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

[Cadugan]

in modern contexts, you are right.

however, with period arrows, crossbow bolts were made from what wasn't suitable for arrows. it was the same stock, but cut down for the length needed by a crossbow. a lighter bolt will lose more velocity quicker, and yes, they do not reach the same maximum speed as a longbow-powered shaft, but it's a tradeoff between ease of use and power.

as for actual momentum, a longbow's arrow generally didn't do as well after it had free-fallen against armor, the idea being to put it on a 45* arc and benefit from the maximum velocity achievable at range, crossbow bolts in period, were not as heavy, and did not have the same lethal effective range, however it could be rather considerable.

and yes, bodkin points can be put on both bolts and arrows, however the crossbow bolts would still be lighter than the arrows.

oh yes, another point to remember, we're not talking your standard 5/16" or 11/32" cedar competition arrows here, we're talking massive, often slightly more than 1/2" shafts made from ash or another wood of opportunity, tipped with iron and fletched in goose or duck feathers.

i'm not disputing your research, it is entirely correct for the modern world of archery, i am recalling my research from hundred-years-war digs and from the Mary Rose, which may not be 100% accurate, but is a better representation of the problem facing longbows vs. crossbows in period.

if you have the opportunity to shoot some archery at long ranges, try a couple shots at greater than 45* angles, the arrows quickly lose their effective energy.

if you get the chance, shoot 5/16" cedar arrows at 45* and then from the same position, shoot a crossbow loaded with a quarrel made of the same at the same angle, the crossbow bolt will actually move faster out of the 'muzzle' than a long or recurve bow, however it will slow down a lot quicker due to the lack of weight to the projectile; this deals strictly with two projectiles made of the same wood, at the same thickness, with the same tips and fletchings, the only difference would be the total length of the projectile, and thus the weight.

so many variables, too little time :smalleek:

i don't know how to get technical at the moment, it does even differ in period, a crossbow from one region will shoot farther than one from another; longbows also differed depending on where the yew for their construction came from, and the total ring patterning of the bow.


again, i am discussing period archery only, not modern archery, who's better construction techniques have more than leveled the playing field.

[Norsesmithy]

As they were made of much thicker material, and carried much larger heads, crossbow quarrels were generally 3 to 4 times HEAVIER than longbow or hunnic bow arrows.

Not lighter, HEAVIER.

And they were generally fletched in leather, since feathers tended to separate when used in a crossbow.

The leather fletching (and the resultant poor aerodynamic stability) has been put forth as one possible reason why (European) crossbows were considered unsuitable for indirect fire. (The Chinese seemed to use them in indirect fire, but I know not if this was due to an aerodynamic superiority, due to the fact that their armies tended to be large enough that procuring trained archers in sufficient quantity was difficult, or due to their armies being large enough that the sheer volume of missiles made the performance difference insignificant).

Also, many of the modern tests that showed the crossbows ability to routinely pierce quality armour at any range of significance, were of questionable validity or standard, and that most instances were it is documented that quality (state of the art, or at least up to date) period armour was defeated by missile weapons of any kind (for instance the wounding of Joan of Arc) in the middle ages and renaissance could be attributed to lucky shots.

Period accounts suggest that for the most part the primary threat, posed by missile armed troops, to a well armoured man was to his horse.

[Sundog]

I'm not an expert, but all the Chinese crossbows I've seen were wooden-bowed, while most of the European ones I've seen used a metal bow.

If these were typical (and I have no idea if they were or not) then the launch velocity of a Chinese crossbow would have been significantly less than those of European crossbow of the same size.

This decreased initial velocity would have enabled the use of lighter fletching, as well as increasing the need to use indirect fire.

Just a little surmising.


As they were made of much thicker material, and carried much larger heads, crossbow quarrels were generally 3 to 4 times HEAVIER than longbow or hunnic bow arrows.

Not lighter, HEAVIER.

And they were generally fletched in leather, since feathers tended to separate when used in a crossbow.

The leather fletching (and the resultant poor aerodynamic stability) has been put forth as one possible reason why (European) crossbows were considered unsuitable for indirect fire. (The Chinese seemed to use them in indirect fire, but I know not if this was due to an aerodynamic superiority, due to the fact that their armies tended to be large enough that procuring trained archers in sufficient quantity was difficult, or due to their armies being large enough that the sheer volume of missiles made the performance difference insignificant).

Also, many of the modern tests that showed the crossbows ability to routinely pierce quality armour at any range of significance, were of questionable validity or standard, and that most instances were it is documented that quality (state of the art, or at least up to date) period armour was defeated by missile weapons of any kind (for instance the wounding of Joan of Arc) in the middle ages and renaissance could be attributed to lucky shots.

Period accounts suggest that for the most part the primary threat, posed by missile armed troops, to a well armoured man was to his horse.

[Exarch]

Okay, I think this has been addressed somewhere before, but this thread is something like 35+ pages now, so please forgive me.

Would it be viable to fight in a tunnel using spears? To bring a bit of fantasy into the discussion, Dwarf-sized tunnels (so, essentially roads with tops).

Also, were spears historically ever used in tunnel fighting, or was it pretty much exclusively just close in weapons like short swords?

[Ruerl]

As a sidenote to this, would it not be in everyones best interest to see a short post written up with the most common misconceptions and frequently asked questions on medieval weapons?
A few typical corrections I have to make all the time in re-enactment when dealing with tourists for example:
Medieval swords where not heavy
Plate armour never worked through stopping brute force, but through deflection.
Combat, also medieval combat, is about movement, not strength.
Plate armour does'nt stop you from moving fast -if its properly made for you.
We can't say that the samurai would beat the knight, and no, the katana is not a superior weapon, it is a different weapon -and not designed to strike at someone in a full plate for that matter.

Perhaps with a few links added in with pictures of RL armour and perhaps a link to a video like this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3DhjFUOG6Y) on youtube? (those guys in the video are damn good).

All in all, just a suggestion :)

Regards

Lars

[Ruerl]

Also, were spears historically ever used in tunnel fighting, or was it pretty much exclusively just close in weapons like short swords?

I have no direct source on this, but I would say yes for long straight tunnels and no for tunnels with a lot of turns, mind that a spear in a tunnel when used properly is exceptionally deadly, its like (pardon the pun) spearing fish in a barrel.

That aside, I do not think tunnel fighting where common enough to warrant a "they usually did X or Y" answer.

[Matthew]

Tunnel Fighting actually does have a function in Medieval and Ancient Warfare; undermining and counter mines during sieges were not too uncommon. What kind of weapons it involved, I cannot really speak to off hand.

[Norsesmithy]

I imagine that picks and mattocks were popular in countersiege tunnel fighting, if only because they would be on hand being used to dig the tunnels.

As Ruerl states, in a reasonably straight tunnel, a long spear would be pretty devastating, for the same reason they were effective in big formations, the primary weakness of a big spear is negated when the combatants have limited personal maneuverability.

However, in most natural caverns I have been to, and many man made ones, that are big enough to make carrying a big spear possible, have galleries big enough where it would be reasonably foolish to try to use a pike in single combat.

Also make sure to bring lots and lots of string.

[Stephen_E]

In the mine/counter-mine combat my understanding (secondary sources by memory only) is that one of the big problems was lack of light. Light was limited even in the straight mining. Once combat enshued, generally through hitting an enemies mine, light was often the 1st casulty, which resulted in fighting in absolute darkness. In those circumstances the shorter the weapon the better, aside from trying to avoid killing your own side, more importantly swinging larger weapons around might take out the tunnel shoring. If the tunnel collapses you all die.

Stephen

[Norsesmithy]

On the WOTC boards, there is a big thread about slings ion antiquity.

Now I have only rudimentary experience with slings, and so am in poor position to make statements of my own, but some of the claims they are making seem pretty outrageous.

They seem to think that 480 yards is a perfectly reasonable distance for one to undertake aimed fire with a sling, and also that a sling will do more damage than an arrow, and that most armour will do little to resist it.

I may just be a skeptic, but the claims seem to run eerie parallels to the claims made about katanas on that self same board, back before the ban.

What are our thoughts, and more importantly, what does the historical evidence show?

[Swordguy]

On the WOTC boards, there is a big thread about slings ion antiquity.

Now I have only rudimentary experience with slings, and so am in poor position to make statements of my own, but some of the claims they are making seem pretty outrageous.

They seem to think that 480 yards is a perfectly reasonable distance for one to undertake aimed fire with a sling, and also that a sling will do more damage than an arrow, and that most armour will do little to resist it.

I may just be a skeptic, but the claims seem to run eerie parallels to the claims made about katanas on that self same board, back before the ban.

What are our thoughts, and more importantly, what does the historical evidence show?

That people on the WOTC boards are full of crap.

Assumption: we're talking about a hunting sling (long loop of leather), not a "dennis the menace" style slingshot.

Assumption: the sling is using crafted bullets rather than just rocks off the ground (better performance - give the sling all the help it can get). Say - a ball 1" in diameter.

Assumption: For the sake of giving the sling the best possible performance, we're going to say the ball is steel for the least deformation on impact, but we're also going to figure it as though it's made of lead, for maximum mass and kinetic energy. A ball of lead 1" in diameter is going to weigh, oh, ballpark guess of about 100g. In addition, we are for now discounting the use of flattened, ellipse-shaped projectiles. Medieval Europe was NOT a generally sling-using culture, and the sling bullets in the ellipse shape that have been recovered almost universally date to before the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

Assumption: we're talking about lengths of braided string about 50" long, such as those found in El Lahun, Egypt. These were recovered and dated to around the heyday of the sling as a military weapon, and as such form a good baseline.

Data from http://www.slinging.org/25.html shows that a lead ball as we've described is going to be moving at a velocity of about 31m/sec. Round up to help the sling, and say 35m/sec. Basic ballistics states that there will be a limit to range with this starting velocity, and that limit is going to be at about the 130 meter mark. Because we're being generous, we'll round up. 150 meters.

