cross-section blades, much like a giant stilleto. No cutting edge as such at all, a pure thrusting weapon, but also a finess-style weapon. These tend to be longer than what most people would consider a shortsword to be, but are so thin that they are light enough that there's really no where else to put them.

And then there is the machete-types. Big chopping knives, big enough to be in the shortsword size range. Massive bowie knives, gross messiers, and the like. Although you *can* thrust with them, they're more cutting and chopping weapons.

I don't really have a point here. It's late, and I'm rambling. :)

[Mike_G]

I've always been puzzled by the D&D shortsword. There are three different blade types that could possibly be described as 'shortswords' and the D&D classification doesn't seem to cover them properly.

There are the 'gladius'-type weapons that most people visualize when they think of a shortsword. These are made for thrusting, but still have the mass and edge to be passable chopping and cutting weapons. Short archer's swords, celtic and roman gladius, etc.

There is the smallsword, which is a thin triangular cross-section blades, much like a giant stilleto. No cutting edge as such at all, a pure thrusting weapon, but also a finess-style weapon. These tend to be longer than what most people would consider a shortsword to be, but are so thin that they are light enough that there's really no where else to put them.

And then there is the machete-types. Big chopping knives, big enough to be in the shortsword size range. Massive bowie knives, gross messiers, and the like. Although you *can* thrust with them, they're more cutting and chopping weapons.

I don't really have a point here. It's late, and I'm rambling. :)

See, I'd throw the smallsword under Rapier for gaming purposes. It's the fast, fencing type blade people think of with Rapiers. It's also too long for a shortsword, and not really a combat weapon, but a deuling blade.

I'm truly puzzled by the "Thrust only" restriction on the shortsword.

[Matthew]

The D&D Short Sword is most probably intended to model the 'Gladius' and is in that regard it is thought to be innaccurate.* The 'waisted' blade shape of many Gladii is supposed to have allowed for a good chopping motion, but the up and down of it is that most straight double edged pointed blades can be used to chop, cut and thrust with perfectly good effect. Some designs will be better than others at different blows, but the degree to which they 'specialise' in a single blow tends to be exaggerated.

The below article is well worth a read for those who have not already.

The Myth of Thrusting versus Cutting Swords (http://www.thearma.org/essays/thrusting_vs_cutting.html)

Interestingly, it makes reference to an Ancient Cretan Sword that might have been primarily intended for thrusting, being narrow and tapering. It is the only reference I can recall that refers to thrust only swords in the ancient world, but I imagine there are more.

All in all, though, if the D&D Dagger is Piercing or Slashing (as it is) so should the D&D Short Sword and Long Sword (at least) be classified. The only caveat I would add to that is that to reflect certain other types of historical blades there ought perhaps to be types of D&D Daggers, Short Swords and Long Swords that are only Slashing or only Piercing, regardless of length designation. Obviously, this ought probably also to apply to D&D Bastard Swords and Great Swords.

*I have heard tell, though, that in (O)D&D 0.x there were no Short Swords, only Swords and Long Swords, which would suggest an entirely different genesis for the D&D Short Sword. By at least the time of (A)D&D 1.x, though, it seems to have become Short Sword in the sense of a Gladius type blade.

[Shadow of the Sun]

Hokay, I have a question (sorry if it is a repeat, I didn't read all of the thread): If you were using an urumi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urumi), assuming it was made of the highest quality steel, what would your opponent have to do to to break the blade?

[Norsesmithy]

First, he would have to immobilise it, it is very difficult to snap flexible steel. Once it was immobilised, however, it would be relatively easy to break, no matter the steel quality, on account of how thin it is.

[Fhaolan]

Okay, I've never actually used one of these whip-sword-things. However, from what I've heard about them it sounds like the blade is made from something very similar to a bandsaw blade.

I know from experience that bandsaw blades are very difficult to break, until they've become brittle from use (friction heating, etc.) If the urumi has a similar temper and quality of steel to a new bandsaw blade, you're going to be hard-put to break it in the time you have. Afterall, you're in a combat and your opponent isn't going to just sit there and watch you bend the steel of his weapon back and forth until it breaks. The other option is to fold it over almost in half and hit it with a hammer a couple of times to finish the fold. Again, takes too much time. I don't think breaking this thing is a viable option in RL unless you just happen to accidentally hit a weak point in the steel.

[Mike_G]

I think a better tactic would be to expose a leg, then evade the low cut, beat the weapon downward and step on it, then shank your opponent prison-style, while taunting him about his choice of blade.

[Norsesmithy]

Okay, I've never actually used one of these whip-sword-things. However, from what I've heard about them it sounds like the blade is made from something very similar to a bandsaw blade.

I know from experience that bandsaw blades are very difficult to break, until they've become brittle from use (friction heating, etc.) If the urumi has a similar temper and quality of steel to a new bandsaw blade, you're going to be hard-put to break it in the time you have. Afterall, you're in a combat and your opponent isn't going to just sit there and watch you bend the steel of his weapon back and forth until it breaks. The other option is to fold it over almost in half and hit it with a hammer a couple of times to finish the fold. Again, takes too much time. I don't think breaking this thing is a viable option in RL unless you just happen to accidentally hit a weak point in the steel.
That is kinda what I thought at first, but It looks far more flexible (and thus thinner and softer than a bandsaw blade. Note the fact that it is several separate strips of metal that compose that particular item.

[SpiderBrigade]

Well, again going along with the bandsaw thing (since the description says that nowadays such blades are used), I know that you can break a bandsaw by twisting the material you're cutting perpendicular to the blade. So if you had a special parrying weapon that could catch and hold the urumi, a sharp twist could snap it. You'd have to have a lot of practice to do that with any consistency, though.

[Zincorium]

Well, again going along with the bandsaw thing (since the description says that nowadays such blades are used), I know that you can break a bandsaw by twisting the material you're cutting perpendicular to the blade. So if you had a special parrying weapon that could catch and hold the urumi, a sharp twist could snap it. You'd have to have a lot of practice to do that with any consistency, though.

Sounds like a good time to be carrying a swordbreaker. It'd be an incredible pain to catch the urumi right, but it seems like it'd do a good job of immobilizing the blade, which might be enough to win the battle despite not having actually broken your opponent's sword.

The urumi to me would seem to be very effective fighting lightly or unarmored infantry from horseback. Horseback because the weapon has less penetrating ability, so the additional speed would increase your lethality greatly, and has better reach than more conventional bladed weapons. Also, harrying the enemie's flanks, retreating, and letting the shock from the long thin cuts take it's toll on the enemy seems like a sound tactic for as long as it can be kept up. After that, you're going to want a different weapon better suited to close quarters.

[Edmund]

The urumi to me would seem to be very effective fighting lightly or unarmored infantry from horseback. Horseback because the weapon has less penetrating ability, so the additional speed would increase your lethality greatly, and has better reach than more conventional bladed weapons. Also, harrying the enemie's flanks, retreating, and letting the shock from the long thin cuts take it's toll on the enemy seems like a sound tactic for as long as it can be kept up. After that, you're going to want a different weapon better suited to close quarters.

Until you start slapping your horse with it every time you bring it back for a strike.

Large single-handed or hand-and-a-half swords already fill that role, and do so quite effortlessly. I don't see why an urumi would do better.

Although: one of those blades tied to your horses tail = the world's deadliest streamer. :smallbiggrin:

I'm slightly concerned about the urumi's durability against folding or chipping of the edge. A weapon that flexible would be quite thin and have a decent temper. However, the thinness would lead to many problems, I think, when the edge was struck against a hard surface.

Since they're such obscure weapons and none of us have any actual experience with them, I generally wouldn't go too far in making any assertions about them.

Anyway, I have a question!!! I was recently talking to a reenactor who lives a few doors down from me, and we were discussing the use of the falchion. I said one uses it more for chopping than thrusting, though there is still plenty of poking -hah, alliteration-, and since it's shorter than your average arming sword one must get in closer, but that's about the only difference in technique.

He disagreed with the latter point in the extreme. He said with confidence that the falchion was a shield breaker. It was swung in a figure 8 motion, starting at the dominant hand's shoulder. The first blow in the 8 would hit the face of the shield and knock it back, while the second would hit the edge and knock it away, opening up the body of your opponent for an attack. Has anyone else heard of this technique?


To me, it seems rather silly, as it requires your dominant arm to cross over your shield arm (and perhaps lose the shield entirely), and leaves both leg and arm completely exposed. You're also attacking the shield, not the opponent, which from what I've learned is never wise.

[Matthew]

Sounds not very likely. However, the Falchion came in a number of different sizes and designs. Perhaps the larger ones were used in such a way, but I can't think of any evidence that would back up such an assertion off hand. It would be worth asking him from where he obtained such information.

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

Albion say a few things and have some nice medieval illustrations that suggest technique (click the links in the latter two entries):

http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-vassal-falchion.htm

http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-grossemesser-meister.htm

http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-kriegsmesser-knecht.htm

Arma has a brief entry in Sword forms:

http://www.thearma.org/terms4.htm#Medieval%20&%20Renaissance%20Sword%20Forms%20and%20Companion%2 0Implements

[Fhaolan]

Anyway, I have a question!!! I was recently talking to a reenactor who lives a few doors down from me, and we were discussing the use of the falchion. I said one uses it more for chopping than thrusting, though there is still plenty of poking -hah, alliteration-, and since it's shorter than your average arming sword one must get in closer, but that's about the only difference in technique.

He disagreed with the latter point in the extreme. He said with confidence that the falchion was a shield breaker. It was swung in a figure 8 motion, starting at the dominant hand's shoulder. The first blow in the 8 would hit the face of the shield and knock it back, while the second would hit the edge and knock it away, opening up the body of your opponent for an attack. Has anyone else heard of this technique?

To me, it seems rather silly, as it requires your dominant arm to cross over your shield arm (and perhaps lose the shield entirely), and leaves both leg and arm completely exposed. You're also attacking the shield, not the opponent, which from what I've learned is never wise.

I've not heard this one. He could be referring to a big two-handed falchion which would have the mass to achieve this. Or maybe against a small shield that has less mass.

Attacking the shield only makes sense to me in very specific circumstances. Either you're trying to foul the shield so an ally (or your own off-hand) can make an attack, or you have a shield-breaking/fouling weapon. Basically the idea is to reduce the shield to a non-protecting weight, such has having heavy spears stuck in it, or split in half (while still be strapped to the arm). This is a less usefull tactic if it's a center-punch shield as the opponent can simply drop the shield if it becomes fouled. Strapped shields are harder to drop.

If you have a weapon with enough mass, like a two-handed mace (which my wife likes to use because she has the strength and mass to pull this off, which is unusual enough in a woman that the audience reacts nicely to it), you can try just smashing through the shield. It's more likely what you'll end up doing is breaking the shield arm, which reduces the shield to a non-protecting weight again. A weapon with that kind of mass, however, is going to be awfully slow compared to a regular sword.

[YPU]

Wouldn’t a quarterstaff be a great weapon to trip somebody? The staff betweens the legs and move it outwards. Who hasn’t seen it in the movies? So my question, should a quarterstaff have the trip option?

[Raum]

On the subject of urumi's, controlling your weapon is at least as important as the ability to cause damage...and, to the best of my knowledge, all flexible weapons have a moment after striking where you have to recover control of the weapon. This is probably less of a disadvantage in a duel than in a group melee, but it is a disadvantage.


He disagreed with the latter point in the extreme. He said with confidence that the falchion was a shield breaker. It was swung in a figure 8 motion, starting at the dominant hand's shoulder. The first blow in the 8 would hit the face of the shield and knock it back, while the second would hit the edge and knock it away, opening up the body of your opponent for an attack. Has anyone else heard of this technique?


To me, it seems rather silly, as it requires your dominant arm to cross over your shield arm (and perhaps lose the shield entirely), and leaves both leg and arm completely exposed. You're also attacking the shield, not the opponent, which from what I've learned is never wise.
I can't address the falchion directly, but some styles of escrima use figure eight strike patterns. Even there, the patterns are for learning purposes much like kata. In a fight you need to hit openings not follow patterns without thought.

Escrima itself teaches both single and double weapon styles but doesn't use a shield or armor.

[Fhaolan]

Wouldn’t a quarterstaff be a great weapon to trip somebody? The staff betweens the legs and move it outwards. Who hasn’t seen it in the movies? So my question, should a quarterstaff have the trip option?

This is a standard maneuver mentioned in period fight manuals for all of the shorter staff weapons, such as halberds and the like.

It's not technically a trip maneuver. It's meant to break the knees. This maneuver is officially banned in most sparring matches I've seen specifically because it's *very* good at breaking the knees. Yes, the opponent will fall, but the chances are they won't be getting up again.

Finally, in a real fight it's possible to pull this off, but then it's also possible to grasp the blade of your sword in both hands and use the cross-guard to trip someone. I don't think the D&D 'trip' weapon option really maps that well to RL combat. I can see what they were going for, and it's not worth my effort to try to rectify it, so I just leave that one alone.

[kingofthesofas]

on the subject of breaking shields or rendering them useless I remember reading once that the roman legions uses javalins with lead tips. the reason they uesd these was so when they hit a shield they would bend and become imposible to dislarge from the sheild. Is this historically actruate?

[Raum]

on the subject of breaking shields or rendering them useless I remember reading once that the roman legions uses javalins with lead tips. the reason they uesd these was so when they hit a shield they would bend and become imposible to dislarge from the sheild. Is this historically actruate?
Well, sort of. The pilum (http://www.larp.com/legioxx/pilum.html) were javelins with long iron heads. The head was long, narrow, and made from a soft enough iron to cause it to bend on impact. It was iron though, not lead.

[Matthew]

You may be misremembering. The neck of the Pilum was apparently made more pliable than the head (I can't remember the exact material or process off hand and I think there are some unanswered questions about it). Anyway, the supposed result was that a Pilum would bend on impact and become useless or more difficult to remove from a Shield.
Obviously, it would not quite be entirely useless in this case, as the enemy could potentially take the Pilum and bend it back into shape (not perfectly, but enough to throw it back).
Other modifications might have made it more difficult to do this, but I think the jury is out on how effective a practice this might have been (i.e. reasonable to very).

[edit] Ooop. Raum beat me to it. I recommend you read the link he provides, as it is much more comprehensive.

[Hoggmaster]

Supposedly (will look for ref. and edit later) the neck of the iron head was tempered less than the tip, and when the weight of the shaft was applied the neck bent. Sure the shield would have been usable but weight would have been added. There would not have been time to remove the pila from their shields due to the front line of the legion bearing down upon them. (de bello civili III.94 gives a good description [tempered by caesar of course] of how the legions fought in battle...)

[Dervag]

The idea, I gather, was to give the Romans the advantage of a 'shield line' where the front rank of their opponents had no comparable line.

Many of the groups the Romans fought were capable of forming their own shield lines, even if they lacked the precision training and specially made shields to form an interlocking wall. So having your own rear ranks throw a barrage of missiles that disables the shields of the enemy's front rank and disrupts any formation they may be in will give you a big advantage when your front line heavies slam into their front line.

[Ryujin]

Thread hasn't budged for a couple of days...

http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/consumer/story/0,,1965050,00.html

[Norsesmithy]

Some sort of rogue tools.

I like my six function knife better than that monstrosity, I always use it for making marshmallow sticks.

[Mike_G]

That is pretty much just a promotional thing designed to show all the availible blades/tools.

You couldn't really use it too well.

I have always been a fan of a more modest Swiss Army Knife, myself. you never know when you might need a screwdriver, can opener, bottle opener, cork screw, etc.

[Adlan]

Indeed, People always seem surprised when I have exactly the tool they need. we are a tool using species, but so many people don't use the most basic tool, a Knife.

I carry 3 pen knives, and often in lessons i have had to lend all for out.

[Norsesmithy]

Do any of you know if Fulton Armoury ARs are any good?

[Arjuna]

How do you stab with daggers?

Do you stab with the inward curve points upward? Like bringing it up to disembowel said victim.

Ever since I saw Julius Caesar (id hate to read all of that for n essay :P) i was wondering how you stab someone. the way Casca did it was kinda lame.

[Mike_G]

How do you stab with daggers?

Do you stab with the inward curve points upward? Like bringing it up to disembowel said victim.

Ever since I saw Julius Caesar (id hate to read all of that for n essay :P) i was wondering how you stab someone. the way Casca did it was kinda lame.

Depends on a lot.

The shape of the blade, the area of the victim, and what you're doing, whether it's knife fighting or sneaking up behind him or whatever.

From behind, driving the point into the side of his neck and then push-drawing the blade out through the front of the throat works nicely, keeps them from yelling and is pretty instantly fatal.

[Adlan]

For a Frontal Stab the traditional over arm swing is ineffective unless aiming for the neck veins (even then, an upward thrust from beneath is more effective).

The Best way would be to hold the Dagger (assuming it's a traditional straight bladed variety) with the horsital parrallel to the ribcage and thrust with a slight upward angle (aprox 15 degrees) for a human ribcage. A downward thrust will be bounced down from rib to rib, but an upward thrust will bounce up and then in.

[Mike_G]

In the general confusion of a knife fight, though, you first try to immobilize you openent's weapon arm, then you stab the bejesus out of him. If he's moving and trying to defend himself, hitting a vital spot will be tough, and I've seen a man stabbed in the chest and neck run up three flights of stairs, so even a solid hit won't drop him liek a rock.

Hold the knife in front of you with you thumb and forefinger tight, and the other three just wrapped for support. Slash at his forearms if he strikes at you, get inside his guard and stab as hard and fast as you can at his body. The abdomen is a good target, since there's no bone to protest it and the liver and spleen bleed like crazy. Stabbing him in the heart would be awsome, but unless he's gonna stand still and let you do it, it's not easy.

[Darryl the Conqueror]

Hey, do any of you know how a traditional spiked club was made? Was it just smashing nails through a stick or something more subtle? I want to make one of my own and would appreciate any tips.

[Matthew]

What exactly is a 'traditional spiked club'?

[reorith]

what is a bohemian earspoon?

[Nifty_Knickers]

what is a bohemian earspoon?

A kind of spear if I'm not mistaken.



A question for the guys with guns: There are shotguns out there with rifled barrels specially for shooting slugs. I was wondering, is it also viable to regularly use buckshot with such barrels? Or would the shot somehow damage the barrel? If it's perfectly viable, why don't we see more rifled shotguns around (for ease of switching between various ammo)?

Follow-up question, how effective are slugs compared to other types of rounds?

[Kevlimin_Soulaxe]

While it won't damage the barrel, it'll be hilariously ineffective to shoot shot out of a rifled barrel. Thanks to the centrifical (I just learned in physics that doesn't actually exist, but we all know what I'm talking about) force, the shot will spread faster, but no shot will stay even close to going straight. The result is a "donut" effect, with the shot quite literally going everywhere except where you're pointing. This is why some slugs themselves are rifled.

So, no, not really, and because they are silly.



My own question: I have it on reliable sources that some .40 S&W handguns (Glock 24 more specifically) can be altered to load .357 MAG rounds with just a barrel change. Could this work except with a 10mm barrel, or are those too long to work?

And...

What are the performance differences between the .357 and the 10mm round?

[Norsesmithy]

Well, .40 S&W was originally called 10mm short auto, and was created because the FBI was short loading their 10mm Autos many agents were intimidated by the strong recoil and heavy muzzle blast.
S&W decided that a smaller case loaded to original 10mm auto pressures would be more economical, and the FBI, never progressing much past the field testing portion of the acquisition process, decided to adopt the new round, as it almost met the original goals, but in a more compact, less intimidating package.

Then S&W got low-balled by Glock, and a .40 S&W Glock has an unsupported chamber, and therefore is at risk of KBing (also called grenading), especially if you are using a +P load, a catastrophic failure wherein the cartridge blows out of the unsupported chamber and vents burning powder into the frame. This gas gets trapped and diverted by the hollow nature of the plastic frame, often causing a blow out, where the gun actually explodes, throwing polymer shrapnel and often maiming the hand.

Now I just remembered what the question I was answering entailed, and realized that what I just wrote doesn't answer it, so here goes try two.

10 millimeters is approximately .40 caliber, and while 9mm is approximately .357 inches, the actual diameter of what we call a 9mm is actually .38 inches in diameter. Now here is where the absurdity of cartridge naming conventions comes in. a .357 Magnum round is not .357 inches across, but is rather .38 inches across, and most .357 mag revolvers can also shoot .38 special right out of the box.

Now a .357 magnum round is not only far larger, as in longer and higher powder capacity, than a .40 S&W, but is also loaded to a higher pressure. So even if you could somehow manage to get a long case like a .357 mag to chamber, I wouldn't want to be in the same room as you when you pull the trigger, because it will grenade.

So I bet your friend was thinking of a .357 sig not a .357 mag. .357 sig is a much weaker cartridge that is just a little gentler than a .40 S&W.

IIRC, the Glock 24, which is no longer in production, was available in both .40 s&w, and .357 sig, meaning that with a barrel and magazine change, you could convert your .40 Glock 24 to a .357 sig one.

However, I will never own a Glock, because, while being a reliable (when chambered for 9x19 anyways), easy to use, and low unit cost handgun, the basic Glock design is flawed, and anything loaded to a higher pressure like a .45 acp poses a not insignificant danger to the user, and as you may have heard me say before, I don't really use anything weaker than a .45 acp +P (my three current handguns are a Colt Anaconda, in .44 mag, a Taurus P1911, in .45 ACP, and my new baby, a S&W model 19, in .357 mag.). Also, I think their triggers are terrible.