So, the sling is firing a 100g projectile with minimal penetrative value (round ball) at a velocity of about 35m/sec with a maximum range of about 150 meters.

Now, about the bow...

From reading Payne-Gawley and Harris, I recall you can get a 100-120 lb pound longbow and fire about 350 yards with a 20-gram flight arrow - but 220 yards with a 60-gram arrow (braodheads are about 60-80 grams). Additionally, Harris calculated that a 200 lbs longbow would cast a flight arrow about 400 yards and a 60 gram at 250-300 yards. There is considerably more penetrative power behind a pointed arrow than with a sling bullet. The heavier arrow (to weight things against the longbow) achieves a velocity of around 60m/sec.

Crossbows...
Well...the x-bow fires at a higher velocity than the longbow, imparts (on average) the same range - largely due to the use of wood for the limb as opposed to today's metal and composites - and can fire all different sizes of bolts. Call it a dead heat with the longbow. If it's worse, it's not by a whole lot, and it may well be better (which makes the sling look even worse). However, there are accounts of a bolt penetrating 3/4" of oak plank - which would give the bolt a velocity of about 100m/sec...

Conclusion:
A sling fires at half the range, half or less the velocity, and with not nearly as much energy as either an arrow or a bolt. Ergot, it's NOT better that killing, wounding, or defeating armor than its competitors. There is some impressive concussion effect, and against cloth or loosely woven mail it would hurt badly and possibly kill. However, it doesn't have NEARLY the energy required to penetrate a helm and incapacitate the wearer (proof below).


A sharply tapered arrow needs about 55 J to penetrate 1 mm mild steel at a normal incidence, 175 J for 2 mm, 300 J for 3 mm, and 475 J for 4 mm.

Being a 15th c close helm, it is reasonable to say that the steel averages in thickness of about 2mm - roughly equivalent to 14ga steel, and requiring about 170-ish J to penetrate. This is borne out by historical examples (no, I won't list them - go do some work yourself).

A typical 12th - 13th c longbow arrow has an energy of about 80 - 100 J, a crossbow bolt about 100 - 200 J. The shorter the range, the more energy remains to be released on impact.

For a sling...well...you do the math. It's frickin 3am. The point is that the really important variables (velocity!) in the equation for a sling bullet are smaller than an arrow or a crossbow, except for mass, which is weighted much less heavily in the equation than energy. And that's not accounting for the superior penetrative power of a sharp point. Bah. Slings suck.

[Ruerl]

However, in most natural caverns I have been to, and many man made ones, that are big enough to make carrying a big spear possible, have galleries big enough where it would be reasonably foolish to try to use a pike in single combat.

A small note to that, while I agree that using a pike in single man-to-man duels its mostly because the length of a pike, a spear however is a very different story, remember that the butt of the spear can be used as a weapon too and its a rather simple way of using the spear, secondly the spear is good for "thrust-parries" ie: parries where you block the attack of your opponent while you jab forward and kill him. Ie: you parry and attack with the same movement. (On that: its a misconception that parrying and attacking is two different movements, if you use a move on parrying alone, your wasting a move, each move is both parry and attack for a skilled fighter -an example with swords are given in the video I posted before).

Regards

Ruerl

[Stephen_E]

A sling bullet doesn't have to penetrate a helmet to injure, or even kill.
In the same way you can hit someone wearing a helmet in the head with a blunt weapon, and still facture their skull or cause leathal internal bleeding, despite not penetrating the helmet. A metal helmet can quite happily transmit the concussive shock without been penetrated.

I have read a number of documents in the past showing that slings were considered as good as bows in combat. in terms of range and casulty causing capability, back in the days of the roman empire's use of them. Indeed there were suggestions they were possibly better. Note that archery improved from that period, so comparing slings with crossbows and longbows and finding slings inferior is not particuly relevant to what they were like in their heyday.

That said, claims of 480 yards sounds like they're talking about a slingstaff, and a lucky shot. It wouldn't be the 1st time someone took a statement "this happened" and translated it as "this happened all the time".

Stephen

[Norsesmithy]

A small note to that, while I agree that using a pike in single man-to-man duels its mostly because the length of a pike, a spear however is a very different story, remember that the butt of the spear can be used as a weapon too and its a rather simple way of using the spear, secondly the spear is good for "thrust-parries" ie: parries where you block the attack of your opponent while you jab forward and kill him. Ie: you parry and attack with the same movement. (On that: its a misconception that parrying and attacking is two different movements, if you use a move on parrying alone, your wasting a move, each move is both parry and attack for a skilled fighter -an example with swords are given in the video I posted before).

Regards

Ruerl
I sometimes use pike as a catchall for "long" spears more than 8 feet long when I am tired of typing long spear, I know it isn't totally accurate, but it works. As for shorter spears, I know that they are closer to a double weapon than being solely a standoff poky thing, but I am lead to believe, through my research, and my experience, that most people overate the spear.

I would not want to use a spear to fight a man with a sword and a shield, even if I have access to a shield of my own, unless I have a formation of similarly equipped allies at my soldier. Even if he hasn't got a shield, the odds are not in my favor, if I fail to keep him 5 or 6 feet away from me (and this is much harder than it sounds, when you are dealing with skilled combatants).

Turning a parry into an attack sounds really nice, but when your opponent has the mechanical advantage and knows how to attack such that your parry takes your point further off target (not hard to do), it becomes difficult to pull off.

A butt strike sounds deadly, but its effectiveness against a target that can parry or roll with the blow, and who doesn't give you the space you need to make a good swing, is greatly diminished.

[Deadmeat.GW]

That people on the WOTC boards are full of crap.

Assumption: we're talking about a hunting sling (long loop of leather), not a "dennis the menace" style slingshot.

Assumption: the sling is using crafted bullets rather than just rocks off the ground (better performance - give the sling all the help it can get). Say - a ball 1" in diameter.

Assumption: For the sake of giving the sling the best possible performance, we're going to say the ball is steel for the least deformation on impact, but we're also going to figure it as though it's made of lead, for maximum mass and kinetic energy. A ball of lead 1" in diameter is going to weigh, oh, ballpark guess of about 100g. In addition, we are for now discounting the use of flattened, ellipse-shaped projectiles. Medieval Europe was NOT a generally sling-using culture, and the sling bullets in the ellipse shape that have been recovered almost universally date to before the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

Assumption: we're talking about lengths of braided string about 50" long, such as those found in El Lahun, Egypt. These were recovered and dated to around the heyday of the sling as a military weapon, and as such form a good baseline.

Data from http://www.slinging.org/25.html shows that a lead ball as we've described is going to be moving at a velocity of about 31m/sec. Round up to help the sling, and say 35m/sec. Basic ballistics states that there will be a limit to range with this starting velocity, and that limit is going to be at about the 130 meter mark. Because we're being generous, we'll round up. 150 meters.

So, the sling is firing a 100g projectile with minimal penetrative value (round ball) at a velocity of about 35m/sec with a maximum range of about 150 meters.

Now, about the bow...

From reading Payne-Gawley and Harris, I recall you can get a 100-120 lb pound longbow and fire about 350 yards with a 20-gram flight arrow - but 220 yards with a 60-gram arrow (braodheads are about 60-80 grams). Additionally, Harris calculated that a 200 lbs longbow would cast a flight arrow about 400 yards and a 60 gram at 250-300 yards. There is considerably more penetrative power behind a pointed arrow than with a sling bullet. The heavier arrow (to weight things against the longbow) achieves a velocity of around 60m/sec.

Crossbows...
Well...the x-bow fires at a higher velocity than the longbow, imparts (on average) the same range - largely due to the use of wood for the limb as opposed to today's metal and composites - and can fire all different sizes of bolts. Call it a dead heat with the longbow. If it's worse, it's not by a whole lot, and it may well be better (which makes the sling look even worse). However, there are accounts of a bolt penetrating 3/4" of oak plank - which would give the bolt a velocity of about 100m/sec...

Conclusion:
A sling fires at half the range, half or less the velocity, and with not nearly as much energy as either an arrow or a bolt. Ergot, it's NOT better that killing, wounding, or defeating armor than its competitors. There is some impressive concussion effect, and against cloth or loosely woven mail it would hurt badly and possibly kill. However, it doesn't have NEARLY the energy required to penetrate a helm and incapacitate the wearer (proof below).


A sharply tapered arrow needs about 55 J to penetrate 1 mm mild steel at a normal incidence, 175 J for 2 mm, 300 J for 3 mm, and 475 J for 4 mm.

Being a 15th c close helm, it is reasonable to say that the steel averages in thickness of about 2mm - roughly equivalent to 14ga steel, and requiring about 170-ish J to penetrate. This is borne out by historical examples (no, I won't list them - go do some work yourself).

A typical 12th - 13th c longbow arrow has an energy of about 80 - 100 J, a crossbow bolt about 100 - 200 J. The shorter the range, the more energy remains to be released on impact.

For a sling...well...you do the math. It's frickin 3am. The point is that the really important variables (velocity!) in the equation for a sling bullet are smaller than an arrow or a crossbow, except for mass, which is weighted much less heavily in the equation than energy. And that's not accounting for the superior penetrative power of a sharp point. Bah. Slings suck.



Perhaps you should double check the ranges and the full quotes befoe saying things.

Slings are a lot better then 150 meters for professionals, especially check the history of the Baelearic slingers.

Also, in the same link you gave check the distances from amateurs and semi professionals, you will see that they do get over 150 a fair few times.

Warslings are a lot more dangerous then people think, they definately outperform smaller bows and during the period where they were considered a very dangerous weapon there was no long bows.

Don't forget, going of just balistics people claimed a longbow could not go further then 150 to 180 meters a dozen years back and now...

Check the Guiness Records for the sling and for the Longbow, you might be surprised.

However...Slings, to use well take even MORE time to train on then bows.
The Baelearic slingers were trained from childhood, at a point in their early age they required according to scriptures to knock their food off a high perch with a sling or they would go hungry.
Incentives like that would make a lot of difference.

Also, remember, the ammo used is also a big factor and changes the range for slings even more in a percentile manner then the difference between different arrows.

As a little detail, Flemish Slingers from Brussels were holding their own quite well against French Crossbow men to the point that the French send in cavalry at one point to crush the pesky gits (against the knights armour the slings were pretty much a luck of the draw thing, you can ring their heds but killing a knight with a sling shot was...a profoundly lucky experience).

[Swordguy]

Perhaps you should double check the ranges and the full quotes befoe saying things.

Slings are a lot better then 150 meters for professionals, especially check the history of the Baelearic slingers.

Also, in the same link you gave check the distances from amateurs and semi professionals, you will see that they do get over 150 a fair few times.

Warslings are a lot more dangerous then people think, they definately outperform smaller bows and during the period where they were considered a very dangerous weapon there was no long bows.

Don't forget, going of just balistics people claimed a longbow could not go further then 150 to 180 meters a dozen years back and now...

Check the Guiness Records for the sling and for the Longbow, you might be surprised.

However...Slings, to use well take even MORE time to train on then bows.
The Baelearic slingers were trained from childhood, at a point in their early age they required according to scriptures to knock their food off a high perch with a sling or they would go hungry.
Incentives like that would make a lot of difference.

Also, remember, the ammo used is also a big factor and changes the range for slings even more in a percentile manner then the difference between different arrows.

As a little detail, Flemish Slingers from Brussels were holding their own quite well against French Crossbow men to the point that the French send in cavalry at one point to crush the pesky gits (against the knights armour the slings were pretty much a luck of the draw thing, you can ring their heds but killing a knight with a sling shot was...a profoundly lucky experience).

A) Give sources.
B) Support your arguments.
C) Where are you getting your information?
D) I think you can see where I'm going with this.

Some of that is flat-out wrong. I have, personally, fired a crappy recurve commercial bow (non-compound) with a heavy arrow (5 blade broadhead, steel shaft) farther than 180 yards.

Guiness World records. Sling beats longbow. True. Check out the size of the sling. It's over 100" in length. What that, you say? A longer "lever" increase the amount of force behind an object? Oh noes! Basic physics! Ah! But you've failed reading comprehension. Check out the assumptions, specifically the type of sling used...

Finally, you're largely arguing points that have nothing to do with the comparison I presented. A long warsling outperforms a crappy bow. Fine. I wasn't comparing those. I was comparing a specific sling type to general classes of bows, and it came up short against them.

Aside about the X-bows v slings bit. It could be that the difference in rate of fire had a bit to do with that. A sling is getting what? 10 shots a minute? A compared to 2-3 for a crossbow? Against lightly armored opponents (which, you'll note, I've already mentioned as being the 'good' target against which to use slings)?

The POINT was that a sling bullet (unlike what's evidently being tossed around on the WOTC boards) is NOT going to go through plate armor like an APDS round from hell.


They seem to think that 480 yards is a perfectly reasonable distance for one to undertake aimed fire with a sling, and also that a sling will do more damage than an arrow, and that most armour will do little to resist it.


From the internet site I listed (See? a source!), This is their personal best result with the SAME sling that I used for comparison (50"):

lead slingshot 40 g (this means it's one of the nice ovid ones you're stuck on).
145 m average distance
150 m best distance

[Ruerl]

I sometimes use pike as a catchall for "long" spears more than 8 feet long when I am tired of typing long spear, I know it isn't totally accurate, but it works. As for shorter spears, I know that they are closer to a double weapon than being solely a standoff poky thing, but I am lead to believe, through my research, and my experience, that most people overate the spear.

I need to politedly ask you from refraining from the term pike when speaking of a spear then as a pike is at least three to four metres long and as such way beyoind the length of any spear, the reason for my request offcourse is to avoid any further miscommunication.

On your research by the way, may I enquire as to the nature of your research? It is not that I doubt it, it is that I have done some myself and comen to the conclusion that most underrate the spear and it could be interesting to compare experience, perhaps over a PM?


I would not want to use a spear to fight a man with a sword and a shield, even if I have access to a shield of my own, unless I have a formation of similarly equipped allies at my soldier. Even if he hasn't got a shield, the odds are not in my favor, if I fail to keep him 5 or 6 feet away from me (and this is much harder than it sounds, when you are dealing with skilled combatants).

Turning a parry into an attack sounds really nice, but when your opponent has the mechanical advantage and knows how to attack such that your parry takes your point further off target (not hard to do), it becomes difficult to pull off.

Now, the period I fight in (late medieval period around 1420-1480) does'nt really have shields so it does'nt apply much here, however what little experience I do have with polearms contra shield+sword (mostly such weapons as lucernhammers) are that the man with the sword+shield tend to have a big problem, simply put the shield does'nt stop the polearm, it can't be used to block the polearm weapon since the hook on the polearm allows to move the shield and as such the entire enemy.

But again, thats a polearm weapon wich is used somewhat differently from a spear, however one thing I believe is a misconception with a spear is that you need to keep your foe at 3-4 feet away, the sword has an ideal strike range as well, the outer fifth of the blade typically for the ideal cutting edge, that actually means that the swordsman needs to keep a minimum distance as well, i'd strongly suggest reading something from Hans Talhoffer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Talhoffer), Johannes Liechtenauer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Liechtenauer) or just the general german medieval combat form (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_school_of_swordsmanship) its very interesting reading for those who study WMA (western martial arts) just keep in mind that there are a lot of the theory and a lot of the things that can't be practised or studied due to simply being too deadly, there are for instance an armlock in one of the books that includes a toss that destroys the shouldertendon making the man such thrown permanently crippled.


A butt strike sounds deadly, but its effectiveness against a target that can parry or roll with the blow, and who doesn't give you the space you need to make a good swing, is greatly diminished.

The thing here with the butt strike is that its used as a part of close combat, and if not and the enemy parries, well if he parry you twist the strike with the butt of the spear to make it into a thrust, if he tries to roll along you simply follow using the spear to guide him into a bad roll making him fall open the second his roll stops, offcourse he can do something against this too, for instance instead of parrying he can make a thrust-parry to your butt-strike striking to the side of your polearm with the lower end of his sword while keeping the point towards your neck advancing forward as he does so, offcourse this is'nt a sure win either as it will leave his face open for a point-cut with the spear's sharp point forcing him to move the sword to the exact same spot in the other side of the body while keeping his point fixed at you and he has to get such an angle that your spear-slash will be deflected, the need for deflection is so that he can keep the sword-point fixed while thrusting.

In either case, the battle will be over before two seconds has passed, and again, I can only reckommend studying the subject, here are some youtube examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nACpJwJKEiY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3DhjFUOG6Y

Both of them are rather good, I can especially reckommend the second one.

[Fhaolan]

The thing here with the butt strike is that its used as a part of close combat, and if not and the enemy parries, well if he parry you twist the strike with the butt of the spear to make it into a thrust, if he tries to roll along you simply follow using the spear to guide him into a bad roll making him fall open the second his roll stops, offcourse he can do something against this too, for instance instead of parrying he can make a thrust-parry to your butt-strike striking to the side of your polearm with the lower end of his sword while keeping the point towards your neck advancing forward as he does so, offcourse this is'nt a sure win either as it will leave his face open for a point-cut with the spear's sharp point forcing him to move the sword to the exact same spot in the other side of the body while keeping his point fixed at you and he has to get such an angle that your spear-slash will be deflected, the need for deflection is so that he can keep the sword-point fixed while thrusting.


I may have missed a topic switch. :smallsmile: Butt-strikes, and other weapon-spin-style maneuvers, while fun and effective in the open air, don't work so well in confined quarters. And the tunnels that I've been told were typical for siege mining and counter-mining are far too confined, only occasionally opening up into galleries when the idea is to undermine a wall or something similar. I could be wrong on this though, as this is second-hand information with no primary source.

[Ruerl]

I may have missed a topic switch. :smallsmile: Butt-strikes, and other weapon-spin-style maneuvers, while fun and effective in the open air, don't work so well in confined quarters. And the tunnels that I've been told were typical for siege mining and counter-mining are far too confined, only occasionally opening up into galleries when the idea is to undermine a wall or something similar. I could be wrong on this though, as this is second-hand information with no primary source.

Heh yes sorry my bad, it was a topic switch onto the way weapons are wielded, you would'nt see anyone trained like the ways I mentioned in tunnel fighting in any case, such skill would be considered too valueable to be wasted in something wich your supposed to collapse below the walls of the keep.
Short spears (around the length of the wielder) can still use the butt-slap from a downward up movement however even in tunnel fighting but it'd require a skill far above what you could expect from anyone fighting in a tunnel.

[Stephen_E]

Finally, you're largely arguing points that have nothing to do with the comparison I presented. A long warsling outperforms a crappy bow. Fine. I wasn't comparing those. I was comparing a specific sling type to general classes of bows, and it came up short against them.

You chose a specific sling type and compared it to the best bow types. How was this relevant to the WOTC board discussion, which was reported here with no specific claims of Sling type (although you'd think they'd be talking about War slings rather than hunting slings, given they were talking about combat).


The POINT was that a sling bullet (unlike what's evidently being tossed around on the WOTC boards) is NOT going to go through plate armor like an APDS round from hell.

Quote:They seem to think that 480 yards is a perfectly reasonable distance for one to undertake aimed fire with a sling, and also that a sling will do more damage than an arrow, and that most armour will do little to resist it.


Last I looked Plate armour wasn't "most armour". Indeed has plate armour ever been "common" armour, so I fail to see how you can interpret the quote you provide as a claim that sling bullets will "go through plate armor like an APDS round from hell."