[Hoggmaster]

. Thanks to the centrifical (I just learned in physics that doesn't actually exist, but we all know what I'm talking about) force,


centrifugal force does exist.... it is the opposite of centripetal force.... physicists should spend some time in English Class!!! :smallwink:

[AMX]

Ouch.
I don't feel up to correcting everything Norsesmithy just posted; is it enough if I recommend heading over to glockfaq.com and checking the sections "Caliber Conversions" (under "Gunsmithing") and "kB! Information" (under "Reloading")?
Oh, and .45ACP is the textbook example for low pressure rounds...

[Dervag]

Centrifugal force is a 'fictitious force' that you have to make up to explain why you're pushed against the side of a spinning drum or a turning car. What's really happening is that the wall is pushing on you, pushing you into the turn, but you perceive a force pushing you outward because your frame of reference is spinning.

[Nifty_Knickers]

Centrifugal force huh? :smallconfused: I thought of quite some reasons why I don't see shot used with rifled barrels, but I never imagine this to be the issue. I always figured that the rifling is too shallow to actually put a spin to a group of pellets. Hmm, bummer.

Does anyone know how shotgun slugs compare to pistol rounds (normal or magnum) and 5.56mm NATO rounds? In terms of raw stopping power and accuracy?


@Kevlimin: the difference between a 10mm Auto and .357 magnum round would be around the vicinity of 200 Joules (depending on the weight and load. in some cases the 10mm outperforms the .357) and the .357 tends to move around 100-150 m/s faster (which could mean better armour penetration)



Another question to all: Mag-na-port type compensation system. I've read a lot about it, and I've heard nothing but good things. Cynical bastard that I am, I am reluctant to believe the mag-na-port system is the returned messiah of blast and kick-back compensation. So, does anyone know what the downsides are of the mag-na-port system, or is it really as good as it sounds? If it is, why don't we see it in every gun out there?

[Fhaolan]

Okay, on a generator as I've been off the power grid for a week now, and they're still saying another week before it's back. So, I'm going to be short. Please don't interpret this as being rude though. I'm trying to type fast. :smallsmile:

Stabbing with dagger: Two ways, underhand and overhand. Overhand is also known as 'ice pick' to many people. That's the method you see in most movies with the hero struggling to hold back the crazed villain's knife. Because of the way most people's muscles are exercised, this gets the most strength into the stab. Underhand is 'weaker', but is harder to defend against because it comes in low.

Spiked Club: If they're thick spikes, you'll need to drill holes through the club (smaller than the spike). Otherwise you'll split the wood of the club. 'Traditionally', you'd also put metal bands around the club to keep it from splitting. I've seen versions where the spikes are in the metal bands themselves and don't actually go through the wood, but they tend to break off or bend the bands around so it doesn't last.

Bohemian Earspoon: A type of spear, much like the partisan. Short, broad blade with spikes projecting off each side of the base. Kinda like a boar-spear, but with sharpened points on the cross-bar. The idea being that if you were up against someone in heavy armor, you could swing this thing around like a pick. It didn't really catch on.

[Norsesmithy]

Nifty Nickers, having shot my Barret both with the muzzle brake, and without (Word the the Wise, learn from my foolishness, do not try this yourself, it gave me a deep tissue bruise that kept me off the range for 2 weeks, I just couldn't take the recoil of even my .22 lr over that bruise.) I can tell you that a muzzle brake has the potential to be very effective at reducing perceived recoil. I also have heard from a buddy that has a top ported .44 mag (a bubba job, not a actual Mag-Na-Port) for hunting that it does indeed reduce muzzle lift. I cannot however make any statement regarding some of their other promises.

As with any porting system, however, it will slightly reduce overall performance, because some of the gas vents early, instead of continuing to accelerate the bullet


Ouch.
I don't feel up to correcting everything Norsesmithy just posted; is it enough if I recommend heading over to glockfaq.com and checking the sections "Caliber Conversions" (under "Gunsmithing") and "kB! Information" (under "Reloading")?
Oh, and .45ACP is the textbook example for low pressure rounds...
I am sorry if you disagree with me, but I will continue to maintain my position that with loads more potent than 9x19, or the weaker .45 loads, Glocks are a poor design.

I also think that a site called GlockFaqs doesn't exactly qualify as a unbiased source. I have a friend, in law enforcement, who have had to have surgery because of a KB on a .45 Glock. His department has now switched to Springfield XDs because of 36 incidents over 3 years, including 3 KBs and 33 incidents of grossly misshapen brass due to deformation over the unsupported portion of the chamber.

I may however be mistaken over the caliber conversions regarding the .357 Sig, however, I know I am not mistaken regarding .357 Magnum.

I knew that the KBing issue with Glocks is somewhat of a controversial issue, and I didn't expect it to go unchallenged, but I will stand by my statements regarding the hazards of .40 S&W and .45 ACP Glocks, especially to persons such as myself who prefer hotter pistol loads (IE, high pressure .45 not standard or reduced pressure loads).

Also I feel the need to reiterate my previous question, Does anyone here have any experience with Fulton ARmoury AR uppers? How do they compare to a Colt or RRA upper?

[AMX]

(snip)
I will stand by my statements regarding the hazards of .40 S&W and .45 ACP Glocks, especially to persons such as myself who prefer hotter pistol loads (IE, high pressure .45 not standard or reduced pressure loads).
Well, you're right that there are issues with those - it just bugs me that you got the reasons wrong.
It's neither "the basic Glock design being flawed", nor the "more potent" rounds using higher pressure, it's that some Glock models were improperly scaled up from the original.

[Subotei]

Does anyone know how shotgun slugs compare to pistol rounds (normal or magnum) and 5.56mm NATO rounds? In terms of raw stopping power and accuracy?

I think these guys may have some answers - purely non-scientific, but fun:

http://www.theboxotruth.com/

Apologies if this has been posted before - far to many posts to check.

[Nifty_Knickers]

I think these guys may have some answers - purely non-scientific, but fun:

http://www.theboxotruth.com/

Apologies if this has been posted before - far to many posts to check.

Ye gods, Subotei, I LOVE YOU

That site is like a huge treasure chest of hands-on experience! I love it! Squeeeeeeeee!!!

[Norsesmithy]

Well, you're right that there are issues with those - it just bugs me that you got the reasons wrong.
It's neither "the basic Glock design being flawed", nor the "more potent" rounds using higher pressure, it's that some Glock models were improperly scaled up from the original.
While I probably don't have the experience with Glocks that you do, a unsupported chamber is a design flaw.

Now I don't know if this isn't present in a 9mm Glock, as I have never owned one, but regardless if it was a scaling issue or if they all have unsupported chambers and thin web and high pressure rounds are the only ones in which this flaw becomes and issue, it is still a flaw in the design, and a big enough one that it rases my ire that Glock hasn't moved to correct it.

[Nifty_Knickers]

Ohh, forgot to ask.

@Norsesmithy: Gotcha on the muzzlebrakes and ouch on that bruise. However, have you heard any negative feedback on top porting at all? Or has there really been nothing but good results on it?

Thing is, I'm working on a slightly-in-the-future world, and I like to be extremely detailed and thorough in designing the world. If these compensation systems are really so great in all ways without any significant drawbacks, I figure most (if not all) guns in that period would have be at least top ported. If there are real drawbacks however (even cost could be a drawback), I should have it as something of a standard amongst the ranged weapons.

Btw, have you any rough idea on how much performance drops with top porting? And how much with regular old screw on muzzlebrakes?




(yes, I know my detailing is very excessive for a game :smalltongue: I just like to be very very thorough)

[Norsesmithy]

Well, any performance loss through a porting job is going to vary based on the length of the barrel, the position of the ports, the flow properties of the ports. Top ports tend to be very close to the end of the barrel, so any virtual barrel length changes are going to be reasonably small. My buddy's home ported hunting gun expereinces a virtual barrel length reduction of about an inch and a half, causing him to lose around 90 fps, the change would be greater on a shoter barreled gun.

Screw on muzzle brakes do not change the virtual barrel length, as they attach to the end of the barrel, and so do not effect performance at all, except to increase accuracy and sustainable rate of fire.

Sorry that I'm not much help.

You might want to google ballistics charts for various barrel lengths and then count a top ported gun as having a barrel an inch shorter than normal.

Really though, the only applications where I would think that they make enough of a difference to matter would be high powered "Magnum" hand guns and light-weight SMGs. Top porting would probably have a negligible effect on a rifle, and be inferior to an old fasioned muzzle brake.

[Dervag]

Why do guns kick upward, anyway? Why not downward or sideways?

The best explanation I can come up with is that the barrel is placed above the firearm's center of mass, so firing it causes the barrel to torque 'up and back', with 'back' being the direction of the shooter's head.

And yes, I know, some guns do kick to the side as well (generally, I gather, because of brass ejection in automatic weapons). But the upward recoil is almost universal while the lateral recoil is not, so I don't think of it as a general phenomenon.

[Norsesmithy]

You would be correct in attributing barrel lift mostly to the fact that the center of force is above the center of gravity, and more importantly the center of resistance, but if a gun is kicking to the side, noticeably, it has very little to do with the ejected brass, and much to do with poor technique, and/or weak arms.

[Sundog]

This is hearsay (from my father, who served in the Australian Army from 1947 to the end of Korea), not personal experience, but apparently the Australian Owen gun didn't kick upwards at all. Instead, it pulled forward, away from the shooter. This was apparently due to the strong springs and odd weight distribution (the magazine being atop the receiver).

[Nifty_Knickers]

Well, any performance loss through a porting job is going to vary based on the length of the barrel, the position of the ports, the flow properties of the ports. Top ports tend to be very close to the end of the barrel, so any virtual barrel length changes are going to be reasonably small. My buddy's home ported hunting gun expereinces a virtual barrel length reduction of about an inch and a half, causing him to lose around 90 fps, the change would be greater on a shoter barreled gun.

Screw on muzzle brakes do not change the virtual barrel length, as they attach to the end of the barrel, and so do not effect performance at all, except to increase accuracy and sustainable rate of fire.

Sorry that I'm not much help.

You might want to google ballistics charts for various barrel lengths and then count a top ported gun as having a barrel an inch shorter than normal.

Don't apologise, I appreciate the help :smallsmile:

I'm going to go around and compare raw statistics. Slowly but surely I'm getting the information I need.



Really though, the only applications where I would think that they make enough of a difference to matter would be high powered "Magnum" hand guns and light-weight SMGs. Top porting would probably have a negligible effect on a rifle, and be inferior to an old fasioned muzzle brake.

Actually, the article that really caught my eye was about magnaport systems on various rifles. Acording to that article (and some others), the difference was immense. They were praising the magnaport system into high heavens for rifles.

[Kevlimin_Soulaxe]

Now I swear I saw a site that said that Glock was shipping the 24 again, but now their (newly improved) website doesn't even acknowledge its existence. Ditto for the 18.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but 10mm is slightly less than the .357 mag, but more than the .357 sig. Right?

How would the performance of the new 35's 5.32 inch barrel compare to the 6" barrel of the 24? How much would I be losing?

[Norsesmithy]

Acording to that article (and some others), the difference was immense. They were praising the magnaport system into high heavens for rifles.
I still don't see an advantage over an old fashioned muzzle brake, as the main reasons that a traditional muzzle brake would be inferior to a porting job, mainly that it increases the length by an inch or so, and that it makes the pistol harder to unholster, are moot because of the difference in application.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but 10mm is slightly less than the .357 mag, but more than the .357 sig. Right?

How would the performance of the new 35's 5.32 inch barrel compare to the 6" barrel of the 24? How much would I be losing?

I would rate 10mm as more than slightly less than .357 magnum, and a little more than slightly hotter than the .357 sig.

As for the .7 inch barrel reduction between the Glock 24 and the Glock 35, I would guess that it would net a velocity loss of between 75 and 150 fps, but this is just an educated guess. Glocks are plentiful, however, so if this is an issue, you could probably find a almost new 24 at a dealer, or at auction.

Glock says they will continue to support the newly discontinued models with replacement parts, including trigger groups and barrels, so even if you come across an abused copy, it should be easy to refurbish.

[Vorkosigan]

New Question for those more knowledgeable about guns than I (aka almost everybody).

Is there any reason that it would be a massively bad idea to build a flintlock weapon with two barrels side-by-side, in which one barrel was smoothbore for the firing of shot and the other barrel was rifled for the firing of (say) a minie-ball?

[Fhaolan]

New Question for those more knowledgeable about guns than I (aka almost everybody).

Is there any reason that it would be a massively bad idea to build a flintlock weapon with two barrels side-by-side, in which one barrel was smoothbore for the firing of shot and the other barrel was rifled for the firing of (say) a minie-ball?

I not only can say there is no real reason why this couldn't be done, I've seen one in RL, although it doesn't precisely match what you asked for. It was an over-and-under, rather than side-by-side, and it was percussive cap rather than flintlock. The principle is the same, however.

The owner told me that it was more trouble than it was worth, though. Due to the fact it was a muzzle-loader, you wouldn't wander around with it loaded all the time like the way you could with a modern cartridge gun. You only pack the load that you believe you will need in the next ten minutes.

I would think it's less expensive and less hassel to just have two guns, a long rifle and a shorter carriage gun, and load the one you want to use.

[Mike_G]

The was also a popular American Civil War era revolver, LeMat, I think, that had six regular ball ammo barrels, and one shot shell barrel.

It was popular with the Confederate Cavalry in particular. I imagine that in a mouted melee, having a barrel of buckshot was a nice addition to your pistol.

[Matthew]

Which is better in single combat: A Two Handed Sword or a Single Handed Sword and Shield? [I'm thinking of Long Sword versus Arming Sword and Kite Shield really, but other options may change the dynamic, so feel free to discuss them in relation to this question].

I remember Bug-a-Boo was going to make an argument for Two Handed Weapons several months back, but I haven't seen him around in a while.

Personally, I don't think either is likely to be conclusively 'better', but we shall see...

Anyway, be sure to define your terms.

[Fhaolan]

Which is better in single combat: A Two Handed Sword or a Single Handed Sword and Shield? [I'm thinking of Long Sword versus Arming Sword and Kite Shield really, but other options may change the dynamic, so feel free to discuss them in relation to this question].

I remember Bug-a-Boo was going to make an argument for Two Handed Weapons several months back, but I haven't seen him around in a while.

Personally, I don't think either is likely to be conclusively 'better', but we shall see...

Anyway, be sure to define your terms.

There are so many variables, I'm not sure this can be answered to your satisfaction. This is all in my own opinion, of course. :smallsmile:

The Longsword (I have a Dutch Two-Handed sword myself, which is effectively a longsword using that terminology. Note that this is not a greatsword, which works differently.), has the advantage of length, leverage, and speed. The arming sword and shield (I assume a strapped heater shield for this, not a viking-style center-punch round.), has the advantage of simultaneous defense and attack.

One of the problems in this analysis is body armor. Shields were very popular in the days of lighter body armor. When heavy plate was used, the shield was dropped as having a shield in addition to full plate is not as advantageous as having a two-handed weapon. However, without the heavy armor the shield becomes far more important than having both hands free for the weapon. When heavy armor became less effective due to reliable firearms, the mobility advantage of light armor became more important. Shields reduce that mobility, those that are effective against firearms are unreasonably bulky, and as such were not re-introduced until new shield materials were created (Police riot shields and the like).

[Sundog]

The was also a popular American Civil War era revolver, LeMat, I think, that had six regular ball ammo barrels, and one shot shell barrel.

It was popular with the Confederate Cavalry in particular. I imagine that in a mouted melee, having a barrel of buckshot was a nice addition to your pistol.

Actually, the LeMat held nine rounds in addition to the buckshot charge. It was probably the best cavalry pistol of the cap-and-ball period.

[Sundog]

Er, Sundog, I think you meant to quote Mike.

Oopsie! Will fix.

[Were-Sandwich]

Whats a Bipennis Axe?

[Matthew]

A Latin term for a Double Headed Axe, or so I am led to believe.

Labrys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labrys)

According to this Article (http://www.geocities.com/egfrothos/byzantium/englishconnection.html), though, like many terms for things, it at some later point became synonymous with just 'Axe', regardless of whether double bladed / headed or not. As far as I can tell, that is quite likely to be the case.

[Were-Sandwich]

I ask because it is listed as a weapon in Arrowflight. Obviously everyone who plays fantasy RPGs is an expert on medieval weaponry except me:tongue:

[Matthew]

Sounds like they might think it is an absolute term. Not untypical of RPGs.

[Mike_G]

Actually, the LeMat held nine rounds in addition to the buckshot charge. It was probably the best cavalry pistol of the cap-and-ball period.

Huh.

Cool.

Didn't know that. I assumed it was a six shooter with a buckshot charge.

[YPU]

I have a Dutch Two-Handed sword myself, which is effectively a longsword using that terminology.
I think you are mistaking with a German two-hander, cause al the two handed blades made here I ever seen are clearly better classified great sword, being so heavy they didn’t even take the time to ad a tip.
I might be mistaking here but I never heard of a Dutch-two handed, did hear of many cases of people mixing up Holland and Germany.

[Matthew]

Typology is a minefield. Fhaolan was likely just discerning between Two Handed and One Handed Swords, without having to go into the whole Arming Sword, Long Sword, Great Sword discussion.

[YPU]

i am not intending to stir that up (again) but i hear a weapon named dutch i never heard of, irks my curiosity.

[Matthew]

I would also be interested to hear exactly what is being described, maybe using the Oakeshott typology would make it clearer? I am just imagining a Long Sword of some description (a designation which is sometimes conflated with Great Sword).

[Fhaolan]

Give me a second, I'll post some pictures.
...

Okay, rather than posting the pictures directly and wasting bandwidth, I've added a gallery to our horse-n-round website. I've only dealt with some of the 15th century weapons in this gallery, as I don't really have time today to do the complete collection. Eventually I'll get pictures of all the weapons and armor up here, and I'll appear in appropriate costumes in those rather than street-clothes. :smallsmile:

http://www.horse-round.com/gallery/weaponry.xml

EDIT: Now, the reason why I call it a 'Dutch' two-hander. That's the way it was described to me by the swordsmith who created it, Michael Pearce. I've known Michael for several years, and he has always put a good deal of effort into researching his historical pieces, so I trusted him to name it correctly. However, everyone makes mistakes, and it is entirely possible that we're using the wrong name.

[Matthew]

Nice pictures. I think a description of that sword can be found here:

http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-danish-2-hander.htm

It wasn't the one I was thinking of, though. Nice all the same.

If I have rightly identified it, then it looks like it might be Danish rather than Dutch.

[Fhaolan]

Ack! You're right. I've misremembered the name. I do apologize, and will correct it on the website.:smallannoyed:

[Matthew]

An easy mistake to make, I'm sure. Danish and Dutch; I do believe I have been known to confuse the two before. Anyway, hopefully that clears the matter up for YPU, it does for me.

Pity we haven't had more discussion about this Two Handed versus One Handed Weapon thing; Mike was making an interesting argument for Sword and Shield on another thread.

As an aside, I was watching El-Cid off and on today. I never before realised what a mish mash of anachronistic and appropriate Arms and Armour were used. Great film, though.

[YPU]

Jup I can see how you mixed the two up, dam still don’t have any cool original Dutch weapons to brag about ;) ah, well, clears that up.

[Bug-a-Boo]

Jup I can see how you mixed the two up, dam still don’t have any cool original Dutch weapons to brag about ;) ah, well, clears that up.

That's probably cause there aren't that many awesome-cool dutch specific weapons here in holland :smallbiggrin:


Hey all, did someone summon me? :smalltongue:



(Whoaa, the site sure has changed)

(argh, my signature needs modification)

(...why do I have infractions listed under my name?)

(wait, nevermind, have a pm explaining it)

(god this is confusing)

[Matthew]

Hey, welcome back Bug-a-Boo! (and a Happy New Year to one and all)

This works out pretty conveniantly. Mike and Knewson were having an interesting debate about the virtues of using a Two Handed Weapon over Weapon and Shield on the Is there such a thing as a "good" sword and board build (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30594) Thread, which reminded me on about what you were saying earlier in the year, but didn't get round to expanding on. Since the Real Life Arms and Armour Thread has been fairly quiet of late I thought it might be interesting to get a discussion going about this.

[Bug-a-Boo]

Hey hey, I did what had to be done, fixed up my life a little, and I'm back to stay. It's good to be back (and happy newyear to all too!). I was pleasantly surprised to see you had mentioned me, and so recently too, I figured I had been long forgotten by now :smalltongue:. I've read up on all the weapon discussions I've missed, damn, I really missed those discussions while I was gone.

I promised I'd write a big post about my views on it... I'll do one, tho I'll need a little time to re-collect my thoughts on it. And you might remember my horridly chaotic manner of thinking and posting. I'll have to think out my points properly this time and structure them a little if I'm going to have any chance of being understood :smalltongue:

I'll get to it, might even have it up within the next few days. In the meantime, shall I just kick-start the debate with a little statement?


When the objective is to attack and kill the enemy, two handed weapons are best. I give honorable mention to sword and buckler. Larger shields and two-weapon fighting is ineffective.