Stephen

[Stephen_E]

On a seperate note, it has been pointed out that well fitted armour doesn't actually restrict your normal walking pace, ala the way DnD represents it.

My question is would the heavier armour types affect your hiking pace, i.e. the distance you can walk in a day. It seems like it would, but I'm well aware that things like the DnD "armour slows your ability to walk" come from just those type of "well this seems sensible".

Stephen

[Dervag]

I think armor ought to reduce your overland speed per day.

In the short run, well-designed armor won't slow you much because your muscles can easily exert the modest extra amount of force required to move the armor as well as your own body. But over long periods, this extra weight will be taxing. Every step you take requires you to lift your body slightly; wearing fifty pounds of armor increases the force your leg has to use to do this by fifty pounds. That's almost got to be wearing over long distances.

[Norsesmithy]

Ruerl, my research includes this very thread (and its previous iterations), two semesters of Western Civ with a professor who believed that you could do pretty good studying war and war fighting as a means of examining our ancestors developments (we covered roughly from 2000 BC to 1600 AD), as much free-play style reenactment fighting as my friends can stomach, and a little research on the side whenever I can get time to go sit in the library for a few hours and relax with the true authorities.

And although a true pike was between 12 and 16 feet, generally, any spear much longer than 8 feet by necessity of its size ends up being used in largely the same way, IE formation fighting with lots of friends, as they are too clumsy to be used in broken formation melee or duels or duel style honorable combat.

A spear lacks most of the properties of a poll-axe that make it so difficult to counter with shields, especially when the fighting parties wear armour besides.

A rod as light as a spear shaft, even if it is thinly shod in iron (somewhat uncommon), lacks the impact strength to dependably incapacitate an armed opponent who wishes you ill. Its meagre power can be absorbed or redirected with a forearm or a shoulder. In the modern day people attacked with crow bars, tire irons, and 2x4s have used the same natural response (that is to turn a direct blow into a glancing one by using the left forearm to cushion and redirect, not block, a blow that would otherwise strike the head) to being struck about the head to leave fights with their skulls intact, even using this natural response to create an opening to drive off, wound, or even kill their assailants (often despite injury to the arm, better the arm than the head). A combat trained soldier will easily duplicate this result, and especially will if he has bracers (or equivalent) or a shield,

It seems that points based sparring (like many WMA or EMA "fighting" systems) has created an environment where strikes with little practical use have become common place.

As for the minimum distance, while a sword is undeniably more effective at a bit of range than it is nose to nose, unlike a spear, it is still somewhat effective at this range.

As for German Fencing, I have read, and in fact own, translations of the manuals you suggest, as well as the I .33 text, Fiore Dei Liberi's Flos Duellatorum (the Novati/Pissani-Dossi version), Mertein Hündsfelder's Fechtlehre mit dem Kurzen Schwert (very good), Andrew Legnitzer's codex on spear fighting, and Ott Jud's codex on wrestling (dirty fighting, don't read this and then compete in any league wrestling).

I can fight with a arming sword and shield or buckler, but my prefer ed weapon (actually I prefer rifles and shotguns, but you know what I mean) is a 50 inch overall longsword with a 41 inch blade.

That I made myself, and is in fact part of the root of my screen name.

[Fhaolan]

Heh yes sorry my bad, it was a topic switch onto the way weapons are wielded, you would'nt see anyone trained like the ways I mentioned in tunnel fighting in any case, such skill would be considered too valueable to be wasted in something wich your supposed to collapse below the walls of the keep.
Short spears (around the length of the wielder) can still use the butt-slap from a downward up movement however even in tunnel fighting but it'd require a skill far above what you could expect from anyone fighting in a tunnel.

*grin* Spear and shield is my favorite way to fight, so I'm not going to say it's completely ineffective. I do think the recent Greek and Viking movies have played it up a bit though. With spear and shield, butt-strikes are useful as distractions and to keep your opponent off-guard, but single-handed they just don't have the punch necessary to be immediately lethal unless you have one heck of a wrist. You need both hands on the spear for that kind of leverage.

However, when I say the tunnels are quite confined, I mean that in fairly significant sections the soldiers would be going single file, bent over, and maybe even on their knees, with only a candle to light their way if they have any light source at all and aren't going completely by feel. I would think that a spear would be the *last* weapon someone would want to deal with in these kinds of conditions.

Of course, we're dealing with military operations here, which means you deal with the weapon you're assigned. I know if I was a spearman who was ordered to go down into a tunnel, the first thing I would do is cut down the spear to about 3-4 feet long...

Supposedly, this kind of thing happened quite often, with pikemen cutting their 18-foot pikes down to 12 or so feet over the course of a campaign. I've heard many explanations for that, but nothing from a primary source.

Re: Endurance in plate armor. Footman-style plate armor was only worn on the battlefield itself, or in tourneys. You didn't march in it over long distances. However, a full suit 15th century plate weighs about 65 lbs or so, add about 20 lbs of other gear and you're pretty much bang on to what a modern solder is expected to be able to carry in their pack over long distances. It's when that same plate-wearing fool needs to carry that 85 lb pack in addition to the armor and weapons that you get the problem. :smallsmile:

[Stephen_E]

Slings

I read through the WOTC thread on slings I think Norsesmithy may've misread it somewhat.
The 480 yards was an extreme range, and generally they were talking more about upto 200 yards for combat purposes.
As for armour penetration, the point was repeatedly made that slingshot both didn't generally penetrate, and didn't need to penetrate.
Also no one I saw was suggesting that it would punch through fullplate armour. Mostly they were talking about chain, scale, padded ecetre. The common armours. :-)

Although I would note that a couple of the posters got interested and tried playing around with slings at home. One guy put a nut (as in bolt/nut) through an inch thick peice of plywood at short range.

I'd also note that Swordguy's source did say that his ranges were from his own slinging, and he made no bones about not been an expert, and did say that a skilled person may well get considerably greater range. Another site gave ranges by practicioners that were considerably longer.

Stephen

[Ruerl]

And although a true pike was between 12 and 16 feet, generally, any spear much longer than 8 feet by necessity of its size ends up being used in largely the same way, IE formation fighting with lots of friends, as they are too clumsy to be used in broken formation melee or duels or duel style honorable combat.

That depends on the length of it, Talhoffer has some excellent takes on it, however those polearms are mostly -admitted- designed for duels.


A spear lacks most of the properties of a poll-axe that make it so difficult to counter with shields, especially when the fighting parties wear armour besides.

Point taken, though in the periods with plate armour you generally don't use shields anymore, bucklers is a different story though


It seems that points based sparring (like many WMA or EMA "fighting" systems) has created an environment where strikes with little practical use have become common place.

I am just going to skip most of that part to get down to the core of that: I agree, point based systems fail hideously when you look at realism, if you take a hit its not just a point, the sentence "its dead jim" springs to mind.


As for German Fencing, I have read, and in fact own, translations of the manuals you suggest, as well as the I .33 text, Fiore Dei Liberi's Flos Duellatorum (the Novati/Pissani-Dossi version), Mertein Hündsfelder's Fechtlehre mit dem Kurzen Schwert (very good), Andrew Legnitzer's codex on spear fighting, and Ott Jud's codex on wrestling (dirty fighting, don't read this and then compete in any league wrestling).

You have more sources on these books than I have then, I envy you and I think I will go look especially that dirty fighting up, since I don't compete in wrestling anyway ;)


I can fight with a arming sword and shield or buckler, but my prefer ed weapon (actually I prefer rifles and shotguns, but you know what I mean) is a 50 inch overall longsword with a 41 inch blade.

If we where to stick with medieval weapons my preferred weapon against a single opponent would be a loaded crossbow ;)
Otherwise I really like the short lucernhammer -the duelling version mind you so that the size of the wood and the iron is more than enough to kill by itself -before you add the two hooks, the end spike, the hammer head and the diamonshaped headspike.

I think however, that presently we are discussing for the sake of discussion, glad to find another person in here with the interest of medieval combat, even though we still disagree somewhat on the spear, but then, I believe the core of that matter is because we have different views on the weapon.

*

On the armour, well to be honest it would definitly lower your speed on a long march, however, if you can afford the armour then you can very likedly afford that small pack mule to carry most of the weight.

[Deadmeat.GW]

A) Give sources.
B) Support your arguments.
C) Where are you getting your information?
D) I think you can see where I'm going with this.

Some of that is flat-out wrong. I have, personally, fired a crappy recurve commercial bow (non-compound) with a heavy arrow (5 blade broadhead, steel shaft) farther than 180 yards.

Guiness World records. Sling beats longbow. True. Check out the size of the sling. It's over 100" in length. What that, you say? A longer "lever" increase the amount of force behind an object? Oh noes! Basic physics! Ah! But you've failed reading comprehension. Check out the assumptions, specifically the type of sling used...

Finally, you're largely arguing points that have nothing to do with the comparison I presented. A long warsling outperforms a crappy bow. Fine. I wasn't comparing those. I was comparing a specific sling type to general classes of bows, and it came up short against them.

Aside about the X-bows v slings bit. It could be that the difference in rate of fire had a bit to do with that. A sling is getting what? 10 shots a minute? A compared to 2-3 for a crossbow? Against lightly armored opponents (which, you'll note, I've already mentioned as being the 'good' target against which to use slings)?

The POINT was that a sling bullet (unlike what's evidently being tossed around on the WOTC boards) is NOT going to go through plate armor like an APDS round from hell.


From the internet site I listed (See? a source!), This is their personal best result with the SAME sling that I used for comparison (50"):

lead slingshot 40 g (this means it's one of the nice ovid ones you're stuck on).
145 m average distance
150 m best distance

A) Give sources.

First, when you give sources make sure they don't also include material which breaks your 'facts'.

http://www.slinging.org/ranges.html

From the same site your details came from.

B) Support your arguments.

See above and read following article for some physics based informatie that shows that the person you were quoting may have been somewhat incomplete due to incomplete information available at the time of his publication on said field.

http://www.slinging.org/29.html

C) Where are you getting your information?

Have you actually checked the whole site of www.slinging.org?

D) I think you can see where I'm going with this.

No, I cannot see where you are going since I did use your source to caution your statement.

As with almost any western martial skill or weapon slinging is not too well understood and subject to many myths both in favour and against the effectiveness of slings.

In this case the facts are more then likely somewhere in the middle, sling shots did not pierce armour, as you very correctly stated in any but the most specific of circomstances, however...they did not need to do so to do serious harm or even kill people.

Have you seen any accidents with motorbikes, falls, drops or unfortunate hits from baseballs?

If you have you may have noticed that even relatively soft impacts can cause serious damage or that even when the protective clothing or helmets seem to be completely intact the person still suffered from some rather serious injuries.

A sling stone could shatter a rib without ever puncturing the padded armour the target was wearing, let alone puncture the skin.
In some documented stories from Roman historians these have been given as reasons why some people from specific places were considered deadly with slings.

A sling stone is not a piercing projectile like a bullet (despite the same name being used in many cases) but a concusive weapon.
The resulting damage is diffirent, the armour needed is different and here shields show why they were soo much the norm during those periods.

Edit: Change blatant typo.

[Deadmeat.GW]

Oh, btw, also, note I said they send in knights to kill the Flemish slingers...

I.e. heavy armour with partial or even full plate, a thoroughly different target then the common armour for most foottroops.

[Matthew]

Bows, Cross Bows and Slings

So, I am enjoying the discussion so far. I think it's fair to say that with Bows, Cross Bows and Slings the truth does indeed lie somewhere imbetween inflated hype and cautious minimalism (as with our old friend the Katana).

480 Yards is really very impressive range. Funnily enough, I have heard the exact same range cited for a Viking Bow, based on the idea that 480 Metres corresponds to a unit of Icelandic measurement (the Grágás) called a bowshot (ördrag) (Wikipedia is where I heard this). Wikipedia also claims 500 Metres for the Arbalest (in fact it claims it is accurate up to this range, but that's a common enough confusion).

So, we have three different weapons, all of which are claimed to be able to reach about 480 Yards/500 Metres/1500 Feet/0.25 Nautical Miles/etc...

My question is whether this is a product of direct or indirect shooting? We still seem to have no definitive answers on that subject.

I very much doubt that any of these weapons would have been particularly effective or accurate at such an extended range, but I have no trouble believing that, by way of indirect shooting, such ranges could be achieved.

The fact that all such weapons were in use simultaneously until Firearms finally made them obsolete very much suggests to me that, relative to one another, they were of similar effectiveness, but had their own limitations.

300 Feet is the range I hear most commonly cited as 'effective' for all three of these weapons and I wonder if that has more to do with the limitations of human eyesite and direct shooting than anything else (i.e. perhaps there is a switch to indirect shooting at something like this range).

As for concussive versus penetrating force, it strikes me that (much like Swords) Arrows are capable of delivering concussive injuries without penetrating Body Armour. Slings were probably better for this, but it's like the difference between a curved and straight bladed sword blow [i.e. the order of magnitude is not overwhelming, but there is a measurable difference].

So, let's continue the debate if we can find some more sources. I would love to see some actual Primary Textual accounts.

Tunnel Fighting

Here and there people are mentioning that Tunnel Fighters would use whatever weapons they had to hand and whilst that's true for unexpected encounters, I think it is important to bear in mind that counter mines would have involved parties of troops equipped specifically for Tunnel Fighting. I rather suspect that the Roman Gladius would have been particularly effective, though I could imagine such conflicts being brutal enough to involve Pugio/Daggers/Knives, but it's an interesting subject for research.

Spears, Swords and Shields

I think it is important to recognise that Body Armour (whatever the actual protective value - and this is highly debated) is hugely important when discussing the advantages and disadvantages of these weapons.

The primary advantage of a Spear over a Sword is always reach, either by virtue of it being thrown or in the opening moments of a melee. Once that distance is closed, you either have to back up, fight at a disadvantage or switch weapons. An unarmoured and unshielded man with a Sword versus an unarmoured and unshielded man with a Spear is at grave risk as he closes, but at an advantage once he has. If that same man has access to a Shield and Body Armour his risk during those moments is greatly reduced and he can press home his advantage.
A Spear Man with a Shield is sacrificing power, versatility and control over his weapon for the not inconsiderable benefits of a Shield. However, he is probably a good deal better off with a longer Spear used in two hands if his opponents are wearing Body Armour.

In short, I think it's a complicated game of Scissors/Paper/Stone and that Pole Arms are the natural result (though they have their own limitations).

Body Armour and Movement Speed

I have no trouble believing that Body Armour did little to reduce speed in the short term. I do think it would limit 'running speed' to some extent, but I think, as Dervag pointed out, fatigue is the main limiting factor, as a result of protracted physical exertion whilst under arms.

Common Misconceptions

We definitely should produce a list of this sort and seek to have it stickied. I can think of about a dozen examples off the top of my head [Tower Shields, Roman and Greek Cavalry, Roman Armour, Roman Swords, Clerics and Maces, Cross Bows and the Pope, the Ultimate Power of Katanas/Long Bows/(and now Slings apparently), Knights and Samurai, Peasant Soldiers, Sword prohibitions, etc...]

All need to be properly cited and referenced, though.

[Deadmeat.GW]

Common given details among scholars, effective range for slings about 200 meters (i.e. you can hit things and they are not going to be totally useless).

Combat range depending on period and group of slingers:

50 to 80 meters optimal for the Flemish slingerers going of some scriptures

Roman periods and around there

75 to 120 meters optimal with the Baelearic slingerers reputedly killing people at 150 to 200 meters (i.e. beyond range of most bowmen without some sort of recurve or longbow)

Ammunition:

If purpose made, anywhere from between 40 grams and 250 grams(!!!!)(some slingerers used specifically made shot which was about the size of a tennisball) made out of formed stone, fired clay, lead or in some very rare examples precious metals (silver and gold sling shot have been found, I am with the scholar claiming it was not actually used but more like a prize or a reward, think kinda like a sports reward, since it would be soooo expensive as to make no sense in almost any situation I could imagine).

Rate of fire, depending on range and ammo:

double shotting with stacked ammo in easy range (I could see this on a parapet on a castle but otherwise I am not so sure you can really count it) contemporary slingerers can do almost 4 shots in 2 seconds, dropping to a steady 3 shots in 2 seconds after the initial start (as you have several stones in hand and on in the sling at this point).

several scholars claim that a rate of 4 shots in 2 seconds would not be impossible, I am not so sure due to the lost time of grabbing ammo from a pouch in most situation but lets say they are right it does HALF normal range for the same accuracy.

without the need for grabbing ammo from a pouch 3 to 2 seconds seems to be accepted for short ranges as I said.

a shot a second to a second and half for full range shots at accuracy (this is at optimal range)

a shot every 3-ish seconds for extreme range shots if you want accuracy

Btw, my own accuracy is lousy but i have managed to get 120 meters twice and 140 meters once when I personally dabbled along my friends.
However as said I am higly inaccurate, my friends joked that standing in front of the target was safer then anywhere behind me or to the sides.
I could at best do 3 shots in 2 seconds also and stay within several meters of the target ;).

All in all, slings:

Advantage:

Cheap
Hard hitting on non-deflecting armours
Long ranged
Accurate (in the hands of a trained slingerer)

Disadvantages:

Takes a LOT of training to become good, to become great you eat, breath and sleep sling (and yes, even more then a Longbow men to become good).
Requires sideways a lot of room
Ammo is actually more important then people think, random rocks and such will kinda do but range, speed and accuracy drops off dramatically
Due to being spread out (see room required) distinctly limited to slight curves or direct line shots (unlike bows which can be used en masse)
Proper shield or pavise use reduces effect a lot (there was a reason the romans took on slinger heavy armies and came out on top)

Conclusion, great against armies without good shield drill or trained recurve archers/longbowmen.
Cheap-ish on the weapon, expensive on the actually soldier (takes a long time to get one trained to a good enough level)
Great for armies that needed to move fast on foot (i.e. without serious cavalry).

Edit: Flemish slingerers supposedly used a doubleshot technique so that may be the reason their optimal range looks fairly short, this however is not confirmed at this time. there are references to it but nothing that cannot be described as, well, shall we say exagerations.

[Pilum]

For what it's worth, my personal feeling on the "bow vs crossbow" range debate is that, if a crossbow is as powerful as often ascribed it probably could shoot further than your typical bow (maybe not the longbow, but that's a whole other set of mythology!) if fired at ~45 degrees or so. But that would, to my mind, seem to negate the weapon's rather obvious design advantage, i.e. it is literally point and shoot.

Regarding slingers, one advantage they have over a typical archer is that a sling is a single-handed weapon when used (loading aside), thus a small buckler is more easily employed to deflect missiles.

[Exarch]

Thank y'all for the quick responses to my question about tunnels and spears. More or less, it was for a Dwarf army/unit, but...yeah.

So, here's another one. Penetration of spear vs. hammer vs. axe.

The spear would have pretty good penetration, as the whole of the impact is sent through that one, small point, right?

The hammer does concussive damage, so as long as you get a solid hit, they're going to feel it and armor pretty much doesn't matter, yes?

Finally, for axes... I imagine they'd have a penetration like a zweihander, even if you only held it in one hand? I mean, it doesn't have the full-length blade of a sword, but most of the weight is distrubted to the head, so you have more force in the swing, right?

Sorry to interrupt y'all's discussion, but I'm not knowledgable to contribute enough without going "qft" basically.

[Swordguy]

Thank y'all for the quick responses to my question about tunnels and spears. More or less, it was for a Dwarf army/unit, but...yeah.