[Mike_G]

Hey hey, I did what had to be done, fixed up my life a little, and I'm back to stay. It's good to be back (and happy newyear to all too!). I was pleasantly surprised to see you had mentioned me, and so recently too, I figured I had been long forgotten by now :smalltongue:. I've read up on all the weapon discussions I've missed, damn, I really missed those discussions while I was gone.


Good to have you back.



When the objective is to attack and kill the enemy, two handed weapons are best. I give honorable mention to sword and buckler. Larger shields and two-weapon fighting is ineffective.

Well, I think the Romans would argue, for one.

I don't see how you can separate attack and defense. The objective is to have all your guys alive at the end of the day, and all the enemy defeated. If I have to take an extra swing, or an extra few second to get a kill with sword and shield or sword and dagger, but I don't get cut and am still able to function, I think that's better than handing out big massive smashy strokes but leaving myself open to counters, running a better chance of being wounded and no longer useful to my comrades.

Apart from that, I think sword and shield or two weapon are perfectly good styles, especially against One Big Sword, since if you parry his weapon and simultaneously attack with your other hand, he will be hard put to defend and you may well take him out in the middle of his cut. You are never so vulnerable as when you strike.

In fact, in almost any sparring style, you can almost always hit your opponent if you are willing to let him attack and hit you. It's just a trick that only works once in real combat. If you combine the counterattack into preparation with an off hand parry, that's quite deadly.

I think two handers work best when in a foramtion of sword and shield guys who can defend better than you an enable you to get in position to use your big weapon to effect.

[Fhaolan]

When the objective is to attack and kill the enemy, two handed weapons are best. I give honorable mention to sword and buckler. Larger shields and two-weapon fighting is ineffective.

Heya, Bug-a-Boo! Welcome back.

I think your statement might be accurate, because of the bolded part. When the objective is the attack and kill bit, that is. When all you're concerned about is the attack, yes, I believe you are correct. However.... :smallbiggrin:

Combat isn't just attacking until the enemy is dead. Well, okay, for besarks and the like perhaps it is, but for most combatants the primary focus is survival. Winning the fight is one thing, being alive to enjoy the victory is another. Which is why armor is so important, and I don't think you can do a proper analysis of a combat style/weaponry without discussing the armor being worn as well.

My stance on that point is: The heavier the armor, the less useful the shield becomes. Once the armor is heavy enough, the shield is less useful than a two-handed weapon is. If your armor is light, a shield and single-handed weapon becomes more useful than a two-handed weapon.

I'm not going to talk about dual weapons, as I personally have never been able to master that combat style. I've tried, and it just feels so very awkward to me. I think it's just one of those things that has to 'click'. In the same way that a strapped shield doesn't work for me, but a centerpunch shield (anything from a small fencing buckler to a full-size viking shield) does.

[Norsesmithy]

I find that in addition to what other armour you are wearing making a huge difference, the size of the battle is a big factor as well.

In small action, the benefits of sheilds are greatly diminished, to the point where in single combat I think a large sheild is actually a detriment to a fighter.

Also, the issues of reach start to become less important. A regiment equiped with 20 foot pikes has a big advantage over a regiment with 38 inch swords, but a man with a 20 foot pike has a huge disadvantage against a man with a 38 inch sword.

[Matthew]

The original question is with regard to single combat. Of course, we can still explore the advantages of Shields in other contexts, but I thought I had better remind.

Several proposed conditions of Body Armour:

Unarmoured / Lightly Armoured
Mail Hauberk (or other armour that only covers the torso, upper arms and upper legs, Helmet,
Fully Mailed (legs, arms, etc...), Helmet,
Transitional Plate and Mail, Helmet

Partial Plate Harness
Full Plate Harness

Types of Shield:

Dished Hoplite Shield
Rectangular Scutum
Oval Shied (various sizes)
Round Shield
Kite Shield
Heater

Generally assume Curved Shield, unless a flat version has some sort of advantage.

[Fawsto]

Hmmm... Sword and Shield is the most classic type of fighting style for European classic warfare. See, Sword and Shield (S&S) is good for frontline troops who must damage the enemies while they try to hold the line. It is the perfect Balance beteween offense and defense.
Rather than S&S, 2handed weapons are better for shock infantry, the one who breaks the enemy lines, since theyr only objective is killing as many as they can there is no to use a shield while only the minimum protection is required.
An option por 2handed wepons is the use of 2 weapons. Again the defense is quite damaged here but the attack power gets a great burst.
In my opinion 2handed weapons and 2 weapons are equivalents, while S&S is for a more balanced fighting.

[Maclav]

Not only is this the real-world weapon and armour topic, but you have used the monkey grip feet incorrectly. It does not allow you to wield a medium two handed weapon in one hand.

[Matthew]

Mercurial Great Swords aren't actually real weapons and, as Maclav says, we are not really supposed to discuss the mechanics of D&D in this thread.

[Fawsto]

Another state about Shields in Battle, but first here is a tale about what I will say: "In ancient Sparta the warrior who'd lost his Weapon, armor or helmet in Battle wasn't punished, but the one who'd lost his Shield would be executed. They said that the shield isn't only for personal protection, but also ito protect the companion at your left side."

What I mean is that a Shields purpose is to protect not only its wielder but his allies to. The shield is far more important in big battlefields or very small ones than it looks like. Besides that, it is important to remember that an experienced warrior can find in the shield a perfect offhand weapon. (Dont know if it is allowed to say but watch Kingdom of Heaven to see some of the Shields uses as a weapon and any films about Greek and Roman wars to see how the shield can be used to protect others)

[Sieg]

As said Maybe the shield loses it value when the armour gets heavier, but also it gets more dificult to handle two handed weapons. You see, it is hard even to touch a hand in the other when wearing a heavy fullplate. If the body protection gets to heavy the use of big weapons turns impossible. So the alternative is using a shield again or another weapon. But if you decide to use a lighter armour you will again need a shield, since light protection tends to be weak when protecting from bludgeoning attacks (Chain Mail can stop a blade, but cant stop a Warhammer). I guess that the shield is always usefull. Someone said that two handed weapons are good only for shock troops that must do their jobs quickly and retreat soon after, I agree with that. Besides that I dont think that you would loose such attack power with a single handed weapon.



I believe that the best alternative for a warrior is this:

.Helmet with Protection for the Nose and Mouth (broken nose and teeth are very painfull, can take you out of combat very fast) :smallsigh:
.Steel Breastplate with protection for the neck and shoulders (With a chainmail shirt under it). Nothing to the legs, so the warrior can move with ease. :smallamused:
.Greaves and Gountlets for the hands and feet.
.The heaviest one handed weapon avaible. (In terms, a Bastard sword or Hammer/Mace; remember, armor tends to be weak against crushing weapons :smallbiggrin: )
.A wooden or metal shield large enough to protect the users forearm and tall enough to cover fom the shoulder to the knee.
.A second weapon in case if the first gets lost. :smallfrown:

I guess this is it. I hope I am not saying nonseses

[Stormcrow]

Im pretty sure im right on this but i just want a second.. (or more) oppinion to finalise a debate. You cannot use a scythe in combat one handed yes?

[Kevlimin_Soulaxe]

You can't really use a scythe in combat with any number of hands.

At least not well anyway.

[Stormcrow]

I more than admit that but i mean to say it would be IN-effective one handed because all the weight is in the blade, its weighted to be used with two hands allthough you make a good point. If you had 4 or even 6 hands you could put it to much better use :p.

[Norsesmithy]

As said Maybe the shield loses it value when the armour gets heavier, but also it gets more dificult to handle two handed weapons. You see, it is hard even to touch a hand in the other when wearing a heavy fullplate.
Not true, you can even grasp both shoulders whle wearing plate. A well made suit of plate like the Dutch Homogenous or Maximillian won't restrict your range of movement at all.

I personally love very large two handed swords, but I can see how on a trip, not making war their bulk would make them inconveinient. Also, it wouldn't exactly be socially acceptable to carry a 73 inch greatsword every where you go.

I got to wear a suit of Maximillian plate, that was absolutely bonkers it was so awesome. This plate wasn't fitted to me, but it was easier to move in than an Interceptor amour vest with all the attachments. I could even swim. If the suit had been fitted to me, I could hardly imagine any situation where the suit would impede me. Maybe rope climbing, but that's about it.

The only problem is the market value of the suit was more than the Kelly Blue Book of my car.

If I were to try to equip myself, I would go for a brestplate over a jack, with a maille belt and skirt, pauldrons, vambrances, greaves, a helmet, leather gloves, and heavy boots.

Of course as suit of articulated plate would be the nicest, but that is both outside my price range and outside my ability as a craftsman (I have tried and failed, the joints are just to hard for me at the moment)

I already have the swords.

[Fhaolan]

As said Maybe the shield loses it value when the armour gets heavier, but also it gets more dificult to handle two handed weapons. You see, it is hard even to touch a hand in the other when wearing a heavy fullplate. If the body protection gets to heavy the use of big weapons turns impossible.

Ah. Here is a problem of modern reproduction armor. Yes, it is true that in my Itallian 15th century full-plate harness I am unable to put my hands together in front of me. However, that is due to the fact that it was crafted by someone who had never built that style armor before, and was using pictures in books to build it, as it was not possible for him to go to Europe and study actual historical pieces. In other words, it doesn't fit me properly.

In the Tower of London, there sometimes are re-enactors there who are outfitted with the exact same style of armor, but the armor is properly fitted to them. They not only can clasp their gauntleted hands in front of them and lift them above their heads, but they can turn cartwheels in that armor.

According to the fighting manuals of the period, two-handed weapons were very popular for those in full harness. If you go by how many times they are demonstrated in the manuals, pollaxes were *the* weapon for full-armor one-on-one combat, followed by two-handed longswords like my... *cough* Danish two-hander. :smallsmile:

EDIT: Scythes can be used in combat. Not all scythes have the blade mounted at 90 degrees to the handle, some project straight out. Of course, they're not called scythes at that point. They have a funny French name... Fauchard, which is a polearm. Smaller versions are called falx, which is usually a two-handed weapon. Sickles and kamas are in the same family, just variants on a theme.

[Adlan]

A scythe is not a weapon very useful for combat, it's a farm tool, designed for cutting grass or grain low to the ground, and trying to make it do anything else (like hacking at someone in combat) is not very effective. However, it can easily be made into a more effective weapon by a black smith, or any one with a little knowledge and a forge. Simply changing the blades orentation so that it continues parrallel to the shaft makes a very effective weapon. And it looks suspiciously similar to a Poleaxe.

Simple modifications of farm equipment forms some of the most effective weapons of medival warfare. Halberds and Flails are other examples, halberds from the peasents Billhook, and Flails from threshing tools.

[YPU]

In my opinion scythe like weapons are some what better than axes of the same size and weight, it has greater piercing power and due to the g-force when swung hard targets caught on the handle will slip upwards and into the blade. Due to the circular movement made with it, it will first pierce and then cut when properly wielded. These are all conclusions I make without any experience
So I might very well be wrong.
As a side note, in lord of the rings III there the orc captain at the haven where the corsair ships arrive has a very nice scythe like weapon.
Ow, i could imagine a scythe the size of the wielder being swung in one hand. A chain attached to the wrist and hand would make sure it does not slip. The swing would not be the problem, momentum would probably make sure that it hits quite hard. Now the problem is that it takes a hell of an effort to bring it around and swing it again, I really wouldn’t be able to do it, but hey I cant properly swing a 99cm long sword with one hand. If I would end up in medieval battles I would either need a small light blade and skirmish or employ my nice little crossbow.

[Joran]

Sword and Shield is the most classic type of fighting style for European classic warfare.

What's the definition of European classic warfare? My Modern Military history class covered heavy calvary, pikemen, and tercios as the predominant military forces, but this was around the 1500's. I recall the Spanish using sword and buckler before the tercios, but am I too far forward in history?

[Beleriphon]

What's the definition of European classic warfare? My Modern Military history class covered heavy calvary, pikemen, and tercios as the predominant military forces, but this was around the 1500's. I recall the Spanish using sword and buckler before the tercios, but am I too far forward in history?

I'm pretty sure the classic medival period is usually defined from the Norman conquest of England to around Henry VIII. So 500 years or so, but during that time warfare evolved tremendously.

[Mike_G]

Much more than 500 years.

The classical Greeks made much use of shields in the late centuries BC, as had the Egyptians before them.

From the era of the Roman conquest of much of Europe, most warriors fought weapon and shield, both the Romans and their enemies, the Gauls, Goths, Franks and Germans all used shields and one hand weapons.

Charlemagne's Franks carried shields, and the importance of the shield to the kinghtly classes is highlighted by it's continuation in the Coat of Arms.

The Vikings, Saxons and Normans all fought with sword or axe or spear and shield for the eventual rule of Britain.

With the advent of heavier armor, shields fell out of use, but from the Pharoes of 2-3000 BC through the 14th and 15th centuries, they were fairly essential to the Werstern warrior. In fact the British regulars had to use bayonets against shields when fighting the Jacobite Highlanders in 1745, the Zulu in 1879 and the Sudanese in the 1880's. Shields were very good and used by almost all warrior cultures before heavy armor or modern weapons made them obsolete.

The army Joran describes is definatly Renaissance era, which falls within the hugely broad range that medieval Fantasy seems to deal with.

[Raum]

Im pretty sure im right on this but i just want a second.. (or more) oppinion to finalise a debate. You cannot use a scythe in combat one handed yes?
There are two problems with using an unmodified scythe as a weapon. First, the blade is mounted at an angle to the handle so it can be swung approximately perpendicular with the ground. Second, the edge is on the inside of the scythe...so hitting someone with the edge means you are wide open to an attack. Basically, scythes are optimized for swinging the blade parrallel to the ground at about ankle height.

-----

On the subject of weapons used when dueling (single combat), I don't think history shows many examples of shields (other than a buckler) being used as dueling equipment. However, I suspect that has more to do with customs and traditions of the individual eras than with effective equipment. Dueling weapons have differed (sometimes significantly) from military weapons ever since they quit deciding battles through single combat.

[Matthew]

I think Shields occur in Single Combats quite a lot. Hector and Achilles would be the earliest example, but Middle English texts contain a great number of Knightly Single Combats that feature Shields. I would be tempted to say it's mainly with regard to ranged duels, but the Knights don't fight at range...

[Raum]

Certainly. I'm not saying shields weren't used in duels, just saying there seems to be more documentation of duels without shields. Something I probably should have added to my first comment, there is even less documentation of duels with two handed weapons than there is with shield.

Most dueling was done with a personal sidearm. Whether pistol, dagger, rapier, singlestick, or other weapon it was usually some form of the weapon carried for personal protection in that culture & era.

[Matthew]

I see. I think I'm probably wandering past my knowledge zone with that, then...

[Fhaolan]

Certainly. I'm not saying shields weren't used in duels, just saying there seems to be more documentation of duels without shields. Something I probably should have added to my first comment, there is even less documentation of duels with two handed weapons than there is with shield.

Most dueling was done with a personal sidearm. Whether pistol, dagger, rapier, singlestick, or other weapon it was usually some form of the weapon carried for personal protection in that culture & era.

Depends on what you define as 'duels', and how far back you go. The older fight manuals differentiate between duels, judicial duels, and regular combat.

For duels, I've seen single sword, sword & buckler, sword & dagger, sword & cloak, etc. Two-handed swords are somewhat rare in these, as are full shields (as opposed to bucklers). Of course, the fight manuals which talk primarily about dueling are meant for civilians and the kinds of weapons they would normally be carrying. Civilians don't wear full-plate and carry pollaxes around town under normal conditions. :smallsmile:

For judicial duels, things get very weird. Strange two-handed shields with hooks and spikes on them, how a woman should use a club against a man standing in a shoulder-deep pit in front of her, and so on.

The regular combat manuals get very detailed about longswords and pollaxes, as well as pikes, greatswords, etc. I've only found mention of full-sized shields in the oldest of the manuals, when full plate was still very rare. These manuals also tend to discuss how to block blows with the armor you're wearing. One manual (I can't remember which one now) is very weird-seeming, because it assumes you're wearing heavy armor, but the artist drew all the figures wearing the medieval equivalent of shorts and a t-shirt. One drawing has the figure blocking an incoming sword-blow and disarming the opponent with a maneuver that could only work if you have some form of plate armor over your kidneys. :smallbiggrin:

Dueling manuals are far more common than regular combat manuals, because they were used as advertisements for the combat academies that catered to young rich nobles who were more interested in dueling than survival in a real battle. It would be like someone a thousand years from now trying to piece together Gulf War combat techniques using some modern gun magazines and ads from martial art schools. You can piece together isolated facts, but the big picture gets a bit iffy.

[Raum]

Depends on what you define as 'duels', and how far back you go. The older fight manuals differentiate between duels, judicial duels, and regular combat.
As far as I know, judicial duels (as opposed to trial by ordeal) are fairly "recent" and originally Germanic. The earliest known law covering judicial duels is the Burgundian Code from the late 5th and early 6th centuries. While the judicial duel eventually spread through most of western europe, it wasn't a part of Romanic or Greek law. I think (haven't seen as much evidence for this) judicial dueling became part of English law after the Norman conquest in the 11th century.


For duels, I've seen single sword, sword & buckler, sword & dagger, sword & cloak, etc. Two-handed swords are somewhat rare in these, as are full shields (as opposed to bucklers). Of course, the fight manuals which talk primarily about dueling are meant for civilians and the kinds of weapons they would normally be carrying. Civilians don't wear full-plate and carry pollaxes around town under normal conditions. :smallsmile: I agree and this is what I was attempting to state earlier. Dueling practices were based on the common civilian sidearm(s) used by the culture. You need to go back to the times when a champion's single combat was an important part of warfare to see "dueling" with military harness and weapons. Even duels between serving officers in the military typically used personal arms rather than military weapons.

[Raum]

For judicial duels, things get very weird. Strange two-handed shields with hooks and spikes on them, how a woman should use a club against a man standing in a shoulder-deep pit in front of her, and so on.
Talking about wierd judicial duels, I found this anecdote while looking up dates of the Burgundian Code:

In 1400, the last trial by combat (judicial duel) of note was fought in France. This contest pitted man against dog. The dog’s master, Montdidier, had been murdered by an ill-meaning friend, the Chevalier Maquer. Maquer buried the body and departed. The dog, masterless and hungry, journeyed to Paris and sought out the Chevalier Ardilliers, a friend of his master Montdidier, and led him back to his master’s grave. This loyal dog scratched the dirt covering the grave until Ardilliers dug up the corpse of Montdidier. Later the dog spied Maquer, his master’s killer, and attacked him viciously. The dog renewed his attacks at each encounter with Maquer, soon arousing suspicion since heretofore his nature had been gentle. Friends recalled that Maquer had shown hostility to Montdidier, and reported this situation to the king. The king ordered trial by combat between Maquer and the dog to uncover Maquer’s guilt or innocence.
At combat, Maquer was unable to contain the frenzied attack of the dog, who focused on Maquer’s throat. Maquer, undone by the dog’s fervor and tenacity, confessed to his crime and was duly hanged. Alas, we have no word regarding the fate of Montdidier’s faithful greyhound, nor even his name.

[Matthew]

Hah! That's practically the subplot of the Middle English Romance Sir Tryamour (http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/teams/tryamint.htm). Very well found, I might have to reference that.

[Sieg]

Hmmm... That is right, I went checking in the internet for some info: The Best armors made in places like Italy and Germany would not cause problems in using 2 handed weapons, my mistake earlier. But a problem of using 2 handed weapos is the Fatigue. I dont know if a shield and sword would do the same fatigue, but swinging a 2 to 4 kilos sword (or heavier models) for hours in battle is almost unbearable (I've tried to train with my 2 kilos katana for 2 hours and I felt that my arms would fall, and I am a pretty strong guy used to arm labor).

Well, I guess shields were also common in duels. I think it could be an option for the contestants. As was said, it could've been very comon in Greek and Rome.

About Scythes with one hand and their usage in battle: Ok they are big and umbalanced, but they can be used as giant sized picks. Its was not a common weapon, but its power was remarkable. Strikes from a scythe have a bigger probabilty to cut limbs because of the weapons shape. It is the same reason why scimitars have curved blades, the scythe just changes the direction of the curve. I believe that in some point of history someone used it and it was a fearsome weapon.

[Fhaolan]

Trust me on this one, sword and shield is just as fatiguing as two-handed weapons. Especially if you're using a center-punch shield.

In the stage combat group I belong to, I am the only one willing to deal with my 36" round poplar viking-style center-punch shield. Many of the people in the group don't have the upper-body strength to use it effectively, let along use it for any length of time. Strapped shields are easier, but have somewhat more limited movement. I've shocked many a sparring opponent at how fast I can move that shield, how far I can reach, and how hard I can hit with it when shield-bashing. I can also drop the shield at any time pretty much instantly, while a strapped shield takes a bit of work to get off. However, fatigue is a *big* deal with it. I wear out a lot faster with it than I do with a strapped shield.

The real winner for heavy armor two-handed weapons are not longswords or greatswords, but pollaxes and halberds. Used properly, a pollaxe can be surprisingly fast, is incredibly damaging to heavy armor, and some fight manuals even detail how to defend yourself with one one-handed. [My instructor called them Swiss and German blocks.]