So, here's another one. Penetration of spear vs. hammer vs. axe.


Can you narrow it down some? What's the opponent wearing, because that's gonna have a LOT to do with it...

[Norsesmithy]

Also the human body can put tons more force behind a swing, like a hammer, axe, or sword, than it can put behind a lunge, like a spear strike.

[Matthew]

Indeed, though a thrust uses that force in an arguably more efficient manner.

[Exarch]

For armor...let's say an opponent wearing chainmail and another opponent wearing leather.

The spear would be better gainst the chainmail, and the axe would be better against leather, right? And the hammer would be about equal against both?

[Swordguy]

For armor...let's say an opponent wearing chainmail and another opponent wearing leather.

The spear would be better gainst the chainmail, and the axe would be better against leather, right? And the hammer would be about equal against both?

Are you including a padded garment underneath the armors?

I will assume you are, as that was common practice.

The spear will tend to do better against maille (though it's not going to go through it like butter or anything), and the axe will tend to do better against leather, but there's too many possible variables to say "always" to anything. That's the tragedy of these sorts of questions - there's practically never one answer that's 100% correct every single time.

Now the hammer...will probably do better against the maille. Why? Both will give under it's impact, but the leather offers more resistance (maille is essentially metal cloth with little or no "given shape", and so easily deforms) and padding. Leather will compress more once it can no longer deform, and so will absorb more energy from the hammerstrike. You also won't have the problem of broken rings being hammered into the skin (though the gambeson would help with that).

That said, I still wouldn't want to get hit with a hammer wearing most anything, though. Concussions suck.

[Ruerl]

For armor...let's say an opponent wearing chainmail and another opponent wearing leather.

The spear would be better gainst the chainmail, and the axe would be better against leather, right? And the hammer would be about equal against both?

To add to Swordguys comments:
I would'nt want to be hit at all in either of these types of armour as it would very likedly kill me with the first strike :smalleek:

Generally speaking, if the spear point is formed properly, ie: depending on wether its a simple spear or say a spear with a triangulair or quadratic point there is a big difference, a spear with a piercing point (also called "diamond point") will go through both the chain and the leather as a warm knife through hot butter, the leather is'nt hard enough to deflect the spear and the chain actually prevents the spear from glancing off the initial target, in either case, if your struck with a spear with a proper point in either of these armours, your likedly dead.

The sword is a different case all together, if its an early medieval cutting sword you might actually live for a few hits, unless he hits in a precise way, a proper chain will (with the padding, real chainmails where *never* used withouth padding!) prevent most slashing blows from a sword, the sword is a precision weapon after all, that being said, a hard blow will still break your arm and put you out of combat even if he can't cut anything off you, so again its back to best avoiding being hit in the first place.
The later medieval swords are a different story against chain, since many of these have a very good thrusting point, in wich case the chainmail won't do anything at all to stop the thrust, simply put, your dead.

the sword against leather is also about precision, however leather armour don't tend to be interlocked like plate does and as such offers a lot less protection giving the sword more points to strike at, in addition to that a powerfull thrust guided by say a hand and a half grib will make a mockery of the protection offered by the leather, and when speaking of "mortslag/donnerslag" (the technique where you grib the blade of the sword and strike with the hilt of the blade using it as a pick-like weapon) that protection is just... non-existant.
Combine this with that leather actually hinders your mobility even more than chain or plate and your just asking for it.
Offcourse still better than having no armour at all...

The axe is pretty much the same story as the sword with the exception that it does not give the option for a thrust, but then again the force of the impact is placed on a smaller area and even if it does'nt shred the armour your likedly to break a bone and be out of the combat anyway, nasty weapon that axe.

The hammer? Well Swordguy summed it up nicedly, i'll only add that a historical hammer usually have a very small hammer head and often has a pike in the other end of the head, meaning that most types of armour is unlikedly to protect, A late medieval warhammer is such a nasty weapon that it almost makes me shed a tear of joy.

Regards

Ruerl

p.s.
Yes, I know you did'nt ask about swords, but I just could'nt help myself as I really love those shiney things ;)

[Edmund]

Generally speaking, if the spear point is formed properly, ie: depending on wether its a simple spear or say a spear with a triangulair or quadratic point there is a big difference, a spear with a piercing point (also called "diamond point") will go through both the chain and the leather as a warm knife through hot butter, the leather is'nt hard enough to deflect the spear and the chain actually prevents the spear from glancing off the initial target, in either case, if your struck with a spear with a proper point in either of these armours, your likedly dead.

This is out-and-out wrong. This cannot only be disproved by basic reasoning (spears were the most common weapons on the battlefield, so why use mail armour when it was completely ineffective against it?) but by recorded historical instances and, I'm sure if one did some investigation, modern experiments.

The best source I can give is a historical one, the memoirs of Usamah ibn Munquidh recalls an event in which he, mounted, leapt over a hedge and solidly struck a knight who appeared unarmoured with his lance forcefully enough for him to lose his helmet and shield. The knight was unharmed and sat waiting for a servant to retrieve the lost gear. A rip in his surcoat showed that he was wearing mail.

While this is an anecdote, it's still a pretty clear illustration that mail is an excellent armour.


The sword is a different case all together, if its an early medieval cutting sword you might actually live for a few hits, unless he hits in a precise way, a proper chain will (with the padding, real chainmails where *never* used withouth padding!) prevent most slashing blows from a sword, the sword is a precision weapon after all, that being said, a hard blow will still break your arm and put you out of combat even if he can't cut anything off you, so again its back to best avoiding being hit in the first place.
The later medieval swords are a different story against chain, since many of these have a very good thrusting point, in wich case the chainmail won't do anything at all to stop the thrust, simply put, your dead.

The first half of this is pretty much true, though I think that there is no 'hitting chain in a precise way' which would make you any more susceptible to significant blunt trauma than if he simply hit the mail.


the sword against leather is also about precision, however leather armour don't tend to be interlocked like plate does and as such offers a lot less protection giving the sword more points to strike at, in addition to that a powerfull thrust guided by say a hand and a half grib will make a mockery of the protection offered by the leather, and when speaking of "mortslag/donnerslag" (the technique where you grib the blade of the sword and strike with the hilt of the blade using it as a pick-like weapon) that protection is just... non-existant.
Combine this with that leather actually hinders your mobility even more than chain or plate and your just asking for it.
Offcourse still better than having no armour at all...

It's my understanding that hardened leather is extremely susceptible to a thrust, but less so to a cut, while for unhardened leather it is the other way around. Also, I've never heard of leather armour that was used in any way except laminated or lamellar (as cuir bouille) outside of a fantasy context.


The axe is pretty much the same story as the sword with the exception that it does not give the option for a thrust, but then again the force of the impact is placed on a smaller area and even if it does'nt shred the armour your likedly to break a bone and be out of the combat anyway, nasty weapon that axe.

The axe does, in fact, give the option of the thrust. There are many varieties of axes and axe-like weapons that allow this, but the most obvious is the Halberd, followed by it's less-polearm-like sibling, the the berdysh or bardiche (http://xenophon-mil.org/rushistory/medievalarmor/russ47.jpg) depending on which language you're using.


The hammer? Well Swordguy summed it up nicedly, i'll only add that a historical hammer usually have a very small hammer head and often has a pike in the other end of the head, meaning that most types of armour is unlikedly to protect, A late medieval warhammer is such a nasty weapon that it almost makes me shed a tear of joy.

This is basically true, but it's worth consideration that hammers weren't really used on the battlefield until plate armour was developed, the mace being the closest analogue. The reasons for this I can only guess at, but my assumption is that it has to do with the comparatively short length of the single-handed hammer to the arming sword. While a single-handed hammer is only about two feet in length, an arming sword is around and sometimes well over (as is the case with some Oakeshott type XIs and XIIIs) three feet in length. Considering the prevalence of cuts to the arm and thrusts to the face in sword-and-shield combat, it makes sense that one would want to be able to counter-cut or thrust at an opening when your opponent is using a longer (though not too long) weapon.

[Matthew]

Indeed, as has been discussed inumerable times here, the actual benefits of Body Armour are highly debated. However, if it were truly easy to defeat it would surely have seen less use. That said, it's an open question.

Hammers increased in popularity during the later medieval period, but they were in use before that. Exactly how frequently they saw use in comparison to the Mace I would find it difficult to say with any authority. I have seen at least one example of a twelfth century Hammer supposedly employed by Muslim Foot Men.

In my experience, depictions of medieval warfare are largely dominated by Swords (both curved and straight), Spears and Bows (including Cross Bows). Where Axes, Hammers and Maces appear with frequency, they are replacing Spears as the primary armament of the Foot Man.

[Dervag]

Indeed, as has been discussed inumerable times here, the actual benefits of Body Armour are highly debated. However, if it were truly easy to defeat it would surely have seen less use.As illustrated by the fact that people stopped using it once it was easy to defeat. There really isn't any advantage in wearing armor that is easily penetrated by common weaponry, unless of course you want your next of kin to inherit a colander to remind them of you.

[Ruerl]

For the sake of the discussion I am going to start by pulling this one out:
Friend, during your post you have made a lot of points wich has degraded my points based on periodic weaponry, you have used very varying weaponry in your own post as examples from very different times, I would here like to point out that you should read the post you cite a lot closer before quoting and saying "this is wrong"

The spear for example is an excellent weapon against mail once it got the "diamond-tip" wich is a late medieval thing.

The Axe tends to lack the piercing point at the end until the late times, and the axes you quotes where not axes but halberds.

Finally: Please keep in mind that different periods has different armament, there is no "absolute truth" and that misunderstandings like this are bound to occur when we are asked about the whole range of the weaponry over the period.
My apologies if I where somewhat unclear in my previous post as to my exact opinion, but I hope that I am somewhat more clear in this post.

Apologies for the "chopped up" quote format.