[Norsesmithy]

Though you are probably more experienced than I, Fhaolan, I would argue that unless your are using a tremendously large two-handed weapon, Sword and boarding is more tiring than THFing.

At the moment I own 3 swords, a Swede/German blend longsword (damn near a great sword) 50 inches overall, ~40 inch blade, 3 lbs 10 oz (used to think it was a little lighter, but my new scale says I was wrong), a truly tremendous 73 inch overall two hander, 51 inch blade (45 if you don't count the riccasso), 5 lbs 11 oz, and a A&A Shifford Viking that has a 31.5 inch blade and weighs 1 lb 14.5 oz, and I get tired faster with the viking sword if I use my shield than if I am just using the giant bastard, and almost as fast as when I use the great sword.

I just realized I need a good halberd, and a new spear (my old one is now trash, as the socket has deteriorated past salvageable; it was mostly weld now anyway).

What were we talking about again?

Also, never seen a 4 kilo sword that was actually a battle weapon, I know mine are by far not the upper limit mass wise for their lengths, but a standard longsword, intended to be used two handed for the most part generally weighed less than 2 kilos.

Anyone know typical weights and shaft lengths for shoter halberds or pollaxes?

[Fhaolan]

Actually, I think I was agreeing with you that sword and board is tiring. Although it may not have read like that, sorry. Personally, I find THW less tiring overall, but the audience likes those big bangs you get out of a shield. :smallbiggrin:

I went to weigh our pollaxe and the lochabre axe, but I seem to have misplaced the scale. I'm not entirely sure where it went, but when I find it, I'll get the weights for you.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

A lot of people seem to dislike fighting with two swords at once. I actually prefer handling two smaller blades at a time to any large single blade. Originally, this was not the case. It was confusing teaching both hands to act in tandem to not just have one strike and one parry, but to have each blade function together to pull off combination blows and counters.

Eventually, as my budding ambidexterity began to surface more, it became a more viable option as I moved in and out of classic positions easily, like using oxen and fool at the same time. But it still wasn't quite so useful because I could never watch both swords at once. To overcome this issue, I had to stop watching the blades and only see my target, and learn to "feel" the individual locations of my weapons so that I didn't have to watch either of them.

I wouldn't call myself some "great" swordsman, but I'm finding that the techniques I can utilize with two swords to be more useful then any single blade or sword and shield wielding I've ever tried. And overall, learning to feel out the blade subconsciously has helped out my swordplay immensely.

So, does anyone else here relate well with two swords?

[Raum]

I agree with you about not watching your weapons, but that's probably a mistake in any style. I took escrima for a while and, to be successful, you need to make striking and blocking automatic. React from muscle memory while your mind searches for openings. Even then, an opening found should be followed up with an automatic strike without having to plan it. Anything else is too slow.

Yes, I got hit a lot to learn that. :/

[Subotei]

Trial by combat wasn't officially abolished in Britain until 1819. It was not in regular use for a long long time before that though.

[Fhaolan]

So, does anyone else here relate well with two swords?

My wife prefers two weapons, specifically two gladius-style short swords. Personally, I've never mastered two weapons. It's probably just a matter of training, and I've not spent enough time on the style.

Funny thing is, almost everyone I know who works two weapons started out with escrima training. There's something in that training that breaks past the two-weapon coordination issue. [Of course there is, otherwise the style wouldn't work. - PestDancer (wife)] [Yes, but it's pretty much the only style that concentrates on two-weapons being taught now-a-days, that's my point. - Fhaolan (husband)]

[Matthew]

Interesting. I wouldn't have thought there was a tremendous amount of difference between learning to fight Weapon and Shield and learning to fight with two Weapons, since both require a certain amount of dual co ordination.

Perhaps the basics are similar, but advanced techniques different?

[Fhaolan]

Interesting. I wouldn't have thought there was a tremendous amount of difference between learning to fight Weapon and Shield and learning to fight with two Weapons, since both require a certain amount of dual co ordination.

Perhaps the basics are similar, but advanced techniques different?

Well, as I see it most people keep the shield in their off-hand. The shield is then relegated to a defensive role, with only limited offensive maneuvers. Most of the time all you need to do is maintain its position between you and your opponent [As a note, this is actually the bit that throws most students that are going through our stage combat training course. They keep holding it to their side rather than in front, and worse, swinging it behind them to compensate when they've thrown themselves off balance.] Because the shield is maintained between you and your opponent, most S&B fighters fall into static guard positions with the shield-shoulder forward most of the time. Your weapon hand is still primary, and the most active.

To really use two-weapon styles, you have to use both weapons for offense and defense simultaneously and interchangeably. Which basically means training yourself towards ambidexterity. As neither hand is primary defense, you can keep your guards in constant flux. All in all, two-weapon is far flashier than sword & sheild when done properly.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Yeah, fighting defensively with one weapon makes the whole style ineffective, since it's then the same as using a sword and shield wherein the shield is thin and long and you can perform a better shield bash. A total waste of the benefits of two weapon fighting.

Escrima was the basis for my dual-swordplay as well, though I'm entirely self-taught (utilizing training manuals, of which I've read several). Another good tip I can afford those new to two weapon fighting is to try matching both blades together in mirror motions for a while until you're used to constantly switching offensive and defensive techniques on both, then start seperating the two in your mind little by little until each sword can move independently of each other, exactly like swordfighting with only one sword, just with two.

From there it's a simple task of seeing where one sword opens holes in the defense of an opponent for the other sword to take advantage of. You'll find that particular double motions are exceedingly good at disabling, disarming, and testing your opponent. A few good pokes can tell you a lot about how your enemy fights, and you can do it at twice the normal speed.

[Matthew]

Hmmn. I was thinking more of Weapon and Buckler, Weapon and Cloak, Weapon and Parrying Dagger types. I imagine to begin with, combatants do treat their additional Weapon in a similar mannr to a Shield, but as they get more experienced learn to use it to greater effect?

I'm well out of my period here and I don't know anything about Real Life Two Weapon Fighting, so I'm just thinking out loud. Anyway, I would have thought you would want to keep one of the blades / hafts / whatever between you and your opponent, but that you have the option of switching, abandoning or striking with either weapon.

Saying that, I was also under the impression that Weapon and Shield required a degree of ambidexterity training...

[Viscount Einstrauss]

With sword and shield? No, both hands have a dedicated role. One's your offensive, one's your defensive. Unless you find baseball to require ambidexterity since one hand throws and the other hand catches, it doesn't really require that particular skill. You can trade roles in certain special circumstances, but ultimately each hand learns to react to something specific, and it works better that way with a sword and shield since a shield isn't a good weapon and a sword isn't as good at defending you as a shield.

With two weapon fighting, you don't just match your opponent every time they strike you. Fighting purely defensively in any situation where a single strike can mean death is foolhardy. If you can block then you should be countering or outright dodging. Each swing prepares the next sword for a good vantage point. This gets very tricky when two people using two weapons go at it- it often turns into a speed match, where the fighter who can move their swords with the best timing and efficiency ultimately wins.

[Matthew]

Hmmn. I'm not so sure. The general consensus appears to be that the Scutum was used offensively, the Warrior leading with his Shield and striking with his Sword. This is obviously somewhat different from Two Weapon Fighting, but I would be hesitant to consider the 'off hand' in this case relegated to defence only or even primarily defence. The Gladius or Spatha is obviously going to inflict the more significant blow, but the Scutum seems to have had an important offensive role.
If a Shield Fighter relies on the size of his Shield to protect him, I think he would be making a mistake, he needs to be moving it to intercept blows and forcing his opponent to give ground.

Still, a lot of this feeds into the discussion for me as to 'which is better for single combat', Two Handed or One Handed or, indeed, Two Weapons. I don't really think there is any trade off where X beats Y, but is in turn beaten by Z. Is it relative skill levels that makes X look better than Y, or is the style itself truly superior?

So for instance, given that all else is equal, in the case of Two Weapons versus Weapon and Shield, I rather suspect that the Weapon and Shield Combatant would be in a better position defensive position, but the Two Weapon Combatant in a better Offensive position.
In the case of a Two Handed Weapon Combatant and a Weapon and Shield Combatant, I would say the same probably applies, but in the case of a Two Weapon Combatant and a Two Handed Weapon Combatant, I am unsure whether one might be superior to the other.
Relative levels of Body Armour are likely to have made a huge difference.

All speculation on my part, really, though.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

No, I whole-heartedly agree. No style is simply better, with the exceptions of when utilized by particular people. Someone used to having an "off hand" is going to do better with a shield then with a second weapon. People who can't seperate their hands mentally is going to do best with a two hander. And someone who isn't very good at defense is better suited to two weapons.

Now, even if you don't actually fit the bill for a particular fighting style, you can still simply learn to be effective and even good with it. But it'll be easier for you in the long run if you pick the one that suits your particular skills.

[Kevlimin_Soulaxe]

Just how good is the IMI Tavor TAR-21? I've got a buddy that swears it's the best thing that shoots lead this side of the...well it's gonna be used by Israel so I couldn't think of anything we're on the same side of.

Oh well.

And other than the ejection port issues, I can't say I'd really disagree with him.


Speaking of new and better rifles, why hasn't anyone tried to pick up the caseless ammo and G11-style burst systems? Did the G11 fail for any reason other than Germany suddenly not needing a new rifle anymore?

[Fhaolan]

I'm not a gun... person, actually. :) The only gun I've ever fired is a matchlock musket.

However, I'm going to pass on what a friend of mine said about caseless ammo. So treat this as 'rumor', not fact. He said that caseless ammo, while lighter and producing less waste, is prone to handling damage. The coating on them protects them from moisture and the like, but it has no 'impact' resistance. Soldiers tend to be rough on their weapons, as I understand it, and cased ammo is better at resisting this rough treatment.

[Ryujin]

Speaking of new and better rifles, why hasn't anyone tried to pick up the caseless ammo and G11-style burst systems? Did the G11 fail for any reason other than Germany suddenly not needing a new rifle anymore?


To make a long story short, the G11 worked well and was accepted by the Bundeswehr, but, with the end of the Cold War and East & West Germany re-uniting, the German government suddenly had more important things to spend its money on than a new rifle & a new type of more expensive ammunition that wasn't compatible with the rest of NATO. They eventually got the G36 instead.

As for rough handling, it was rather surprising that the G11's ammo reportedly fared better in tests (which included extensive handling by draftees) than regular ammo, even after being dropped from a plane. IIRC, some propellant was chipped off, but more of the ammo was still usable than an equal number of conventional rounds (casings were often bent, cracked or dented).

[Norsesmithy]

On the Tavor and the G11.

As for the Tavor, while I am sure that it is a fine rifle that will perform its job with distinction, it simply doesn't have an advantage over any of the other western assault rifles.

Despite what Future Weapons says, the Tavor really isn't any more accurate than the M16/M4, and it isn't isn't really lighter or more powerful than a M4 either.

I am sure that the Tavor is going be a success, but I don't see it as being truly and definitively superior to the AR 15 or SCAR families

Ryugin, I to have heard that it fared better in tests, but never have I found the actual documentation for these tests. Simply, the G11 was not all that much deadlier than a G36, and was far more expensive.

On the Rumor mill, regarding the G11, I have heard, undocumented, mind you, that the propellant coating that provided the moisture resistance was not only rendered ineffective by a single chip, but that when the weapons was fired in non-laboratory (wet) conditions that the residue form this coating would expand in the rifle as it absorbed airborne moisture, and that this could cause jams which were ridiculously hard to clear

[Kevlimin_Soulaxe]

Does the Tavor's barrel being a fifth longer than the M4's not make that much difference?

I also recall him saying that it had m16, if not better, accuracy. Now I know it'll have nowhere near the range, but is the accuracy part bull?

[Edmund]

Hmmm... That is right, I went checking in the internet for some info: The Best armors made in places like Italy and Germany would not cause problems in using 2 handed weapons, my mistake earlier. But a problem of using 2 handed weapos is the Fatigue. I dont know if a shield and sword would do the same fatigue, but swinging a 2 to 4 kilos sword (or heavier models) for hours in battle is almost unbearable (I've tried to train with my 2 kilos katana for 2 hours and I felt that my arms would fall, and I am a pretty strong guy used to arm labor)

Well, your katana sounds exceptionally heavy, so I'm not terribly surprised.

It must also be understood that in medieval combat you wouldn't be swinging your sword for hours. While battles would often last for long periods, a) the vast majority of that time would be spent with manoeuvring b) if you're continuously swinging your weapon even if you are engaged in the thick of combat, you will probably die anyway. Your sword arm shouldn't be exposed nearly that frequently, unless every blow is a killing one, which is just silly.


Well, I guess shields were also common in duels. I think it could be an option for the contestants. As was said, it could've been very comon in Greek and Rome.

It was common in judicial duels to say the least, if Talhoffer is to be seen as an indicator of prevalence. In his manuscript, there are a few kinds of judicial duels shown that use shields, including one where the only weapon is a kind of 'hooked' shield.


About Scythes with one hand and their usage in battle: Ok they are big and umbalanced, but they can be used as giant sized picks. Its was not a common weapon, but its power was remarkable. Strikes from a scythe have a bigger probabilty to cut limbs because of the weapons shape.

First and foremost, the scythe must be acknowledged as a weapon. It and the sickle are mentioned in Paulus Mair's manuscript, and at the 2006 WMA Workshop there was some demonstration of its use. I, unfortunately, did not attend, but here's an article about it! http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_event_wmaw2006.html

That being said, however, it was neither a preferred weapon, nor a particularly powerful one. I have intense doubts about its use as a pick. The blade is too long and thin (this is a cutting implement made of wrought iron and a little bit of steel, after all) to produce a wholly effective and accurate piercing swing without bending nastily when it encounters a hard surface (ie bone). Instead, I suspect it would be good for cutting and tripping.

Getting on to two weapons vs. weapon and shield vs. two-handed weapon: I think two-weapon fighting is an inferior form when you get to using similar weapons over 24" in length (just an arbitrary number), simply due to issues of defence, weight, and coordination. Now, when you use smaller weapons it becomes more effective, but I still have sincere doubts as to its effectiveness against a thrust from, say, a longsword.

But this comparison assumes a few things. Free room to move for the two-handed-weapon user and his opponent, flat ground, etc. Two weapon use could certainly be effective given the proper circumstances, but I'm quite sure that in a plate-armoured duel, for example, the longsword will win hands-down. Speed, leverage and/or power, and reach are all advantages that two weapons lacks.

I also sincerely doubt its effectiveness against a sword-and-shield user (again assuming room for movement, flat terrain). Since two weapons again lacks reach, but also lacks the combined defensive and offensive capability provided by the shield, I don't think it would be effective, assuming the same terrain conditions as above.

Even with the more traditional European two-weapon style of sword-and-dagger, its poor defensive capability means that a buckler or shield is preferred, or even a free hand to grapple with, though sword-and-dagger vs. single sword seems to be more an issue of personal preference.

[Norsesmithy]

Does the Tavor's barrel being a fifth longer than the M4's not make that much difference?

I also recall him saying that it had m16, if not better, accuracy. Now I know it'll have nowhere near the range, but is the accuracy part bull?
From what I have read, the veocity difference between a Tavor and a M4 is less than 200fps, which doesn't make that big of a difference in normal combat, especially the short range combat both are designed for.

As for its accuracy, both the M16 varient rifles and the Tavor are 1.5 to 1 MOA accurate, which is exceptional for a fully auto or select fire service arm. Frankly both of these rifles are capable of far better accuracy than the typical ammunition issued in the militaries that use them and better accuracy than the average soldier they are issued to. The only armed service in the world that requires that their soldiers be 1.75 MOA accurate out to five hundred yards are the United States Marines, and the M16 is good enough for their purposes, so I suspect that very few units would ever have a noticable gain in actual accuracy with the Tarvor, even if it were magically more accurate than the M16.

[Pegasos989]

Hmmm... That is right, I went checking in the internet for some info: The Best armors made in places like Italy and Germany would not cause problems in using 2 handed weapons, my mistake earlier. But a problem of using 2 handed weapos is the Fatigue. I dont know if a shield and sword would do the same fatigue, but swinging a 2 to 4 kilos sword (or heavier models) for hours in battle is almost unbearable (I've tried to train with my 2 kilos katana for 2 hours and I felt that my arms would fall, and I am a pretty strong guy used to arm labor).

"Medieval swords in general were well-made, light, agile fighting weapons equally capable of delivering dismembering cuts or cleaving deep cavities into the body. They were far from the clumsy, heavy things they're often portrayed as in popular media and far, far more than a mere "club with edges." As another source on arms affirmed: "the sword was, in fact, surprisingly light·.the average weight of swords from the 10th to the 15th centuries was 1.3 kg, while in the 16th century it was 0.9 kg. Even the heavier bastard swords which were used only by second-grade fighting men did not exceed 1.6 kg, while the horse swords known as 'hand-and-a-half' swords weighed 1.8 kg on average. When due allowances are made, these surprisingly low figures also hold good for the enormous two-hand sword, which was traditionally only wielded by 'true Hercules.' Yet it seldom weighed more than 3 kg." (Funcken, Arms, Part 3, p. 26)."
http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm


I would say that a man trained in swordmanship ever since he was seven years old could fight with a less than 3kg two-handed sword for a long while.

Your katana is unusually heavy. :P

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Yeah, my wooden training swords weigh more then actual swords (oaken). I think katanas are, on average, a little heavier then European longswords due to the inferior quality of Japanese steel, but I could be wrong on this. They're nearly equal regardless.

Back to two weapon fighting, you certainly don't ever want to use two large weapons. I find that even having one larger weapon and one shorter isn't a very wise choice, since each then has a dedicated role that's arguably better suited to a sword and shield. My particular style of combat requires two shortswords of equal (or nearly equal) length and weight. Further, my style is instantly thrown off if one or both swords are curved. I think it's just a prefference of mine, but I've never looked into it.

The key to it isn't being able to stab twice, defend twice, or any mix of the two, but to be able to instantly return every blow with an offensive counter, or to attack in succession in a way that unbalances your opponent. So long as you keep your guard up right, you can literally move circles around an opponent without having to worry about suddenly leaving an opening. You can also strike with both at the same time to either increase tension or pull a feint along with a matching blow.

There is, naturally, an issue of distance. Because of the weight problem, neither weapon you wield will likely be very long. You need to close the distance quickly and always remain within slashing room of the enemy, and keep the pressure on. There is no poke and wait in two weapon fighting.

[Dervag]

Weren't katanas supposed to be used mainly in (brief) duels or as an emergency weapon for cutting down unarmored peasant attackers?

From the descriptions of Japanese warfare I've heard on this site, samurai usually fought in battles with mounted archery and halberds, reserving their swords for unarmored opponents. Since a katana would be a bad choice for killing an armored warrior, that makes a lot of sense.

If katanas weren't meant as a primary battlefield weapon, then it makes sense that they might be too heavy for sustained use. There's not much incentive to reduce the weight of a katana that only sees use in ceremonial duels that end in a few strokes.

[Tor the Fallen]

When on horseback, would using a two handed sword be more or less easy than using a one handed sword? Two-handed polearm, spear, etc?

[Ryujin]

Ryugin, I to have heard that it fared better in tests, but never have I found the actual documentation for these tests. Simply, the G11 was not all that much deadlier than a G36, and was far more expensive.


No argument there; I've never seen any documentation either that the G11 was superior, only that it performed to the Bundeswehr's satisfaction. The only real advantage, IMHO, was that, kilo for kilo, one could carry more 4.7mm than 5.56mm (though I'd like to see the wound ballistics report resulting from that 3-round burst at 2000 rpm). The clockwork-like innards, for one, wouldn't exactly inspire confidence in your average recruit.

[Fhaolan]

When on horseback, would using a two handed sword be more or less easy than using a one handed sword? Two-handed polearm, spear, etc?

Okay, here we enter into the realm of personal experimentation of myself and my wife. [She's the horseperson. Technically, I know how to ride, but just well enough to not fall off when something goes wonky.]

In our experience, non-spear-like two-handed polearms don't work very well from horseback, even when you are trained to control the horse through weight-shifts and leg pressure [Which you *need* to be able to do in order to tilt with lance and shield.] Mainly because the manoeuvers available to you are limited due to the horse head right in front of you. The bigger the weapon, the more awkward the presence of the horse becomes.

Greatsword... just no. If nothing else, it just looks silly. :smallsmile:

Longswords, two-handed swords, or whatever else you want to label them as... These work fairly well. They're usually light enough to manoeuver one-handed when necessary which opens up some moves that would be restricted by a two-handed grip, but are still somewhat restricted due to their length. That is countered by them usually have a slight reach advantage over one-handed swords. My personal opinion is that it's a wash, both one-handed and two-handed swords have advantages and disadvantages on horseback, and if you take the armor/shield factor out of the analysis I'd say the two types of weapons are fairly close in utility.

Spear-like weapons such as... well... spears, glaives, partisans, spetums, naginatas, etc. call all be used exactly like lances because when you reduce it down to basic principles that's all a lance is, a spear. Naginatas and glaives are actually a touch more flexible as they can be used for cutting and chopping by switching to two-handed use. Still more limited than you would be from the ground due to the horse's presence between your legs, but it gets you a few extra manoeuvers that a spear isn't quite as good at. My oriental knowledge is very limited, but I'm under the impression that this style of horse-combat (naginatas) was common in Japan.

The European equivalent (glaive) never really caught on as a horseman's weapon. Most of the stuff we know about historical European horse combat is at a tactical or strategic level. How an individual actually used their weapons is more limited. I believe only one or two horse-oriented training manuals from the period have survived. We do have a lot of more info from later periods, like the Napolionic wars and such. Unfortunately, these various sources are very focused on calvalry or tournament-style fighting, which means in formations with other horses around, or fixed channels like tilting runs. This limits the use of long reach weapons because flailing around with those outside of lance charges are likely to hit allies, or is just generally non-helpful in the set conditions.

The lone horseman attacking the enemy was more a storyteller thing than a historian thing, so all the accounts we have of that are a little suspect. The stories have been passed through people who didn't understand the differences between the various weapons and how they are used, so the details useful to us have been dropped, glossed over, or altered unknowingly.

[Matthew]

All true Fhaolan, but then there is this:

http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images/maciejowski/leaf10/otm10va&b.gif

This bible is full of images of Mounted Two Handed Axe work as well, though whether that qualifies as a 'Great Axe...

http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images/maciejowski/leaf21/otm21ra.gif

[Fhaolan]

All true Fhaolan, but then there is this:

http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images/maciejowski/leaf10/otm10va&b.gif

This bible is full of images of Mounted Two Handed Axe work as well, though whether that qualifies as a 'Great Axe...


Oh yeah, the Maciejowski Bible. I've heard about this, but have never actually perused a copy myself. I have been told that actual examples of a lot of those weapons have never been found. Meaning that the illustrator was possibly the first fantasy artist ever published! :smallbiggrin:

I've seen reproductions of the various weapons that are pictured in this book. Since no real examples exist they are a bit theoretical, of course. The repro of that particular two-handed knife falls into the longsword category when I picked it up and swung it around, so I think it's a reasonable horse-person's weapon. There's also a one-handed cleaver that looks like it was left in the forge too long because it's partially melted, and an odd looking mace if I remember correctly.

The repros do in fact work, so there's nothing technically wrong with these weapons as pictured. It's just odd that we've not dug up any actual examples.

We've not tried two-handed axes as such from horseback, because we don't have one. We've got a lochabre axe and a pollaxe, but the shafts on them are long enough that they pass the two-handed region and into the polearm region. The stabbing axe we have is meant to be used one-handed from horseback, so it doesn't count. :smallsmile:

[Matthew]

It's definitely got some crazy looking pieces in it, but a lot of it is very realistic as well. My suspicion is that the Illustrator was attempting to conceptualise literay tropes. Accounts of people being cut in half and heads being cloven in two through helmets are prevalent in Medieval Literature, both in Latin Histories and Vernacular Romances. It is very interesting that he has chosen some kind of Short Poled Glaive to make the only blow in the Manuscript that cuts a combatant clean in half, almost as though he didn't think it quite possible with a Single Handed Sword.

On the other hand, as you say, the variety of weapons and armour, unusual in Medieval Manuscripts to begin with, are very realistically rendered and the Illustrator must have had a passing acquaintence with warfare to get as much right as he does. All in all, a great Manuscript (but as with all evidence it must be used carefully); you can check out a full presentation of the illuminations here:

http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/maciejowski_bible.htm

You will probably need a good Internet Connection, though.

[Mr Croup]

My oriental knowledge is very limited, but I'm under the impression that this style of horse-combat (naginatas) was common in Japan.

I've never heard or read of any wide use of naginata in mounted combat. The use of yari (spears) while mounted was more commonplace, and was in fact one of the most prevalent weapons used in large scale combat in feudal Japan throughout its many periods. The naginata was often used as an anti-calvary weapon, with the specific aim to disable the horse, not the rider. Perhaps that may be the root your impression?

[Ambrogino]

What I haven't seen anyone bring up in the shield vs second weapon discussion is that it is possible to do both - small strapped shield and a dirk held blade down in the same hand, with a longer sword in the main hand. I believe it was Culloden where this fell out of favour, as the English bayonet drill was to attack diagonally, avoiding the shield of the man in front.

[Dervag]

Mainly because the manoeuvers available to you are limited due to the horse head right in front of you. The bigger the weapon, the more awkward the presence of the horse becomes.Good point. The risk of accidentally braining or decapitating your own horse would be a pretty major reason not to experiment with long axe-type weapons on horseback.

Of course, there could easily be styles that get around this problem; I don't know.

[Joran]

When on horseback, would using a two handed sword be more or less easy than using a one handed sword? Two-handed polearm, spear, etc?

By the time of musket warfare, calvary had switched to using primarily sabers, one-handed swords, to better cut down fleeing soldiers. In this case, I would believe that a one-handed sword is easier to use, just keep swinging and whacking at the heads and necks of people below you.

I would guess that the ideal choice of weapon would depend on what you want your horseback soldiers to do and who they are fighting. If fighting other cavalry, the answer might be a longer weapon (like a lance or a spear), or a ranged weapon like a bow or a pistol/carbine. If fighting an armored foe, again a lance or a spear might be a better choice.

Again, a guess on my part, since I've only ridden a horse less than ten times. I'd like at least one hand on the reins, so a one-handed sword for me would be preferable.

[Matthew]

It's always going to be the Samurai who spoil this sort of analysis, though. Two Handed Swords and Two Handed Spears, all on Horseback, as a rule. Tachi were supposedly 'cut down' for use on foot as Katana. Saying that, the really large Swords (No-Dachi?) were restricted to foot.

[Edit] Was just directed to this link; it is great and I just wanted to share it!

http://schnucks0.free.fr/trajan.htm

[Dire Penguin]

how many RPM does the dread gun give off again?

[Raum]

Does it qualify as a "gun"? :) Per it's inventor it can fire up to 120,000 RPM. It's more of a high powered slingshot than a gun though...

[Norsesmithy]

The Dread is vaporware, pure and simple.

The claims that the makers of the Dread make violate the first law of thermodynamics, Newton's third law, and the rules of supersonic aerodynamics.

It may work, but it would never do what they say it will.

Edit: When ever the a new device prototype is disassembled to "protect its secrets" before anyone, outside the developers, see it in action, it does not speak to the reliability or trustworthyness of the developers or the promoters of the product.

Seriously, the Dread smells like Snake Oil

[Raum]

I suspected as much. Hence my "per the inventor" qualification. I was unable to find any sources of information not relying on the inventor.

[Ryujin]

It's rather funny how, even during the Great War, people have been patenting centrifugal guns at least once a decade, and that's just in the U.S...

[Wehrkind]

A two handed spear is not difficult to use on horseback when charging. Most early heavy cavalry using lances, particularly where pikes were popular, used long two handed lances instead of shorter spears and shields. However, once the initial shock of the charge, such weapons are terribly awkward, and a smaller weapon is needed.
I can't say anything about tachi's though. It is possible that they used horses as a source of mobility as opposed to a combat platform. That is to say, they rode to the fight, then dismounted to fight. That was not terribly uncommon either, as unarmored horses fare extremely poorly in sustained melee after their initial impact, no matter how well trained. If good barding was not available, cavalry in melee simply had tendons cut, bellies opened, and throats slashed, the dying horse often pinning or crippling their rider on the way down.

[Wehrkind]

Yay, good to be back. I missed you guys.
I am going to hit a lot of points in the past 2 pages to catch up.

In my experience, I found sword and board (S&B) to be a good bit less tiring than two handed weapons (THW), or two weapon fighting (TWF). Even though my scutum weighs 12 pounds alone and my pollaxe (love) only about 6, I find I can be much more passive and stable defending with the shield instead of being in constant movement in both footwork and blocking with the pollaxe. Small shield movements can easily be made to cover any part, so I really only end up moving my sword arm, and if I get really lazy I can do more sword blocking and counters.

When it comes to using a shield offensively, as Matthew stated, they are quite nice to smacking people with. Part of their charm is your ability to get behind them while charging the enemy, allowing you to just push them back with less risk to yourself. Also, as my father periodically reminds me, getting punched with the edge of a shield will really shock you, helmet or no. Sort of a giant set of brass knuckles.

Now, most of this depends on your shield itself. A targe is less useful for the "duck and charge" technique as a scutum, but you have more mobility with it, and it gets in your way less. Having a pole armsman hide behind my own shield while retreating at an angle and pounding on my relentlessly is not a great time.

When it comes to using TWF, I find the most troubling aspect it gives me as a S&Ber is the wierd angles of attack. The most frustrating, and thus instructive, fellow I fought used to park his left hand out to his side, with his sword paralell the ground and poinding in at my navel (he used two ~28 inch swords.) The other he used to get my shield to move a bit, then he would stab in at my belly. The trouble was that he would move back away from my attacks, all the while waiting for me to commit too much to any given attack to bring that left sword in.

Now, the weak spot I find in many people fighting TWF are mass weapons and two handers. I find most people can not stop a warhammer or a great sword one handed unless they catch it very close to the hilt, effectively reducing their weapon to a 5" buckler. Simply overpowering their defense as they attempt a strike can be very effective.

I suspect that the question of superiority of S&B THW and TWF really depends on the weapons, armor and situations involved. But that is obvious.

[Hoggmaster]

Saying that, the really large Swords (No-Dachi?) were restricted to foot. Aren't they called 'Horse-killing swords'??


[Edit] Was just directed to this link; it is great and I just wanted to share it!

http://schnucks0.free.fr/trajan.htm


Here is another one

http://www.stoa.org/trajan/buildcartoon.cgi?1a

[Viscount Einstrauss]

I've had very little practice blocking heavy weapons while TWFing. The only good trick I found for it, besides blocking at the hilt which was extremely hard, was to block with both swords at once. It sort of ruins my main advantage, but it's the price I paid to be able to fight a weapon that was pushing through my one-handed weapons without a problem. Last I practiced at it, I was trying to figure a good way to lock the larger weapon with a pincer hold. Unfortunately, the only good attack I have after I do that is a kick, which is something I ordinarily don't like doing in an honorable duel.

On the other hand, it worked perfectly fine in full-contact fighting, but I always excel best there thanks to training in Wing Chun, Jeet Kune Do, bear claw boxing, and a small touch of judo (I'm terrible at judo, though. It's my worst martial art). I mix up my TWF with a lot of kicks and weighted elbow/pommel strikes, my favorite being leg takedowns with a blade finisher. Shields are a hassle like this since it throws off everything but kicks until I get in real close.

[Ryujin]

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/7199/1137370243159rs1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Guess what happens to his horse!

[Fhaolan]

Okay... that's.... novel...

I've seen a lot of things over the years, but I've never seen that particular breastplate before. Where on earth did you find that?

Oh, and my wife saw that picture over my shoulder... she said that is probably the fastest way to a dead horse she has ever seen in her life. :smallsmile:

[Edmund]

Ryujin: It ducks, of course!


That breastplate is obviously post-Napoleonic punt gun, used for shooting any and all birds at chest height.

[Matthew]

Star Trek punch (hands clasped together). Anybody know anything of its provenance? Is it likely to be useful in real combat?

You can see it demonstrated about half way through this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffTxGxUgQ88

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Only useful thing it really appears to do is double the weight behind an otherwise ordinary sideways bash. I'd advise against it, but my basic unarmed stance is Wing Chun (which absolutely requires at least one defensive hand at most all times). It looks very slow, and should you miss/be deflected, you're out both hands for defending yourself.

Doing some testing with it, that sort of hit also appears to be a good way to break your hand. I tried it in two forms- one fist grasped by the other hand, and two clasped hands. The former put a lot of pressure on the inner fist, making it lose tension after I released the grip. The latter causes a good bit of pain and stress to each and every finger bone, especially at the joints.

If you're determined to find a good use for it in hand to hand combat, please be careful about it.

[Ryujin]

I've seen a lot of things over the years, but I've never seen that particular breastplate before. Where on earth did you find that?


Saw it by chance on some image board.
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/4750/1168663362839uf6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Apparently, the photos were taken in Bordeaux, 1917. The cuirass mounted 19 pistols and weighed 30 lbs...and that's all I can remember.

Edmund: Maybe it's for self-protection...after he tells his men they're going to mount a cavalry charge on the trench lines!

[Wehrkind]

I actually saw that on a show about wierd custom guns on the History Channel my dad had TiVo'd before Thanksgiving. Apparently it was right about the time of the revolver becoming super popular, or was it the metal cartridge... at any rate, the idea was that a line of the men (on foot) could put down a line of infantry in short order. Obviously it was about as practical as the "punch pistol" the SS designed for officers that was mounted on the back of your hand, with a trigger that stuck out a little past the knuckles and went off when you punched someone. All in all, a pretty entertaining show.

[Ryujin]

Is this it?
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/7/glovepistolgx4.th.jpg (http://img143.imageshack.us/my.php?image=glovepistolgx4.jpg)

You may have misheard, as it was developed by OSS, not the SS.

Apparently, they also did develop cigarette guns and other such oddities.

[Wehrkind]

That is indeed the one. I might well have been mistaken in my hearing, since I was likely half asleep. Sadly I can not rule out the History Channel just being incorrect as well. Wouldn't be the first time they made an error, or even just made things up :(

Still, everytime I see that it makes me think of an 80's era comic book tool.

[Edmund]

Another... abnormality.. I noticed about that breastplate-wearing fellow is that his revolver appears to have a knife blade running parallel to the barrel.

If it's WWI French, I'm not surprised it looks so zany. They had some awful, awful ideas back then.

[AMX]

Another... abnormality.. I noticed about that breastplate-wearing fellow is that his revolver appears to have a knife blade running parallel to the barrel.
Looks suspiciously like the LePage revolver-knife from ~1870.
Can't seem to find an online reference for it, though.


Anyway, completely different question:
All examples of barding I've seen leave pretty large parts of the horse unprotected.
Now I'm wondering whether there has ever been a "full-cover" barding that actually protected the animal's entire body.
(And yes, there's an ulterior motive behind that question.)

[Matthew]

Plenty is the quick answer. You can see fully armoured War Horses on Trajan's Column, as well as other Ancient and Medieval places.

There are also medieval literary and artistic depictions of fully barded War Horses. Basically (as is often the case), if you could afford to provide Body Armour for a War Horse, you did. Obviously, though, there are practical reasons not to provide Body Armour for War Horses that you expect to see protracted service without sufficient time to rest.

http://s73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/th_e014a.jpghttp://s73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/th_clibanarius.jpghttp://s73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/th_cataphra.jpg
http://s73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/th_illustrazioni4.jpghttp://s73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/th_parthian_sassanian_cataphracts.jpghttp://s73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/th_parthian_cataphracts.jpg



http://antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/Pre2003/McCarthy/Images/figure3.jpg

http://schnucks0.free.fr/Trajan/31.gif

[Fhaolan]

The thing about barding is that it is exceedingly expensive, so is relatively rare. I've seen pictures of an existing set of Gothic full-plate barding, and I've seen illustrations of Itallian full-plate barding. But these were relatively late-period items. Full maille barding was more common, and in the eastern areas like where modern Turkey is I've heard of full scale barding. Cloth with strategically placed small metal plates was also found, and much cheaper than full-plate.

There's also some confusion because the term 'barding' doesn't always refer to what we would recognize as armor. Sometimes it refers to a decorative leather or cloth caparison over the rear end of the horse. I believe these are 'devolved' from real armor, symbolic kind of stuff.

[AMX]

Those look more, er, full than what I was previously aware of, but only the last pic fits my idea of actual full-body coverage; and it appears a bit too stylized to be reliable.

[Matthew]

It is definitely stylised. I doubt the artist had much of an idea of what was being described. I have never actually seen any Horse Body Armour that covers the legs in any way, other than as part of a Mail skirt.

[Fhaolan]

It is definitely stylised. I doubt the artist had much of an idea of what was being described. I have never actually seen any Horse Body Armour that covers the legs in any way, other than as part of a Mail skirt.

Actually, now that you mention it, I've never seen maille horse 'leggings' like in the illustration above either. The best I've seen for that is a long skirting of maille or scale. And the scale ones were all covered in cloth with only the bottom edge of scales showing, so I can't be sure they had complete coverage. The full-plate forms of horse armor I've seen only extend down to just below the body, leaving the legs bare.

Wait... I have seen... how do I describe them... horse pauldrons? They looked like those tear-drop Norman shields, but made of curved and fluted metal and attached to the horse's barding much like pauldrons on human armor. I can't remember where I've seen it though, so it might have been a fantasy piece. They extended down far enough to cover the 'knees'.

[TimeWizard]

Star Trek punch (hands clasped together). Anybody know anything of its provenance? Is it likely to be useful in real combat?

You can see it demonstrated about half way through this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffTxGxUgQ88

Thats exactly the kind of punch done by someone whose never tried it before. He's liable to seriously damage his finger joints by locking them like that. putting your hands together like that actually weakens your punch, because you get a much more damaging shot from putting your body behind one fist.

[Norsesmithy]

The issue of the protection of armour verses Crossbows, Longbows, and early guns was brought up in the Guns, You, and Dnd thread.

As far as I know, the high quality harnesses of plate were near invulnerable to early guns, bieng low velocity weapons, and that the same suits of armour were very difficult to peirce with longbows and crossbows, and that though they could theoretically penetrate on a 90 degree strike, the contours of the armour made this kind of strike very rare.

On the other hand, Munitions grade harnesses were more vulnerable to being defeated by bullets, bolts, and arrows, but still offered very good protection against most strikes.

It was not the introduction of firearms that caused the decline of battlefeild armour but rather the substantial economic burden of equipping an army with sufficient armour of suficient quality, and the reduction in effectiveness of a shock force of very few highly armoured troops, with the increase in size of battles.

[Mike_G]

I agree completely. It's one thing to equip a handful of knights in heavy armor, especially since the lord passes that expence donw to the individual as part of the feudal obligation to show up for war with appropriate equipment, but another entirely to buy plate armor for a thousand pikemen and a few hundred musketeers, none of whom will be noble or rich enough to buy their own equipment.

Of course, a good disciplined body of pike and musket infantry can accomplish as much or more on the field as a loose body of noble cavalry, each with his own goals and notions of tactics and honor ad glory (and ransoms to be made).

[Joran]

I have a couple questions on the use of a fan as a weapon.

1) What were these fans made out of?
2) How effective were they and how would one use them as a weapon?
3) How do they match up against a foe with a conventional knife or sword?

Thanks.

P.S. I was under the impression that the reason why the Chinese never developed heavy armor was because of the prevalence of cheap, effective crossbows. Could be wrong though.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

"Battle" fans were typically made of wood or metal, thicker then paper and not really intended for the same purpose as regular fans. They weren't meant to be used as weapons in most instances of their use. In certain martial arts they're used, but they're more ceremonial then practical. In Japan, samurai would use them to shade their sight from the sun, give signals to his troops, and there are legends of samurai capable of deflecting blows or trapping enemy weaponry with their fans. However, fans lack the capacity to deal any sort of lethal blow without quite a bit of improvisation (you could more easily incapacitate or kill someone with your bare hands then with a battle fan), and samurai tales like that are likely to be purely legend. The only reason it's even mentioned much is anime, which heavily distorts the usage of fans from a signal and (maybe) a shield into some sort of deadly wind weapon.

[Joran]

For fans, I was thinking more along the lines of an Imperial Court where weapons are strictly forbidden. Officials could carry something that looks innocuous but that can be used for self-defense.

For instance, a friend of mine took a class in self-defense. One of the teachers taught them how to make a cane into a very effective weapon. It looks harmless and most places won't take it away (unless they want to be sued).

In this case, would having a fan be helpful against an assassin that happened to slip into the court and attacks an official with a knife? Or would bare-handed fighting still be preferable. Many thanks.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Technically, a basic paper fan with your standard wooden frame could be useful in a fight against a knife. Not because of any innate martial merit in having a fan, but because while closed, it's more or less a cudgel, and anything that can stop a blade is instantly very useful in such a fight. It can theoretically be used, as mentioned in some romantic samurai literature, to trap and disarm as well by catching the blade in the fan while open, shutting it, and pulling away. But I have no idea if that actually works.

[Fhaolan]

For instance, a friend of mine took a class in self-defense. One of the teachers taught them how to make a cane into a very effective weapon. It looks harmless and most places won't take it away (unless they want to be sued).

There are many stick-fighting martial arts all around the world (not just the Orient! :smallsmile: ). Nearly all of them were developed to use canes and walking sticks because they are so innocuous.


In this case, would having a fan be helpful against an assassin that happened to slip into the court and attacks an official with a knife? Or would bare-handed fighting still be preferable. Many thanks.

All the 'combat' folding fans I've seen in RL are obviously not a normal fan as they have steel or heavy reinforced wood slats. There's no way to mistake one of these for a normal fan unless you leave it folded up all the time and never try to use it as a fan.

Folding fans are normally made of thin wood slats with a silk or paper covering. Non-folding fans are normally make of wicker. Both are about as effective as weapons as pelting your opponent with raw eggs. It'll annoy your opponent, and perhaps distract him, but that's about it. Even defensively, they don't really achieve much except by accident or special training. Doing a dagger disarm with a folding fan is a lot harder than it looks in the movies.

[Dervag]

P.S. I was under the impression that the reason why the Chinese never developed heavy armor was because of the prevalence of cheap, effective crossbows. Could be wrong though.I'm guessing that the main part of the reason was that China never had a warrior class. Confucian philosophy doesn't respect soldiers very much, and soldiers were never a dominating force in native Chinese culture, though they might be prominent in conqueror cultures like the Mongols and Manchus.