This is out-and-out wrong. This cannot only be disproved by basic reasoning (spears were the most common weapons on the battlefield, so why use mail armour when it was completely ineffective against it?) but by recorded historical instances and, I'm sure if one did some investigation, modern experiments.

The best source I can give is a historical one, the memoirs of Usamah ibn Munquidh recalls an event in which he, mounted, leapt over a hedge and solidly struck a knight who appeared unarmoured with his lance forcefully enough for him to lose his helmet and shield. The knight was unharmed and sat waiting for a servant to retrieve the lost gear. A rip in his surcoat showed that he was wearing mail.

While this is an anecdote, it's still a pretty clear illustration that mail is an excellent armour.

Please note the part I also wrote before that, I noted that a spear with a "diamond point" would cut through the mail like spear through butter, a "diamond point" where not common in that period however is its not easy to make, making chainmail a more than adequate protection.
So no, this is not "out-and-out" wrong, it has in fact been tested more than once, (offcourse with studded mail and not larp mail) and the results has been very conclusive.

Please note again that spears with diamond points to the best of my knowledge where a late medieval thing.


The first half of this is pretty much true, though I think that there is no 'hitting chain in a precise way' which would make you any more susceptible to significant blunt trauma than if he simply hit the mail.

The precision I imply here about NOT hitting the chain, depending on how well covering the armour is, its about hitting the place withouth armour, ie: precision.


It's my understanding that hardened leather is extremely susceptible to a thrust, but less so to a cut, while for unhardened leather it is the other way around. Also, I've never heard of leather armour that was used in any way except laminated or lamellar (as cuir bouille) outside of a fantasy context.

Also my understanding, I do not believe I even stated otherwise in the post you quote, in fact I point to hand-and-a-half grib and donnerslag/mortslag as very viable option for bypassing any leather armour, both of these strikes gives thrusting damage.



The axe does, in fact, give the option of the thrust. There are many varieties of axes and axe-like weapons that allow this, but the most obvious is the Halberd, followed by it's less-polearm-like sibling, the the berdysh or bardiche (http://xenophon-mil.org/rushistory/medievalarmor/russ47.jpg) depending on which language you're using.

The Halberd is a polearm not an axe, I answered the original question with the thought in mind that the axe was likedly one-handed, most of those does NOT have points, the "beardaxe" (http://mahan.wonkwang.ac.kr/link/med/war/weapon/weapon/axes.gif) is a prime example of a normal axe in the early period.


This is basically true, but it's worth consideration that hammers weren't really used on the battlefield until plate armour was developed,

Correct, the discussion is not kept within a set timeframe wich makes such points worth noting.


the mace being the closest analogue. The reasons for this I can only guess at, but my assumption is that it has to do with the comparatively short length of the single-handed hammer to the arming sword. While a single-handed hammer is only about two feet in length, an arming sword is around and sometimes well over (as is the case with some Oakeshott type XIs and XIIIs) three feet in length. Considering the prevalence of cuts to the arm and thrusts to the face in sword-and-shield combat, it makes sense that one would want to be able to counter-cut or thrust at an opening when your opponent is using a longer (though not too long) weapon.

I would actually state that the axe with the small axe-head type is the closest comparison to the late one-handed warhammer in that the use of the weapon is to focus your damage on a small point, apart from that we agree, I would prefer a sword in those cases also, going from "Pflug" to "Ochs" through your opponents head is one of the simplest and most effective parries.

[Matthew]

There is no evidence I can think of that supports the idea that a Diamond Pointed Spear Head will penetrate Mail significantly more easily than earlier period Spear Heads. What is the source of this contention? Just about all weapons, under test conditions, will penetrate Mail given a solid blow. As I understand it, the main advantage it enjoys is robustness, which is important when seeing action against plate.

It is important to remember that on the issue of the protectiveness offered by Body Armour there is considerable debate in academic circles, so perhaps it would be helpful for us to cite our sources when discussing it.

[Edmund]

The spear for example is an excellent weapon against mail once it got the "diamond-tip" wich is a late medieval thing.

It is not a late medieval thing. 'Diamond tip' spearheads have been around since the Greeks, and were certainly present in the early medieval period, as a look at Hermann Historica's online catalogue (http://www.hermann-historica.de/auktion/hhm52.pl?f=KAPITEL&c=STANGENWAFFEN&t=temgroup_a_D&start=1&dif=20&db=kat52_A.txt) shows.

Further, the anecdote with the knight being struck firmly shows that, even if a diamond tip made any significant difference, its earlier counterpart (whatever that may be), even when used as a lance on a charging horse, was insufficient to pierce mail, or indeed harm its wearer. While this is certainly exceptional circumstance, as lance blows were often fatal (as seen in the duel between the warrior-monk Peresvet and the Tatar champion Chelubei, though whether their death was from the blunt trauma or piercing of vital organs remains open for discussion) it still shows that the man in mail was not helpless to spears.


The Axe tends to lack the piercing point at the end until the late times, and the axes you quotes where not axes but halberds.

I'll deal with this below.


Finally: Please keep in mind that different periods has different armament, there is no "absolute truth" and that misunderstandings like this are bound to occur when we are asked about the whole range of the weaponry over the period.

Yes, but those differences are not huge over short periods of time until you get to industrialised nations (things like aircraft, the rimmed cartridge, and tanks, or for earlier examples, rifling and steam ships)


So no, this is not "out-and-out" wrong, it has in fact been tested more than once, (offcourse with studded mail and not larp mail) and the results has been very conclusive.

Source, please.


Please note again that spears with diamond points to the best of my knowledge where a late medieval thing.

I've already dealt with this, but I'd just like to restate that I think you'll find diamond points to be common in armies from the first Persian War (and likely before) to the abandonment of the spear as its own weapon.


The precision I imply here about NOT hitting the chain, depending on how well covering the armour is, its about hitting the place withouth armour, ie: precision.

Ah. I misunderstood. If you're hitting where there is no armour, your opponent will inevitably be missing a few parts.


Also my understanding, I do not believe I even stated otherwise in the post you quote, in fact I point to hand-and-a-half grib and donnerslag/mortslag as very viable option for bypassing any leather armour, both of these strikes gives thrusting damage.

This is true, but I'm explaining that you don't even need to use a half-sword for piercing leather armour. The half-sword is for control as much as strength, and it was often used when guiding your weapon into the gaps of the armour. A single-handed thrust can pierce hard leather.



The Halberd is a polearm not an axe, I answered the original question with the thought in mind that the axe was likedly one-handed, most of those does NOT have points, the "beardaxe" (http://mahan.wonkwang.ac.kr/link/med/war/weapon/weapon/axes.gif) is a prime example of a normal axe in the early period.

The berdysh is not a halberd by my reckoning, and while it is true that early, single-handed axes often lacked points, and trumpet blades became more common in the late medieval era, two-handed axes with trumpet blades were not uncommon by any stretch in the early and pre-medieval period, as the Bayeux tapestry, the Maciejowski Bible (http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images/maciejowski/leaf32/otm32vc&d.gif), and other sources show us.

[Fhaolan]

It's my understanding that hardened leather is extremely susceptible to a thrust, but less so to a cut, while for unhardened leather it is the other way around. Also, I've never heard of leather armour that was used in any way except laminated or lamellar (as cuir bouille) outside of a fantasy context.

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that cuir bouille-style breastplates and the like were reasonably common in the Ancient world. Greek, Roman, etc.

[Matthew]

Heh, now you're heading for trouble... Essentially, that's another long debated subject. There is no direct evidence that the Ancient World made much use of leather at all for armour, apparently preferring linen.

However, there are many proponents and detractors for the use of leather Breast Plates by the Romans, based mainly on differing interpretations of period art.

[Edmund]

Heh, now you're heading for trouble... Essentially, that's another long debated subject. There is no direct evidence that the Ancient World made much use of leather at all for armour, apparently preferring linen.

However, there are many proponents and detractors for the use of leather Breast Plates by the Romans, based mainly on differing interpretations of period art.

I've not heard much about ancient leather armour. Rather what seems to have been prevalent (in the Greek case, at least) is the linothorax, effectively an early padded armour with tight, close stitching to make it springy and firm.

The only context I've heard of for leather is as a cheap alternative for folks that can't afford or can't get anything better (lamellar cuirassses on steppe cavalrymen, helmets or caps on Anglo-Saxon foot soldiers).

[Matthew]

Yep, that is pretty much the prevailing wisdom. The lack of surviving leather Body armour is the main stumbling block for proponents of the view. Certainly leather was used in the medieval period to make cheaper versions of armour that would otherwise be made of iron/metal.

Personally, I see no reason for that to have not been the case in the ancient world as well, but the lack of evidence means that such a view is pretty much limited to speculation.

Here are a couple of pages that discuss the subject with regards to Roman Lorica Musculata and other Body Armour:

Lorica Musculata Resource Pages (http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/lorica/)
Body Armour (Legion VI) (http://www.legionsix.org/body_armor.htm)

[Edit]
Here's an example of how discussion of the subject goes on Roman Army Talk:

Leather Cuirass Lorica Musculata, I used to think no way but... (http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=15387&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=d8c6abf5b1787a6c83e75ce735996f9f)

A search of those Forums will no doubt turn up plenty of other examples (I know I have waded through a few of them)

[Ruerl]

There is no evidence I can think of that supports the idea that a Diamond Pointed Spear Head will penetrate Mail significantly more easily than earlier period Spear Heads. What is the source of this contention? Just about all weapons, under test conditions, will penetrate Mail given a solid blow. As I understand it, the main advantage it enjoys is robustness, which is important when seeing action against plate.

It is important to remember that on the issue of the protectiveness offered by Body Armour there is considerable debate in academic circles, so perhaps it would be helpful for us to cite our sources when discussing it.