So the Chinese never had much incentive to develop expensive weapons that took a long time to use, because they didn't have a strong warrior class that had the time and resources to master them. There were no Chinese equivalents to European knights and Japanese samurai. Certainly, there were experienced warriors in China, but they didn't dominate the culture and they didn't have a deadlock on China's resources.

So Chinese weapons and tactics revolved around creating large numbers of weapons that were relatively easy to use (like all those crossbows). They'd probably have done quite well in the age of musketry if it weren't for the Ming bureaucracy's technophobia.

[Swordguy]

Regarding the differing penetrative characteristics of longbows and firearms against plate armor:

The two primary points made on the subject of the supremacy of the English Longbow against plate armor comes from the battles of Crecy and Agincourt, respectively. These battles have the highest "press coverage" (for lack of a better term), and are so the most well-known medieval engagements. However, did they actually prove the supremacy of the English Longbow over plate armor?

A simple matter of dates will suffice to dispel this illusion. Crecy took place in 1346, Agincourt in 1415 (source: An Encyclopedia of Battles, by David Eggenberger, Dover Ed. 1985). The period of dates from approximately 1277 to 1450 is known as the Transitional Period of armor, where the primary means of defense transferred from full-body maille hauberks and the classic Great Helms of the Crusaders to the full-plate masterpieces from Milan and Germany. Therefore, we can see that Crecy took place very early in this period, and Agincourt took place near the end.

We shall handle Crecy first.

Primary sources from the early 14th century show defences constructed primarily of maille, with varying types of metal helms (sometimes none at all), and small amounts of plate defenses strapped over the full-body hauberk. I reference the monumental rubbings of the tomb Sir William Fitzralph, in Pebmarch, Essex England. Sir Fitzralph clearly wears a chainmaille hauberk, with no helm, but does have plate defenses for the upper and lower arm (in the "gutter" style), what appear to be besegews protecting the shoulders, and similar defenses to the arm upon the lower leg and foot. No extra chest defense is evident.
A second source comes from the tomb rubbing of Sir John de Creke, dated 1325. This rubbing depicts Sir de Creke in a similar fashion to Sir Fitzralph, though with a nasaled bascinet over his coif. There are no protective discs at the shoulders, but his lower arm defenses appear to be full cannons, rather than the semi-tubular gutter designs found elsewhere.

What does this tell us? That the Primary defense the French had against the English longbow at Crecy would have been chainmaille. I do not believe any of us will fail to acknowledge that the longbow certainly "wins" against simple maille.

Next, we handle the armor at Agincourt. Could the longbow transfix a man protected by 90 years of armor development as easily as it could the French at Crecy?

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, people have a popular image of the French at Agincourt as the stereotypical "Knight in Shining Armor" - meaning cap a pie plate (whether alwhite armor or not is beside the point). This is not the case. As of 1415, plate armor had not developed to this point yet, nor would it for perhaps another 40 years.

Again, we look at primary sources - the armor itself. The very, very most state-of-the art armor found in 1415 might be what could be considered early full plate. The head was protected by a bascinet (often visored) with a maille aventail attached to protect the neck. Besegews still protected the gap between arm and torso, and the large pauldrons so beloved at Renaissance Festivals are nowhere to be seen. At best, small spaulders protect the shoulders. Arm defenses still seem to be a mix between gutter and cannon styles, with the cannon more often protecting the lower arm. The roundels that formerly protected the elbows have been replaced by articulated couters and fan plates (though the interior of the elbow is unprotected but for maille). Leg defenses as well are gutter designs, through articulated sabatons seem more advanced and popular. It is, however, in the vital region of the chest that armor fails the French. From what can be seen from sources (citations follow), the chainmaille hauberk is still worn, and over it sits either a coat of plates (brigandine) or a very, very small globular breastplate (Cherbourg armor, which appeared about 1395 and probably would have formed the vast majority of the armor worn by the French at Agincourt) that leaves the upper chest and abdomen completely exposed but for the hauberk. Finally, mitten-style gauntlets are quite common by this point.

Sources:
1) A glossary of the construction, decoration, and use of arms and armor in all countries and in all times, by George Cameron Stone, Dover Ed. 1999
2) Arms and Armor by Fredrick Wilkinson, Chancellor Press Ed., 1996
3)The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe by Sidney Angelo., 2000


What does this mean? Far from being the plate-clad two-legged metal "tank" of popular lore, the French at Agincourt still relyed heavily on maille to protect them from English arrows. In the case of Cherbourg plate, over half the chest is still exposed (aside from maille, which, as previously noted, does no good against arrowfire). Essentially, Crecy and Agincourt are poor citations to make when dealing with the case of arrowfire against full-plate armor, as there was too little plate in use.

See next post for more...

[Swordguy]

With Agincourt and Crecy removed as legitimate examples of the superiority of bowfire over plate armor, what does that leave us for a basis of comparison?

First off, what we need to do is look at the appropriate armor. Assuming that "Full Plate" means cap a pie plate equivalent to the Milanese or Gothic-style armor depiced in popular media and D&D publications, we can approximately date it to, around 1450. I reference a variety of primary sources for this:

1) Andrea Monetega's painting of Saint George, dated from approximately 1455. It shows the knight in Italian full plate, with fully-developed pauldrons, couters, and arm and leg cannons, as well as a wasp-waisted articulated breastplate with attached tassets. By this, we can tell, for certain, that this plate was in use by the painting date.
2) Hans Talhoffer's Fechtbuch depicts combat techniques for fighting in the lists with spear and sword (plates 68-73). The characters in this illustrated fight manual wear what is definitively Gothic Plate, complete with elongated toes on thier sabatons and a heavy use of fluting techniques on the cuirass and cannons, and the distinctive German visored sallet with bevor.
3) A suit of plate and mail (never worn) in the Higgins Armory in Worcester, England, counts as full plate - barely. It still uses small spaulders, roundels, and the other accoutrements of Cherbourg plate, but adds a 3-piece breastplate with a 3-lame fauld and tassets, giving the wearer complete torso coverage. The date on this armor is 1450.

The question then becomes, are there any instances of the English Longbow triumphing over plate armor post-1450?

Researching every major battle in which English Longbowmen took a major part from 1450-1500 reveals the following. (Note: it's pretty much going to be all War of the Roses, since that's about all the English did through this period).

The First Battle of St. Albans took place in 1455 (it was the first battle in the War of the Roses). Archers massacred the opposing force, but it was a sneak attack; the defenders didn't have armor on.

The Battle of Ferrybridge in 1461 is notable for the sole reason that it is one of the few battle to specifically mention the contibution of archers. In this battle Lord Clifford was killed by an arrow to the throat (having removed his gorget earlier in the day for unknown reasons). It is mentioned that this foolhardness directly cost the Lord his life, as otherwise the arrow would "not have harmed him" (sic).

The Battle of Towton in the winter of 1461 mentions that there was a 1-hour arrow bombardment by the Yorkist forces. In Towton 1461, the author calculates that Lord Fauconberg, Yorkist commander, would have been sending about 120,000 arrows a minute into the enemy ranks. For 1 hour. Yet casualties were sparce. It was estimated the Lancastrians took about 14,000 casualties (between 8k and 20k), and of those, three-quarters took place late in the battle when the Lancastrians were routed. This lack of casualties from arrowfire does not seem to be the behavior of a weapon that can easily penetrate one's defenses.

In summary (and because I have to get to work), it seems that, following the Transitional Period of Armor, the longbow went from decisive instrument of warfare to a weapon used to break up formations at range and as an instrument of morale. Nowhere in the Wars of the Roses does the archer, when arrayed against armored Knights, play a decisive role. It is for this reason that I believe that, with the development of cap a pie plate, the supremecy of the defence over the offence was fully attained until the development of reliable, powerful firearms, which played a significant role (though not the only role) in the downfall of the mounted knight in armor.

In my next opus I'll cover firearms against armor, from the early handgonne to the matchlock (which takes us to the end of heavy armor on the battlefield).

[Matthew]

I would happily fail to acknowledge that Long Bows 'win' against Mail. Plate likely does a better job, but the effectiveness of Mail as a defence against anything is a highly debated area. Interesting post, though.

Try these resources:

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/agincourt.htm (http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/agincourt.htm)

http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Crecy.html (http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Crecy.html)

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/hardy.pdf (http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/hardy.pdf)

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/devries4.pdf (http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/devries4.pdf)

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/rogers.pdf (http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/rogers.pdf)

[Joran]

The extent of my knowledge of Agincourt is from Keegan's The Face of Battle.

I was under the impression that the archers in Agincourt didn't do much damage against the French with their arrows. Although the arrows did produce some casualties, most of the damage was done when the archers attacked the flanks of the French column with melee weapons, killing many, and causing a general panic.

The arrows did however cause the French to attack, since nobody likes being bombarded at long range without a way of firing back.

[Matthew]

There are numerous interpretations, both contemporary and modern. To the best of my knowledge, no Primary Source outright says that the English Long Bow was the cause of victory, but it has been inferred in the past. The trend in current academia is to play down the influence of the Long Bow, but there remain advocates and eventually opinion will probably cycle round, as is usual.

[Fhaolan]

There are numerous interpretations, both contemporary and modern. To the best of my knowledge, no Primary Source outright says that the English Long Bow was the cause of victory, but it has been inferred in the past. The trend in current academia is to play down the influence of the Long Bow, but there remain advocates and eventually opinion will probably cycle round, as is usual.

It appears that academics are just like everyone else, they want to find the one factor that is 'the win!'. There is the occasional trend away from that need, but it keeps coming back. :)

Agincourt and Crecy were won by the English. There were many different factors at play, physical, tactical, and social that all contributed to that win. If any one of those factors went missing, the results of those battles would have been different.

In the many years after those battles the archers were touted as 'the win!', in my opinion, simply because England needed super-weapon propiganda to counter similar propiganda coming from other regions of Europe. Swiss pikemen, Genoese crossbowmen, Gothic and Millenese heavy cavalry, so on and so forth. England needed something to call it's own in the military arms race, and as long as everyone else bought the propiganda (which they did), England wasn't perceived as falling behind the rest of Europe in military technology.

Of course, this is all just my own impressions, but people haven't changed much really. :)

[Subotei]

The extent of my knowledge of Agincourt is from Keegan's The Face of Battle.

I was under the impression that the archers in Agincourt didn't do much damage against the French with their arrows. Although the arrows did produce some casualties, most of the damage was done when the archers attacked the flanks of the French column with melee weapons, killing many, and causing a general panic.

The arrows did however cause the French to attack, since nobody likes being bombarded at long range without a way of firing back.

The English won at Agincourt because they were supremely well led, whilst the French were riven by internal strife and without a clear leader, which led them to adopt rash tactics. Their biggest mistake was to fight at all. They were between the small English army and the English destination of Calais and all they needed to do to win a massive victory (which would have resulted in the death or capture of Henry V and most of his army) was to sit exactly were they were and do nothing. Any determined attack by the English would've been a disaster against the much more massive French force. A strong French leader could've maintained a disciplined defensive stance and won the day - instead they:
- rashly decided to attack a well defended position over poor ground;
- did not make any real use of their own bowmen and crossbowmen (they had plenty);
- commited all their best troops in the main attack (including taking the best troops from formations for this purpose), so their reserve, when it was needed, was poor quality and poorly led, and did little to help;
- apparently only tried one cavalry charge to disrupt the English archers. After that the cavalry left the fighting to the main body of dismounted Knights (and those mounted Knights in the charge were much dispised in France afterwards for that fact they did so poorly).

I don't think the longbow was a supreme weapon - it had its place as a good weapon, and the circumstances of the battle suited it. I think the English would've suffered worse if they had been armed with crossbow instead of longbow, purely because their small numbers needed the higher rate of fire the longbow offered. I'm not sure how many French were killed by bowshot, as oppose to being stabbed or malleted by the archers whilst helpless. The casualty rates indicate it was a pretty one sided affair either way.

[Dervag]

I once heard that the English arrows might have been poison-tipped using toxins drawn from the same yew trees that went into the bows. Of course, we'll never know; but it's an interesting speculation.

[Norsesmithy]

I once heard that the English arrows might have been poison-tipped using toxins drawn from the same yew trees that went into the bows. Of course, we'll never know; but it's an interesting speculation.
Frankly this is a ridiculus assertation, because of the mechanism of yew poisoning.

Straight from the tree, yew toxin is an anteseptic compound that many survival experts recoment as an ingredient in poultices for open wounds, because it is relatively harmless, but good at killing bacteria.

It is a deadly poison when injested because of what happens when your liver metabolises it.

To achieve toxicity fast enough to make a difference in battle, through blood contact, you would have to have pints of the stuff on the arrow.

[Belkarseviltwin]

Re arrows against armour, I have heard of a test at the Sandhurst Military Academy that involved firing an arrow at an iron plate similar to that used as armour, and taking slow-motion footage of the impact. The results were interesting:
Apparently only the tip of a war arrow was tempered, while the rear part of the head was not. This meant that, on impact, the arrowhead would make a dent then bounce back due to the elasticity of the un-tempered steel. However, the shaft was still moving, so the arrow would hit the original point of impact again and go through.

[Ryujin]

Apparently only the tip of a war arrow was tempered, while the rear part of the head was not. This meant that, on impact, the arrowhead would make a dent then bounce back due to the elasticity of the un-tempered steel. However, the shaft was still moving, so the arrow would hit the original point of impact again and go through.

That's interesting...do you know if the test had the arrow striking exactly perpendicular to the plate?

[Hurlbut]

Frankly this is a ridiculus assertation, because of the mechanism of yew poisoning.

Straight from the tree, yew toxin is an anteseptic compound that many survival experts recoment as an ingredient in poultices for open wounds, because it is relatively harmless, but good at killing bacteria.

It is a deadly poison when injested because of what happens when your liver metabolises it.

To achieve toxicity fast enough to make a difference in battle, through blood contact, you would have to have pints of the stuff on the arrow.
Think he's confusing that with the fact that the longbowmen at Agincourt staked their arrows into ground by them so they were within easy reach and for easier drawing. At that time, many of them were stricken with diarrhoea and let their breeches down. So the ground they staked their arrows into was very dirty and flithy. So if one of those arrows actually did found it's way into someone's flesh, well you can guess what would happened to him.

[Matthew]

Exactly what is the evidence for that? I have heard this mentioned before and refuted as well, though I don't recall the specifics. There is no tactical advantage to dipping an Arrow Head into dirt and I strongly doubt that it would have any great impact on whether a wound became infected.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

It's not the dirt. It's the *ahem* fecal matter that he suggested was all over the dirt due to the diarrhoea. Feces can cause all kinds of terrible diseases once it hits the blood stream. The guerillas in the Vietnam war did something similar with hidden spike traps- they covered the spikes in human fecal matter so that when a soldier accidentally fell on one and gashed his legs, they'd get infected and cause a much more serious wound.

[Matthew]

Sure, I had meant dirt in that sense. However, I would like to see some evidence for this.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

They called those "Punji Sticks". There's a small blurb about them being covered in feces on the Wiki for them- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punji_stick

I'll look for further and better evidence of the crap tactic.

EDIT: Okay, found something more concrete. Barry Sadler, the musician, fought in Vietnam and apparently was stabbed in the knee by a Punji Stick covered in feces. It caused a very large infection that became serious when he tried to ignore it. You can find a long biography on Sadler that includes a blurb on this here http://www.sizemoremusic.com/sadler_history.htm . It's the ninth paragraph. Plenty of other instances where his name comes up in biographies mention this as well, including his Wiki, several fan sites, etc.

[Matthew]

Heh. I wasn't doubting its use in modern warfare. Indeed, as the article indicates, the purpose was not to kill outright, but tie up resources. Evidence for Medieval application in the context of a battle is another matter.

[Edit]I would be very interested to discover that it was the case, of course.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

It's certainly a brilliant idea if they knew it, though. Turn a large handicap of their's into a method for disabling the French. And maybe crap-flinging monkeys are smarter then we thought...

[Hurlbut]

To clarify it, I never said that they staked arrows into the ground simply to dirty it up BUT to make sure they were within easy REACH and easier to draw. It's easier to stake the arrows in front of you and draw one and notch it than drawing it from your quiver. It's like a modern soldier setting out his ammo clips in front of him for easy access than leaving them in his pockets.

[Matthew]

Sure, but what is the evidence for that? Would the Arrows have really been thrust into the ground, or would they have been in quivers set on the ground? Why should we think they would be in contact with excrement? Did Archers habitually thrust their ammunition into an area they had recently defecated into? Why would Archers with dysentry be serving on the field of battle?

I'm not saying this was not possible, or even unlikely, but what is the evidence for it?

[Mike_G]

Why would Archers with dysentry be serving on the field of battle?


Dysentery was very common in armies in the pre modern era. Drinking fouled or even untreated water, which most armies on the move did, will do that to you. So long as a man could walk and pull a bow, I'm sure he wouldn't be pulled off the line for the runs. Especially as outnumbered as the English were.

Mild dysentery is an annoyance, but soldiers have historically worked through it. Severe dysentery can kill you thorugh dehydration. I'm sure that bowmen squatted between repelling charges, maybe not specifically at Agincourt, but in battles of the Hundered Years War.

That said, even an excrement coated arrow won't do a thing to help you win a battle, since any infection won't be a probelm in the very short term. You may change a number of wounded to dead in the days and weeks following, but I can't see that as an effective or even intentional weapon.

[Matthew]

And that sounds credible, but what is the evidence supporting it?

[Mike_G]

And that sounds credible, but what is the evidence supporting it?

I don't know that it exists. Records from the time are more concerned with heroics and heraldry and less with the intestinal discomfort of humble footsoldiers.

I don't there's any verse in the Chansons de Geste about commoners taking a runny dump on the field of glory.

[Adlan]

The Longbow is oft misquoted, misunderstood, overstated, understated and bollocked about.

The Problem is, we have no original bows (though we have several from the mary rose, one tested to destruction, even after a few hundred years in the mud, had a breaking strain of 90lb), and no Original Bowmen (Again, we have skeletons from the mary rose, and the longbow men from the wrek had distorted their muscles due to the weight of their bows).

It is certain that a Longbow, of sufficiant (150, 200lb+ bows) with the right arrow heads (chisel tipped, not long needle bodkins) could penetrate any practical armour of the day, at close range.

However, what is uncertain is how many longbowmen could draw sufficantly high weight, How Effective they were at long range.

In my personal opinion (as some one who is an NFAA member and a dedicated Longbow enthusiast), someone useing a longbow professionaly, everday, hours a day, would have the muscles to draw the weight.

[Matthew]

I don't know that it exists. Records from the time are more concerned with heroics and heraldry and less with the intestinal discomfort of humble footsoldiers.

I don't there's any verse in the Chansons de Geste about commoners taking a runny dump on the field of glory.

And yet we do hear about their other less savoury habits, in chronicles, epics and romance.

I have no doubt that many relieved themselves (voluntarily and involuntarily) on the field of battle, but as to how widespread dysentry truly was, it's hard to say with any confidence. On the other hand, Louis IX, according to Joinville, apparently suffered very badly from dysentry; it was spun in a positive light, the heroic King suffering for love of God and such.

Adlan:
The Mary Rose Bows ranged from 100 lbs to 180 lbs, with the majority falling towards a lower weight. The skeletons were not so much distorted, as they were a number of them large and situated in a context that might suggest they were Archers (i.e. large enough fo us to think that they might be able to pull 180 lbs). Check out the below article for a very positive appraisal:

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/hardy.pdf (http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/hardy.pdf)

Certainly, Long Bows were capable of penetrating Mail and Plate. The question is with what frequency and at what range?

Clearly it was desirable to have men capable of pulling a high draw weight, but the provisions to train such men may suggest that there were not sufficient numbers available.

[Ryujin]

One of Shrewsbury's post-Agincourt campaign regulations seemed to be an attempt to address the problem of dysentery:



...every lorde, capitaynes or governor of people do compell ther servnts and menye to berye ther careyn and bowelles abowte ther lodginges and within earth that no stynch be in ther lodginges wher through that any pestelence or mortalite myght fall within the oste, upon payne to make a mendes at the Kinges wille.


I'm still looking for the actual source material, but IIRC there was credible textual and pictorial evidence that many of the archers at Agincourt hadn't even bothered to wear breeches due to dysentery. The fact that it was recorded would suggest that dysentery among the ranks was widespread enough to be of note.

[Norsesmithy]

Re arrows against armour, I have heard of a test at the Sandhurst Military Academy that involved firing an arrow at an iron plate similar to that used as armour, and taking slow-motion footage of the impact. The results were interesting:
Apparently only the tip of a war arrow was tempered, while the rear part of the head was not. This meant that, on impact, the arrowhead would make a dent then bounce back due to the elasticity of the un-tempered steel. However, the shaft was still moving, so the arrow would hit the original point of impact again and go through.
This doesn't make sense to me as the wooden shaft is vastly more ellastic than even untempered iron, so the minute elasticity of untempered steel (and at typical bow velocities, we are talking of a maximum possible elastic deformation of a few microns at most) wouldn't seem to make much difference.

The only high speed film I have ever seen of realistic bodkins (and they were only tempered at the tip, because it was a waste of work to temper the whole thing, when only the first third experiences the kinds of force required to ruin even Pig Iron) was in my highschool physics class. I cannot remember the name of the film, but they tested high powered bows, and crossbow against tempered steel plate, similar to plate armour.

It showed five shots each, and at perfect 90 degree impact, 3 of the 5 arrows shattered and did not penetrate, one arrow penetrated half an inch, and the other bounced off. Four of the five crossbow bolts shattered, with one penetrating the armour despite loosing its shaft, to a depth of about 1/4 inches. The fifth shot penetrated 3/4 inches, without breaking the shaft.

The video was on elastic and inelastic collisions, and also had car crashes.

[Dervag]

Frankly this is a ridiculus assertation, because of the mechanism of yew poisoning...[goes on to prove it]OK. Well, the author who asserted it was dramatizing to the point that things got semi-fictionalized, so that doesn't surprise me.


Think he's confusing that with the fact that the longbowmen at Agincourt staked their arrows into ground by them so they were within easy reach and for easier drawing.No, no I am not.

What I had heard had nothing at all to do with the arrows being converted into flying punji stakes by being stuck into manured ground before firing. It was a speculative statement about the possibility of yew-derived toxins being applied to the arrowhead... which Norsesmithy just did a good job of showing to be impossible.


Heh. I wasn't doubting its use in modern warfare. Indeed, as the article indicates, the purpose was not to kill outright, but tie up resources. Evidence for Medieval application in the context of a battle is another matter.Medievals didn't know about the germ theory of disease, so they would have been a lot less likely to invent this tactic. They knew feces to be dirty, but without knowing that they carry a lot of germs, there's no reason to expect them to be a cause of wound infections.

Note that the 'dirty arrow' tactic isn't necessarily deliberate. Sticking the arrows in the ground is something an archer might well do just to make shooting more convenient. And for an English longbowman with a bowel ailment, so is relieving oneself on the ground near one's post (where the arrows are stuck in the ground). There doesn't have to be malicious intent for this to happen.

As for arrow penetration, I'd say that knights wouldn't bother to shell out massive sums of cash for armor that would turn into a cheese-strainer at the first barrage of arrows or bolts. As in the age of gunpowder, soldiers wouldn't bother to wear cumbersome armor that didn't protect them adequately.

That suggests to my mind that good armor of any given period would have been at least fairly effective against the projectile weapons of that period. If not, you'd expect very rapid investment in armor design and lots of advances in armor technology, because every knight with a florin to spare would be trying to convince the armorers to turn out something that would protect him from crossbowmen. Also remember that at substantial ranges, the arrow would not be moving as fast and so would have more trouble cracking armor.

[Edmund]

Medievals didn't know about the germ theory of disease, so they would have been a lot less likely to invent this tactic. They knew feces to be dirty, but without knowing that they carry a lot of germs, there's no reason to expect them to be a cause of wound infections.

Note that the 'dirty arrow' tactic isn't necessarily deliberate. Sticking the arrows in the ground is something an archer might well do just to make shooting more convenient. And for an English longbowman with a bowel ailment, so is relieving oneself on the ground near one's post (where the arrows are stuck in the ground). There doesn't have to be malicious intent for this to happen.

The Scythians certainly used the 'dirty arrow' tactic (alot), and I'm sure it proceeded on to medieval Europe. They didn't know about germ theory, granted, but I'm sure the average medieval punter knew internal exposure to excrement would do bad, bad things to you.

I'd provide quotes and sources, but sadly I left the relevant books in the States.


As for arrow penetration, I'd say that knights wouldn't bother to shell out massive sums of cash for armor that would turn into a cheese-strainer at the first barrage of arrows or bolts. As in the age of gunpowder, soldiers wouldn't bother to wear cumbersome armor that didn't protect them adequately.

That suggests to my mind that good armor of any given period would have been at least fairly effective against the projectile weapons of that period. If not, you'd expect very rapid investment in armor design and lots of advances in armor technology, because every knight with a florin to spare would be trying to convince the armorers to turn out something that would protect him from crossbowmen. Also remember that at substantial ranges, the arrow would not be moving as fast and so would have more trouble cracking armor.This isn't always the case. While early-16th century Maximillian harnesses were apt for defending against blows, bows, and something else that rhymes or alliterates, they had a problem against gunfire... when it went off properly, that is. One of the problems of matchlock muskets is that they were wildly inaccurate, and often very inconsistent in their firing. However, on the off chance that they did hit, they could wreak terrible damage. This is why 17th century breastplates are thicker than their medieval counterparts, and were 'proofed' by having a pistol shot at them at close range.

That's my take, at least.

[Dervag]

Were matchlocks the dominant projectile weapon in the era of early Maxmilian plate? Or were crossbows and such still in heavy use?

If matchlocks were so unreliable and inaccurate as to be a relatively minor hazard, then it makes sense that armor wouldn't be designed to protect against them. But in an age where longbow arrows and crossbow bolts were major threats to the lord on his horse, it's hard to believe that a long period would go by without the armor being beefed up to resist arrows and bolts.

[Wehrkind]

Well, one has to keep in mind that technological advancement was not particularly fast in those days. Armor was quite expensive, even for lords, and armorers did not always have the resources to pump out lots of prototypes to test their theories on. Not to mention that new theories might be hard to come by given the difficulties of communication and the fact that most armorers who stumbled upon a good idea would likely try to hide it, no patent protection being available.

Also, it is good to keep in mind that armor doesn't have to be 100% effective against a type of weapon to be worth wearing. Being protected from glancing hits, stray wounds and the like is very beneficial, even if you are not wholly protected from every possible attack. Being safe from all but dedicated anti-armor weapons is still a pretty good deal compared to having to worry about every sharp object around you.

That said, it may well be that armor had mostly hit it's peak, but that it took a very long time for the users to give up it's use, despite it's lack of advancement.

Many fields advance quickly only after discoveries in other fields make a new area of improvement available. For example, body armor technology languished for hundreds of years until relatively recent discoveries in composit materials and the like created the kevlars and ceramic plates that protect soldiers today. Even those are not 100% proof against bullets, but they are better than nothing.

[Edmund]

Dervag,
They seemed to have been getting there, at least. Landsknecht woodcuts show large numbers of musket users, and that was the heyday of Maximillian plate.



Well, one has to keep in mind that technological advancement was not particularly fast in those days. Armor was quite expensive, even for lords, and armorers did not always have the resources to pump out lots of prototypes to test their theories on. Not to mention that new theories might be hard to come by given the difficulties of communication and the fact that most armorers who stumbled upon a good idea would likely try to hide it, no patent protection being available.
Armour couldn't have been too expensive. Full armour, certainly, but to your average mercenary, something was almost always worn, even if it wasn't a full suit of plate. Gorgets, mail mantles and coifs, hauberks, brigandines, simple breastplates, etc. are all examples of armour that could be found on the average Landsknecht or Swiss Pikeman.

Also, one doesn't need to ask the armourers. It's the soldiers who know what protects you best, in my opinion. And since armour didn't change for so long, that shows that something must have worked.

It's worth noting that against massed, long distance arrowfire, even a good padded jack provides good protection.

As an aside, I'm not sure what 'theories' you refer to....


Also, it is good to keep in mind that armor doesn't have to be 100% effective against a type of weapon to be worth wearing. Being protected from glancing hits, stray wounds and the like is very beneficial, even if you are not wholly protected from every possible attack. Being safe from all but dedicated anti-armor weapons is still a pretty good deal compared to having to worry about every sharp object around you.

It should be pretty darn close to being 100% effective if the buyer is paying more than a year's earnings for it. I mean, if you're going to pay that much for protection against glancing blows, a cuirass of stiff leather would be sufficient.


That said, it may well be that armor had mostly hit it's peak, but that it took a very long time for the users to give up it's use, despite it's lack of advancement.

Many fields advance quickly only after discoveries in other fields make a new area of improvement available. For example, body armor technology languihed for hundreds of years until relatively recent discoveries in composit materials and the like created the kevlars and ceramic plates that protect soldiers today. Even those are not 100% proof against bullets, but they are better than nothing.

I think you're being a bit too hard on the later users of armour. 'languish' and 'giving up' are rather the wrong words to use when describing armour progression. Armour was still widely used during the 16th and 17th centuries because, by-and-large, it was pretty damn useful, especially given the reinforcement against musket rounds. Furthermore, a large part of the fighting in those periods took place at hand-to-hand range, especially when you get things like cavalry involved. That's why, after all, the bayonet was put in use.

[Mike_G]

I think you're being a bit too hard on the later users of armour. 'languish' and 'giving up' are rather the wrong words to use when describing armour progression. Armour was still widely used during the 16th and 17th centuries because, by-and-large, it was pretty damn useful, especially given the reinforcement against musket rounds. Furthermore, a large part of the fighting in those periods took place at hand-to-hand range, especially when you get things like cavalry involved. That's why, after all, the bayonet was put in use.

Armor did pretty much vanish from the 18th through the mid twentieth centuries, though. Even the helmet disappeared from the early 18th century until WWI. Apart from a fewnotable examples like the Cuirassiers who wore breastplates, most soldiers of the Napoleonic era faced muskets, sabres and bayonets with no more than a wool coat for defense. Even the cuirassiers left their extremeties unprotected to sabre cuts.

Whether this was a question fo expense or of the perception that the armor was of little usel agianst cannon and musketry I don't know. It certainly would have been of use in melee or long range musketry. Even the heavy coats of the Cossaks were seen to stop the cuts of British sabres in the Crimea.

I think the 2-300 years from 1700-about 1950 were the only real gap in widespread use of body armor over millenia of warfare, but it did mostly disappear, if even briefly.

[Wehrkind]

Thank you for taking care of that for me Mike. I was floundering a little over a nice way to say "Uhm, hasn't been used since the American Revolution till after Vietnam at the very least." Even still, many armies do not make use of any body armor today, simply because the cost/benefit ratio does not work in their favor. Just as it was before, it is expensive, somewhat difficult to get, and not 100% protection.



Armour couldn't have been too expensive. Full armour, certainly, but to your average mercenary, something was almost always worn, even if it wasn't a full suit of plate. Gorgets, mail mantles and coifs, hauberks, brigandines, simple breastplates, etc. are all examples of armour that could be found on the average Landsknecht or Swiss Pikeman.

Also, one doesn't need to ask the armourers. It's the soldiers who know what protects you best, in my opinion. And since armour didn't change for so long, that shows that something must have worked.


You will note I did not say it didn't work, just that it was not 100% protection against everything. It also was expensive, but part of the trade if you wanted to live long enough to spend your earnings. Many professional occupations work like that, a large upfront cost of doing business that you then pay off, but can not do without easily. Mercenary gear is also relatively easier to get than some other equipment, since battlefields could be scavenged in adition to the typical avenues of selling most everything you own, getting a loan, etc.
Side note, mail is relatively cheap since it takes largly untrained labor to do it. Plate however is much trickier, and thus expensive. Good steel was pretty salty, and the expertise to shape it and harden it correctly was not cheaply come by.



Also, one doesn't need to ask the armourers. It's the soldiers who know what protects you best, in my opinion. And since armour didn't change for so long, that shows that something must have worked.

It's worth noting that against massed, long distance arrowfire, even a good padded jack provides good protection.

As an aside, I'm not sure what 'theories' you refer to....

Soldier's might have a decent idea of what works and what doesn't, but that affects their buying patterns, and may or may not be correct. That doesn't mean they have any clue about how to make such armor better, simply what end product seems to do the trick. They might also say some piece is "good enough" because they rarely take a shot there, and yet it provides very little protection when you get down to it.
Thus, it does come down to those who make the armor to make improvements, with feed back from those on the field. The "theories" I refer to are the ideas the armorers come up with to advance their art. Perhaps you do not deal much with the scientific realm, but to clarify a theory is any model of how things work with which you can make predictions, for example "Deflecting a blow works better than simply adding more metal and accepting straight on hits."
Now, the trouble is that the "research and developement" division of most armories was probably non-existant. If an armorer had an idea to improve a breast plate say, he would have to make the entire breast plate from start to finish incorporating his new idea. If he then tried out his idea and it didn't really work out, he is out all that time and material. That gets expensive fast, and if you do not have very large profit margins that can pay for all that wasted time, it is a huge risk. That is why historically technology has advanced very slowly. People tend to stick with what works and make tiny, incremental improvements, with only a few break throughs that radically alter the face of a field. Even guns took their sweet time replacing bows and obviating armor. The flint lock took a long time to develop, even though flint was in use for a long time, as well as guns utilizing a "lock" mechanism.



It should be pretty darn close to being 100% effective if the buyer is paying more than a year's earnings for it. I mean, if you're going to pay that much for protection against glancing blows, a cuirass of stiff leather would be sufficient.

Didn't you just say armor wasn't too expensive?
At anyrate, 70% is pretty damn effective. As anyone who has been in large scale combat knows, there is a lot of danger that has little to do with your enemies weapon. Anytime you have 200 people in a very cramped space running at something with sharp weapons in hand, accidents are going to happen. Throw in random projectiles bouncing around, men on horses moving all over, and then 200 enemies whipping around weapons while your friends to the same, and you have a recipie for all sorts of disaster. Even just being protected from those sorts of secondary wounds really comes in handy. That arrow that deflected off your buddies helmet just bouncing off your pauldron instead of burrying itself in your shoulder is worth it. Your other friend's axe stopping on your breast plate when he swings wide on a miss is much better than having it open up your belly. The guy in front of you pulling back his pike and not having the sharp butt spike lodge in your stomach is a big bonus. The armor stops 60% of your enemies attacks as well? Over half the time you fail to block a shot, whether you knew it was coming or not, you live anyway? That's fantastic.

Even the best fighters get hit. Getting hit and living anyway is worth any money you can spend on it, even if it won't stop every possible attack. That is exactly why even if the armor was less effective vs the weapons of the time with every day, it still would be used. It take a very small chance of success to get someone to stop doing something that will save their life, particularly if that something has been the standard practice for years. Hence the fact that even as guns outpaced armor use, making most armor irrelevant, as long as there was a fair amount to be gained by wearing it, it persisted. When no one seriously fought with anything other than a bullet, armor disappeared until it had a decent ability to stop bullets.

Even the flack jackets the military uses today are not 100% proof against everything, but they will save you from a goodly amount, and that is worth it.

[Joran]

My two theories, based on educated guesses; I haven't done the research.

The reasons behind the lack of armor is probably based on a multitude of factors, some of which could be perceptions about how useful they are.

This era of warfare was marked by two major changes.

1) The increase in the scale of armies. It's fairly easy to supply a small-scale professional army. However, when countries started to increase the size of the armies, including drafting from the civilians (such as what Napoleon did), supplying armor to every soldier is going to be hard and expensive. Obviously, they didn't view it as important enough to justify the cost or difficulty in procuring the armor.

2) The emphasis on mobility. Armor is heavy and would slow down the troops.

Just some theories to toss out there.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Steel armor isn't that heavy. Modern army troops carry heavier equipment. Really, full plate only weighed like 40 pounds, distributed over the entire body.

[Fhaolan]

Steel armor isn't that heavy. Modern army troops carry heavier equipment. Really, full plate only weighed like 40 pounds, distributed over the entire body.

Modern reproduction armor has skewed a lot of people's perception about how heavy real plate armor was. The problem is that modern repro armor usually uses rolled steel rather than hand-forged, so it's a consistant thickness and has no temper. Real armor is thin where the protection doesn't need to be as good, and is tempered. This reduces the weight considerably.

As an example, I have a reproduction 15th century Itallian white harness with almost all the exchange pieces (I'm missing the maille pieces at the moment). It weighs 85 pounds in total so far, and will probably hit 90 with the maille. The real hand-forged and tempered suit this repro is based on is around 40-45 pounds or so. Massive difference. Because a lot of people are familiar with repro suits now through the SCA and other reenactment groups... well, you can see the problem.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Really? I didn't realize the disparity between authentic and newly forged armor was so great. That certainly explains the bias.

[Dervag]

Steel armor isn't that heavy. Modern army troops carry heavier equipment. Really, full plate only weighed like 40 pounds, distributed over the entire body.Yes, but medieval troops had to carry equipment, too. Unless you had a horse to carry your stuff for you, the additional weight of armor would be nigh-prohibitive.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

How? A proper longsword and heater shield will weight them down a collective 10 pounds. That's all they really required in the ways of equipment, since food, water, and medical care was the responsibility of the supply line. Extra weapons might include a backup sword or (more likely) a dagger or two, still not bringing that weight total up very far.

The only troops that might carry more are already on horseback to begin with or some mercenaries (particularly Celtic and Germanic) that might carry their own rations and beddings. This isn't really very much.

To give you some comparisson, modern army troops' torso vests alone weigh somewhere between 20-35 pounds. They also carry complete rations and survival gear, as well as assault rifles which typically weigh something like 8 pounds, plenty of ammunition, and then potentially extra weaponry like a pistol and grenades. So instead of around 50-60 pounds for a medieval knight in full dress, modern troopers have to lug around 70-80. And they don't seem too slow.

[Maclav]

Yes, but medieval troops had to carry equipment, too. Unless you had a horse to carry your stuff for you, the additional weight of armor would be nigh-prohibitive.

In mass warfare you didn't leave your supply train. Nowadays, you are often miles and miles from your nearest supply point and thus have to carry significantly more basic provisions.

[Wehrkind]

The Romans carried a great deal of equipment and provisions with them, only the heaviest gear being carried on the "platoon" mule. A hundred pounds is not unrealistic to carry on the march. It isn't as though you are going to be running at all.

Interestingly, the Zulu took the opposite approach, carrying nothing but their weapons and moving at a tremendous pace. The downside was they had only about 2 days worth of staying power before a lack of provisions forced them to either win or go home to eat.

[Hurlbut]

Interesting now...Romans vs Zulus

[Viscount Einstrauss]

My money's on Romans, so long as we're talking about the expansionist Romans that took over Europe and not the latter day Romans that needed the pope to convince Attila not to sack them yet again.

[Wehrkind]

Yea, the Zulu's were quite the revolution in African fighting techniques. Unfortunately they were about 2000 years late for it to matter outside of the Subsaharan world.
They do have a very similar style to the Romans, in terms of large shields and short stabbing weapons, combined with tight troop... mobs (it can't be really called a "formation"). The problem was they used no heavy armor, did not have the staying power of the Roman legion which built a fortress every night to stay in and had plenty of supplies, and warriors still fought as individuals, not part of a coherent whole (hence the use of mob instead of formation.)

[Ryujin]

I think the 2-300 years from 1700-about 1950 were the only real gap in widespread use of body armor over millenia of warfare, but it did mostly disappear, if even briefly.

I'd just like to note that American aircrews were provided with body armour from mid-1943 until the end of the war which provided protection against shrapnel & fragments from Flak, aircraft cannon, etc leading to significantly lower casualties amongst aircrew. Over 300,000 sets of the Flyer's Vest, M1 alone was manufactured. Of course, at 17 lbs, they weren't exactly suitable for infantry. Army interest would lead to a vest that was just too late for issue in 1945 and would eventually result in the vests worn during the Korean War.

The major powers also dabbled quite a lot in body armour during the Great War. The German Army, for example, issued almost half a million steel breastplates ('Sappenpanzer') weighing up to 24 lbs. to personnel in static positions from mid-1917 onwards. Apparently, they were able to resist rifle fire from 500 yards, but weren't used in assaults because of weight & noise. The British also tried many different types of soft & rigid body armours; the 'Chemico Body Shield', for one, is of interest as the materials used and its method of construction seems to be the precursor of some forms of modern soft body armour.

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/7374/sappenpanzer9ou.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Joran]

Steel armor isn't that heavy. Modern army troops carry heavier equipment. Really, full plate only weighed like 40 pounds, distributed over the entire body.

True, but present day troops don't have to march the distances that Napoleonic troops did.

Nice information Ryujin.

[WhiteHarness]

It is certain that a Longbow, of sufficiant (150, 200lb+ bows) with the right arrow heads (chisel tipped, not long needle bodkins) could penetrate any practical armour of the day, at close range.


Spoken like someone who knows bows, but not armour. It is most emphatically not certain that a longbow could penetrate any practical armour of the day at even close range. The fact is, the longbow ceases to be a battlefield-dominating weapon after Agincourt in 1415.

Let's look at the primary source material:

in 1424, at the battle of Verneuil, the French went out of their way to hire a bunch of Italian mercenaries in the latest plate armour, with fully-armoured horses. These proceeded to charge right through the English line, ignoring direct arrow-fire, and go on to plunder the English baggage train.

in 1426, at the battle of Brouwershaven, a barrage of English longbow arrows is recorded as having "done as much harn as a shower of rotten apples" to the Duke of Burgundy and his household knights.

in 1429, at the battle of Patay, an army of English longbowmen was trampled to death by the very French heavy cavalry they decimated at Agincourt. Why? Because the longbow was only effective when the English had time to set their archers up behind defensive field fortifications, hedges or anti-cavalry stakes and such, as at Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt. If the longbow were truly as good at piercing all armour as it's fanboys claim, then it would have made short work of the knights at Patay, too. It didn't.

in all the chronicles of the Wars of the Roses, the only times an important plate-armoured individual is mentioned as being slain by arrows, it is always because he raised his visor to drink, breathe, or yell; witness both the cases of Lords Dacre and Clifford at Towton. This strongly implies that archers regarded the man as invulnerable to their arrows before they raised their visors.

at the battle of Flodden in 1513, the English chroniclers agree that the Scots, who were "most assuredly harnessed" since they had imported large quantities of plate armour from the Continent, "abode the most dangerous shot of arrows, which, unless it hit them in some bare place, did them no harm." and "far more of them fell to our bills than were slain by our arrows." See also the case of the Scottish lord who, while climbing the mast of a ship in his armour, survived the first shot from Lord Howard's best household archer, falling to the man's second arrow only because it struck him in his unarmoured armpit.

Also, let's not forget the numerous references to armour of proof throughout the period.

Obviously, not all plate armour could resist close-range longbow fire, but it is apparent that at least the good-quality stuff could. Even Robert Hardy, in the appendix to his "Longbow" book, surely the seminal work on the subject, admits that piercing helmets and breastplates to sufficient depth to kill a man so armoured was unlikely, while thinner limb armour was possibly pierced.

I have no doubt that a well-equipped man in plate from the period felt justifiably safe from longbows most of the time.

[Edmund]

You will note I did not say it didn't work, just that it was not 100% protection against everything. It also was expensive, but part of the trade if you wanted to live long enough to spend your earnings. Many professional occupations work like that, a large upfront cost of doing business that you then pay off, but can not do without easily. Mercenary gear is also relatively easier to get than some other equipment, since battlefields could be scavenged in adition to the typical avenues of selling most everything you own, getting a loan, etc.
First of all, I'd like to clarify one thing: Defining armour protection in terms of percentages is inherently misrepresentative, so in future it's probably better if neither of us use percentages to describe how effective armour is.

As I've said before, armour, in general, can't have been too expensive. Even if you don't start with a full suit of plate (and in all likelyhood you'll probably never get there), you still have armour, no matter what. Be it a thick linen jack, a hauberk of mail, a cuirass, shield or buckler, helmet or helm, etc. Some form of head protection is almost a necessity.

Mercenaries could, yes, sell everything they owned, but a good number of them didn't own terribly much to begin with. Former brigands, sons/vassals of traitorous lords, etc. And yet armour was still rather prevalent. Loaning money out to mercenaries was usually unwise, and usury was illegal for a large part of the early middle ages.


Side note, mail is relatively cheap since it takes largly untrained labor to do it. Plate however is much trickier, and thus expensive. Good steel was pretty salty, and the expertise to shape it and harden it correctly was not cheaply come by.
Actually, mail was not terribly much more costly than plate, especially what would be called 'munitions grade plate'. It's actually more expensive than things like brigandine (which is technically a variety of scale) and lamellar because the iron required for the wire had to be quite pure.

Mail has many advantages, though, perhaps the most important being that you can sleep in it. Not very comfortably, but you sure as hell can't sleep in plate, as mobile as it is.


Soldier's might have a decent idea of what works and what doesn't, but that affects their buying patterns, and may or may not be correct. That doesn't mean they have any clue about how to make such armor better, simply what end product seems to do the trick.

I think they understand well enough that deflecting a blow (using a shield, as an example), makes less force go into your arm than absorbing it full on. This principle works equally well with swords. These principals can be seen throughout fighting manuals. Indeed, some early coats-of-plates had fluted (though broadly so) plates.

Fluting isn't a necessity for plate armour. Look at the various milanese style armours, with nice big rounded curves that deflect blows quite well. Fluting does, however, make the armour more effective.


They might also say some piece is "good enough" because they rarely take a shot there, and yet it provides very little protection when you get down to it.

If they are rich enough to afford it, they'll get all-around protection, at least to some degree, unless such protection inhibits some other life-sustaining function (breathing, movement, and sight, as examples). That's why you have full-body suits of mail.


Thus, it does come down to those who make the armor to make improvements, with feed back from those on the field. The "theories" I refer to are the ideas the armorers come up with to advance their art. Perhaps you do not deal much with the scientific realm, but to clarify a theory is any model of how things work with which you can make predictions, for example "Deflecting a blow works better than simply adding more metal and accepting straight on hits."
Now, the trouble is that the "research and developement" division of most armories was probably non-existant. If an armorer had an idea to improve a breast plate say, he would have to make the entire breast plate from start to finish incorporating his new idea. If he then tried out his idea and it didn't really work out, he is out all that time and material. That gets expensive fast, and if you do not have very large profit margins that can pay for all that wasted time, it is a huge risk. That is why historically technology has advanced very slowly. People tend to stick with what works and make tiny, incremental improvements, with only a few break throughs that radically alter the face of a field. Even guns took their sweet time replacing bows and obviating armor. The flint lock took a long time to develop, even though flint was in use for a long time, as well as guns utilizing a "lock" mechanism.

I'd argue that this has much more to do with socio-economic and more far-reaching technological considerations than 'no-one was willing to take risks'. With your example of matchlock to flintlock, I can't offer a solution except perhaps suggesting quality of springs required in a flintlock vs. a matchlock, since the burning match seems to 'drift' toward the powder, while the flint 'snaps' (to make a spark). I can't tell you about the socio-economic sentiment and trend at that time, so my answer is only a guess.

The problem with socio-economic inference is that it relies too much on supposition and conjecture to create any complete answers, but that's part of history itself, I suppose.

Warfare has been changed, more than anything else, by improvements in communication and transportation, both indirectly and directly. Things like steam power, trains, and the industrial revolution (which allowed some of the richer businessmen to take time off and just invent, a luxury that pre-industrial men often didn't have) all contribute to a kind of proliferation of technology and knowledge that acted as a catalyst for more inventions.



Didn't you just say armor wasn't too expensive?

I should have clarified myself. When I was thinking 'over a year's salary' I was thinking of someone like a mercenary man-at-arms buying a full suit of maille or even plate. I completely forgot to put context to my thoughts... When I said 'armour' in general, earlier, I meant any kind of armour, as I described.


At anyrate, 70% is pretty damn effective. As anyone who has been in large scale combat knows, there is a lot of danger that has little to do with your enemies weapon. Anytime you have 200 people in a very cramped space running at something with sharp weapons in hand, accidents are going to happen. Throw in random projectiles bouncing around, men on horses moving all over, and then 200 enemies whipping around weapons while your friends to the same, and you have a recipie for all sorts of disaster. Even just being protected from those sorts of secondary wounds really comes in handy. That arrow that deflected off your buddies helmet just bouncing off your pauldron instead of burrying itself in your shoulder is worth it. Your other friend's axe stopping on your breast plate when he swings wide on a miss is much better than having it open up your belly. The guy in front of you pulling back his pike and not having the sharp butt spike lodge in your stomach is a big bonus. The armor stops 60% of your enemies attacks as well? Over half the time you fail to block a shot, whether you knew it was coming or not, you live anyway? That's fantastic.

I'm not saying that protection from secondary wounds is unnecessary, I'm saying that if you're only out to get protection from glancing blows -which is what I feel you implied with the statement 'Also, it is good to keep in mind that armor doesn't have to be 100% effective against a type of weapon to be worth wearing.'- it's good enough. It's that I disagree with. A good helmet might survive a hundred hits from arrows in its lifetime (which might very well be longer than its owner's). That's pretty darn close to 100% effective against arrows (though, again, using this whole percentage thing is a bit shaky as a form of discussion)



Even the best fighters get hit. Getting hit and living anyway is worth any money you can spend on it, even if it won't stop every possible attack. That is exactly why even if the armor was less effective vs the weapons of the time with every day, it still would be used. It take a very small chance of success to get someone to stop doing something that will save their life, particularly if that something has been the standard practice for years. Hence the fact that even as guns outpaced armor use, making most armor irrelevant, as long as there was a fair amount to be gained by wearing it, it persisted. When no one seriously fought with anything other than a bullet, armor disappeared until it had a decent ability to stop bullets.

Which wasn't really until the invention of the minet ball, in my opinion, and even then you still have things like ironclads and the like.

[Subotei]

in 1429, at the battle of Patay, an army of English longbowmen was trampled to death by the very French heavy cavalry they decimated at Agincourt. Why? Because the longbow was only effective when the English had time to set their archers up behind defensive field fortifications, hedges or anti-cavalry stakes and such, as at Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt. If the longbow were truly as good at piercing all armour as it's fanboys claim, then it would have made short work of the knights at Patay, too. It didn't.

I take issue with that statement - at Agincourt the vast majority of French Knights fought on foot and the French made only one determined cavalry charge on the Archers which was fought off. Thereafter the cavalry did very little while the dismounted Knights suffered.

Looking at your examples, I think its true to say cavarly used correctly will defeat archers, as they generally lack any means to defend against the charge if it is brought home in force. I would argue their speed is probably as important as the armour, as it gets you quickly past the close in killing zone (the last 50 meters or so) where archers have a realistic chance of defeating their armour ( or perhaps more importantly aiming accurately at weak points). I doubt many archers would want to stand their ground at that range against cavalry without some kind of field fortification. Against Knights on foot however they could put up a hail of fire at that range and potentially still move away if threatened due to their greater mobility.


in all the chronicles of the Wars of the Roses, the only times an important plate-armoured individual is mentioned as being slain by arrows, it is always because he raised his visor to drink, breathe, or yell; witness both the cases of Lords Dacre and Clifford at Towton. This strongly implies that archers regarded the man as invulnerable to their arrows before they raised their visors.

Henry V was seriously wounded by an arrow in the face fighting the Welsh (his portaits only ever show him side on, suggesting the injury may have been disfiguring), and accounts from Agincourt suggest a high propotion of head and throat wounds on the French side. Therefore I suggest arrow wounds to the face are quite common in combat in this period. The temptation to raise you visor to breathe, shout orders or just see clearly what is going on must be immense in the midst of battle. However I don't think that can be taken as evidence of invulnerability everywhere else.

Correct choice of tactics to defeat the archers rather than any marked change to the quality of armour (unlikely in the short period covered between Agincourt and Patay) seems to me to have been the difference.

[Mike_G]

I'd just like to note that American aircrews were provided with body armour from mid-1943 until the end of the war which provided protection against shrapnel & fragments from Flak, aircraft cannon, etc leading to significantly lower casualties amongst aircrew. Over 300,000 sets of the Flyer's Vest, M1 alone was manufactured. Of course, at 17 lbs, they weren't exactly suitable for infantry. Army interest would lead to a vest that was just too late for issue in 1945 and would eventually result in the vests worn during the Korean War.

The major powers also dabbled quite a lot in body armour during the Great War. The German Army, for example, issued almost half a million steel breastplates ('Sappenpanzer') weighing up to 24 lbs. to personnel in static positions from mid-1917 onwards. Apparently, they were able to resist rifle fire from 500 yards, but weren't used in assaults because of weight & noise. The British also tried many different types of soft & rigid body armours; the 'Chemico Body Shield', for one, is of interest as the materials used and its method of construction seems to be the precursor of some forms of modern soft body armour.


That's whay I said armor "mostly disappeared."

The average infantry or cavalry soldier from 1700-1950 wore no armor, with the possible exception of a helmet.

There were exceptions, but they were, well, the exception, far from the rule.

I'nm not arguing whether the armor that was used wasn't effective, or light enough, or cheap enough, but it still wasn't widespread.

So, somewhere, round about the end of the 17th century, the vast majority of western military thinkers decided that armor wasn't a good investment.

[krossbow]

Hmmm... what would someone rate a planet-killer class meteor for damage?

[Dervag]

That's all they really required in the ways of equipment, since food, water, and medical care was the responsibility of the supply line.As often as not...
what supply line? Medieval armies were not famous for having well-organized logistics. They frequently relied on being able to 'forage' from the countryside, which encouraged soldiers to carry a decent amount of rations on your person to make sure that you'd have something to eat even if the looting parties didn't steal enough chickens and plunder enough granaries to feed the army for next week.

Quartermaster corps are an age-of-blackpowder innovation, though the Romans certainly had them back before the medieval period.


To give you some comparisson, modern army troops' torso vests alone weigh somewhere between 20-35 pounds.As compared to 40-50 pounds of steel armor for medieval plate.
They also carry complete rations and survival gear, as well as assault rifles which typically weigh something like 8 pounds, plenty of ammunition, and then potentially extra weaponry like a pistol and grenades. So instead of around 50-60 pounds for a medieval knight in full dress, modern troopers have to lug around 70-80. And they don't seem too slow.Of course, modern troopers are forced to do lots of ruck marches where they get used to carrying all that stuff. And they're drawn from a society of bigger people than typical medievals.

What I'm trying to say is that full plate armor would be unreasonably heavy if you're on foot. It would also be hot and uncomfortable, and very cumbersome for doing any kind of heavy labor like digging or felling trees. So even if plate had been affordable for foot soldiers, there wasn't much point in it unless the foot soldier was also rich enough to afford a horse to carry your weight and one or more servants/retainers to do any heavy labor for you.


Yea, the Zulu's were quite the revolution in African fighting techniques. Unfortunately they were about 2000 years late for it to matter outside of the Subsaharan world.The Zulus may have been on the road to inventing something a lot like the Roman legions, but they didn't complete the process before they collided with breech-loading rifles and were conquered. Of course, their military model was based more on 'foot cavalry' with short operational range than on heavy infantry with almost unlimited time-on-station capability, but that might have changed with time if the Zulus had gotten more time to consolidate their gains.


They do have a very similar style to the Romans, in terms of large shields and short stabbing weapons, combined with tight troop... mobs (it can't be really called a "formation"). The problem was they used no heavy armor, did not have the staying power of the Roman legion which built a fortress every night to stay in and had plenty of supplies, and warriors still fought as individuals, not part of a coherent whole (hence the use of mob instead of formation.)That combination would be pretty decisive, I'd think. The Romans would almost certainly win.


Hmmm... what would someone rate a planet-killer class meteor for damage?As 'act of God' damage, most likely.

This thread really isn't the place for that type of question, because it's about the mechanics of RPGs and not about "Real-World Weapon or Armor."

[Stephen_E]

As often as not...
what supply line? Medieval armies were not famous for having well-organized logistics. They frequently relied on being able to 'forage' from the countryside, which encouraged soldiers to carry a decent amount of rations on your person to make sure that you'd have something to eat even if the looting parties didn't steal enough chickens and plunder enough granaries to feed the army for next week.

Quartermaster corps are an age-of-blackpowder innovation, though the Romans certainly had them back before the medieval period.



I think it would be more accurate to say well-organised logistics (Quatermasters ecetre) were the province of regimented military forces. Thus the Romans had them, as did Genghis Khan's forces I suspect. The problem is that in Europe, between the Romans at their height, and the rise of gunpowder armies, military forces were a rather shambolic bunch TTBOMK.

Stephen

[Matthew]

That view of Medieval Armies is not often borne out. Rarely are logistical failures identified as a reason for defeat (rather than lack of resources or corruption). You just have to look at all the planning that went into a crusade to realise that the medieval west was well acquainted with the necessity of logistical support.

A great deal of warfare was small scale, though, and revolved around despoiling the countryside, which may make it appear as though an army is living off the land. This was a tacitical and strategic policy, though, not a logistical necessity (though it could become so).

Besides which, as an analogue, I have heard that Napoleon's armies were well acquainted with logistics, but often despoiled the countryside as an alternative expedient to long and slow supply trains.

[Subotei]

That view of Medieval Armies is not often borne out. Rarely are logisitcal failures identified as a reason for defeat. You just have to look at all the planning that went into a crusade to realise that the medieval west was well acquainted with the necessity of logistical support.

A great deal of warfare was small scale, though, and revolved around despoiling the countryside, which may make it appear as though an army is living off the land. This was a tacitical and strategic policy, though, not a logistical necessity (though it could become so).

I agree - Henry V's army was exceeding well prepared logistically and he ordered his men not to despoil the local population in France on pain of death. This was a political move - France was in a period of civil war and the common people had suffered repeatedly at the hand of their own arguing nobles. He wanted to stake a claim as the rightful king who looked after the people.

Many requisistion orders still exist today to show the amount of planning which went into his campaigns. Many medievil campaigns may have foundered due to lack of money to sustain the effort, but thats not strictly a logistical supply train failure.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Yes, only smaller armies ever carried their own supplies or foraged themselves. Any army of scale would leave those sorts of duties up to the supply train, which was lightly armed and typically in the back or center of the army with guards dedicated to protecting it. If an enemy force were to wipe out your supply train, your army was effectively finished unless it could win the war extremely quickly, since the troops weren't carrying around supplies.

[Dervag]

I think it would be more accurate to say well-organised logistics (Quatermasters ecetre) were the province of regimented military forces. Thus the Romans had them, as did Genghis Khan's forces I suspect. The problem is that in Europe, between the Romans at their height, and the rise of gunpowder armies, military forces were a rather shambolic bunch TTBOMK.
Stephen
Good point. I stand revised.


That view of Medieval Armies is not often borne out. Rarely are logistical failures identified as a reason for defeat (rather than lack of resources or corruption).Arguably, the ability of the state to provide resources to funnel into the logistics chain and to get those resources where they're needed without having them stolen en route by corruption is part of logistics, but I take your meaning.


You just have to look at all the planning that went into a crusade to realise that the medieval west was well acquainted with the necessity of logistical support.How much of that was preplanning, though?


A great deal of warfare was small scale, though, and revolved around despoiling the countryside, which may make it appear as though an army is living off the land. This was a tacitical and strategic policy, though, not a logistical necessity (though it could become so).That's very likely true, and it's a good rebuttal to my implication that medievals* didn't understand logistics.

However, it doesn't really touch on the conclusion of my post, because my point was that the average medieval foot soldier didn't have a highly reliable logistics chain to provide him with supplies. He couldn't depend on outside sources for food and shelter. So he probably had to carry a considerable amount of his own gear unless he could afford a pack animal, and if he could afford a pack animal then he probably wasn't a foot soldier anymore (though he might be a dragoon).

Therefore, plate armor would still not be a good choice for the foot soldier, though it might be a viable option for dragoon/hobilars who rode to a battle and then dismounted to fight on foot.


Besides which, as an analogue, I have heard that Napoleon's armies were well acquainted with logistics, but often despoiled the countryside as an alternative expedient to long and slow supply trains.Absolutely. The 'division' was invented by Napoleon because he needed to divide his massive armies into smaller, self-contained miniature armies that could support themselves by despoiling the countryside. His 50,000 man armies usually couldn't do that; but five to ten smaller 'divisions' of that army could as long as they stayed far enough apart.


Yes, only smaller armies ever carried their own supplies or foraged themselves. Any army of scale would leave those sorts of duties up to the supply train, which was lightly armed and typically in the back or center of the army with guards dedicated to protecting it. If an enemy force were to wipe out your supply train, your army was effectively finished unless it could win the war extremely quickly, since the troops weren't carrying around supplies.OK, so which was more representative of the medieval infantry experience- a soldier in an army of scale who could rely on supply wagons, or a soldier in a small army who could not?

[Fhaolan]

As often as not...
what supply line? Medieval armies were not famous for having well-organized logistics. They frequently relied on being able to 'forage' from the countryside, which encouraged soldiers to carry a decent amount of rations on your person to make sure that you'd have something to eat even if the looting parties didn't steal enough chickens and plunder enough granaries to feed the army for next week.


Given that several primary sources mention the effects of attacks on an army's supply train, such as the battle of Verneuil mentioned earlier, it's not that much of a stretch to assume that the commanders of the army had a pretty good notion of logistics. It doesn't end up in most histories because nine times out of ten the supply line can be assumed as it has no direct relevance to the battles themselves. Except when it gets attacked and the army gets cut off, then it gets talked about.

The Romans were great for this kind of stuff, of course, as it appears that they wrote *everything* down. It really seems like half the people in the legions were scribes employed by the officers to follow them around and transcribe the silliest detail of their lives. :smallbiggrin:

[Viscount Einstrauss]

I couldn't honestly begin to say. There aren't many historically recorded accounts of small armies having rather inconsequential battles. The best I can give you are the Spartans, the Celtic and German mercenaries, the Knights of Solomon, and the Knights Hospitalier. Each of these groups were renowned for their high level of training and capacity to survive for long periods of time in smaller groups and large armies equally well. The Spartans and both Knight brotherhoods did it due to some of the most intense training ever seen on the face of this planet. The Celts and Germans were very skilled and well-trained as well, but they made sacrifices in armor to make the weight balance out better- the Celts were typically bare-legged and barefoot, and the Germans hardly ever wore any armor heavier then chain coifes.

[Matthew]

How much of that was preplanning, though?

A very great deal. There are many articles on the logistics of crusade and the preperations involved. Probably the best example is that of Louis IX who planned for several years and used Cyprus as a forward supply base, where Joinville describes mountains of grain being stored, amongst other victuals. Louis IX is also credited with using Friars as spies against the Mongols.

Pretty much the same could be said with regard to preplanning for just about any crusade expedition, barring, perhaps ironically given that it was the only truly successful venture, the first.

An analogue to crusade would be the preperations undertaken by William I to invade England. I would venture to say that was a very logistically minded enterprise.

[Dervag]

Given that several primary sources mention the effects of attacks on an army's supply trainWell, it's looking more and more like I've underestimated medieval quartermasters. Though I'm still curious about the question of whether medieval infantry could rely on daily resupply. Given the condition of medieval roads and the limitations of horse-bound transport, they might have trouble with resupply even if they had a dedicated 'Red Ball Express' of wagons bringing supplies to them.