Hoplite spearhead (http://www.4hoplites.com/Aichme.jpg)
Some re-enactors playing spartans (http://www.4hoplites.com/Hoplites1.jpg), note the spear points

Note these ones, the one on the complete right (http://www.hermann-historica.de/auktion/images52_gr/55361.jpg)is what I refer to as a diamond tipped weapon
Another example of a diamond tip is on this lucernhammer (http://www.hermann-historica.de/auktion/images52_gr/59034.jpg)

Why this is better against mail than a standard "leaf point" spear should be rather obvious.

Next part:
@Edmund: Glad you bring up sources in your post, and I shall try to find mine, now that you have suggested such, will you bring up sources to back up that claim of yours, ie: the primary source, the source on hoplites having diamond tipped spears, fair is fair after all.


It is not a late medieval thing. 'Diamond tip' spearheads have been around since the Greeks, and were certainly present in the early medieval period, as a look at Hermann Historica's online catalogue (http://www.hermann-historica.de/auktion/hhm52.pl?f=KAPITEL&c=STANGENWAFFEN&t=temgroup_a_D&start=1&dif=20&db=kat52_A.txt)

I am yet to see a diamond tipped spear in the greek period, mostly because and correct me if I am wrong for I am a little shaky in that period, iron where rare and seldom used compared to the other metal materials, I think it was, bronze they used? I believe that the hardening process had not yet been developed as fully as it would later on explaining why a diamond tipped weapon being relativedly thin, would be unused, simply put it requires a lot more work in keeping the iron pure when you forge such a weapon compared to whats needed when you forge say a leaf-bladed spear.

[QUOTE=Edmund;2923120]Further, the anecdote with the knight being struck firmly shows that, even if a diamond tip made any significant difference, its earlier counterpart (whatever that may be), even when used as a lance on a charging horse, was insufficient to pierce mail, or indeed harm its wearer.

First-hand accounts are often dubious, wether they are from the greek period (just read a certain greeks account on how many persians there was at the hot gates...) or medieval (first-hand accounts of the saints riding next to the crusaders) or even later.


it still shows that the man in mail was not helpless to spears.

Most spears, correct, and then, most spears are leaf-tipped until the very late period of the medieval times up close to the renesance, at wich point mail is'nt used by modern armies anymore.


This is true, but I'm explaining that you don't even need to use a half-sword for piercing leather armour. The half-sword is for control as much as strength, and it was often used when guiding your weapon into the gaps of the armour. A single-handed thrust can pierce hard leather.

And I am explaining politedly to you, that I state it as an example of a way to shred leather armour completly, not as the only way to use halfsword gribs, I have trained medieval swordfighting over a period of five years, I am aware that there are multible uses of the halfsword grib, thank you.


The berdysh is not a halberd by my reckoning, and while it is true that early, single-handed axes often lacked points, and trumpet blades became more common in the late medieval era, two-handed axes with trumpet blades were not uncommon by any stretch in the early and pre-medieval period, as the Bayeux tapestry, the Maciejowski Bible (http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images/maciejowski/leaf32/otm32vc&d.gif), and other sources show us.

I have not seen the type of axe like that been used in thrusting in any fenching material i've seen, could you please care to elaborate on that one?


Source, please.

Offcourse, I apologize for not being able to bring up proper sources at this point I am in the middle of changing apartment and the rest of the group wich I could borrow the materials from (some of wich are much more knowledgeable than I) are at a re-enactment market at the present time.
I shall get some proper sources as soon as I have the time, ie: once the rest of the group who has the materials returns (somewhere after the 4th of august -I won't be done moving till a week after that point).

in the meantime, here is a video of a greatswords testcutting for fun, not very applicable for the discussion, but entertaining.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFAKTjOQJwQ&NR=1

Finally on armour on the ancient time, would it not be likedly to assume that they used padded armour just as in the later period? I believe Thukydid mentioned something about that, but then, everything he said should be taken with a grain of salt as should most accounts from that time, i'll try to dig up some sources on it sometime later once i'm done moving, its just so awfully long since I studied the subject, and even then I only studied him as I had to as a part of the course (I used to study history at the university of Århus).

[Matthew]

Hoplite spearhead (http://www.4hoplites.com/Aichme.jpg)
Some re-enactors playing spartans (http://www.4hoplites.com/Hoplites1.jpg), note the spear points

Note these ones, the one on the complete right (http://www.hermann-historica.de/auktion/images52_gr/55361.jpg)is what I refer to as a diamond tipped weapon
Another example of a diamond tip is on this lucernhammer (http://www.hermann-historica.de/auktion/images52_gr/59034.jpg)

Why this is better against mail than a standard "leaf point" spear should be rather obvious.

Unfortunately, it is not obvious that a Diamond Shaped Spear Head will penetrate Mail significantly more effectively than any other type of Spear Head. Just pointing out that such a Spear Head tapers more narrowly than these others and assuming that it will therefore slip between the links or burst them open with ease does not constitute evidence of its effectiveness. On the other hand a Diamond Shaped Spear Head, I could well imagine being more effective against Plate, but in both cases it is evidence that we are here lacking.


I am yet to see a diamond tipped spear in the greek period, mostly because and correct me if I am wrong for I am a little shaky in that period, iron where rare and seldom used compared to the other metal materials, I think it was, bronze they used? I believe that the hardening process had not yet been developed as fully as it would later on explaining why a diamond tipped weapon being relativedly thin, would be unused, simply put it requires a lot more work in keeping the iron pure when you forge such a weapon compared to whats needed when you forge say a leaf-bladed spear.

Quite evidently supposition on your part. 'The Greek period' is a lengthy one and you need to be much more precise about what you are referring to. Certainly, the classic Hoplite Doru had an iron/steel head and perhaps a Bronze 'Diamond Shaped' spiked bottom.


First-hand accounts are often dubious, wether they are from the greek period (just read a certain greeks account on how many persians there was at the hot gates...) or medieval (first-hand accounts of the saints riding next to the crusaders) or even later.

Yes indeed, but a combination of art, literature, physical evidence and archaeological experimentation is all we have to go on. All are important parts of the whole for understanding the past.


Most spears, correct, and then, most spears are leaf-tipped until the very late period of the medieval times up close to the renesance, at wich point mail is'nt used by modern armies anymore.

Actually, this line of reasoning more clearly suggests that Tapered (Diamond) Shaped Heads were effective at penetrating Plate, not that they are more effective at penetrating Mail. On the other hand, Throwing Spears very often had narrower heads than Thrusting Spears during all periods, which suggests that there is a trade off with regard to design somewhere along the line.
Here is a link to a page where you can see a number of varied Spear Heads from the Late Roman Republic to the Late Roman Empire: Roman Military Equipment (http://romanmilitaryequipment.co.uk/figures.htm). You should be able to see there a great variety of Spear Head forms. Bear in mind that Lorica Segmentata was in common use only from the very Late Republic through to the end of the Early Empire and was never the only Body Armour in use. Mail, on the other hand, was in common use right through the period.


Finally on armour on the ancient time, would it not be likedly to assume that they used padded armour just as in the later period? I believe Thukydid mentioned something about that, but then, everything he said should be taken with a grain of salt as should most accounts from that time, i'll try to dig up some sources on it sometime later once i'm done moving, its just so awfully long since I studied the subject, and even then I only studied him as I had to as a part of the course (I used to study history at the university of Århus).

Yes, Linen (or Textile) Body Armour, as mentioned above, was relatively common, but that does not preclude the contemporary existence of Leather Body Armour any more than it does in the medieval period. However, where there is clear evidence for medieval leather armour, there is virtually none for ancient leather armour (in the Ancient Mediterranean).

[Edmund]

Note these ones, the one on the complete right (http://www.hermann-historica.de/auktion/images52_gr/55361.jpg)is what I refer to as a diamond tipped weapon
Another example of a diamond tip is on this lucernhammer (http://www.hermann-historica.de/auktion/images52_gr/59034.jpg)


What? Ohhhhhhhh.... We have miscommunicated. What you call a diamond point I call an awl point, as on the ahlspiesse.

When you said diamond I thought you were referring to something resembling this (http://www.myarmoury.com/images/features/pic_spotxv02.gif), like the diamonds on playing cards.

This is a point designed for fighting armour, but to say that it easily defeats mail is still wrong. It might have an easier time of it, but even so maille with appropriate padding provides a very effective defence against it.


@Edmund: Glad you bring up sources in your post, and I shall try to find mine, now that you have suggested such, will you bring up sources to back up that claim of yours, ie: the primary source, the source on hoplites having diamond tipped spears, fair is fair after all.

At least one of the hoplite spears you showed has what I was talking about when I said a diamond tip, but it turns out that it was miscommunication, so this is a moot point.


I am yet to see a diamond tipped spear in the greek period, mostly because and correct me if I am wrong for I am a little shaky in that period, iron where rare and seldom used compared to the other metal materials, I think it was, bronze they used? I believe that the hardening process had not yet been developed as fully as it would later on explaining why a diamond tipped weapon being relativedly thin, would be unused, simply put it requires a lot more work in keeping the iron pure when you forge such a weapon compared to whats needed when you forge say a leaf-bladed spear.

Actually, iron and steel weapons were very common in the classic 'hoplite' era, and in fact it takes less skillful smithing to make an awl point than it does to make what you call a leaf blade. This is evident historically, as shown by weapons like the goedendag, and I know it through personal experience.


First-hand accounts are often dubious, wether they are from the greek period (just read a certain greeks account on how many persians there was at the hot gates...) or medieval (first-hand accounts of the saints riding next to the crusaders) or even later.

There are multiple other sources that marvel at or show the strength of mail. Anna Komnena, various Islamic sources, and modern sources like Alan Williams (the Knight and the Blast Furnace) and Matthew Strickland (the Great Warbow).


Most spears, correct, and then, most spears are leaf-tipped until the very late period of the medieval times up close to the renesance, at wich point mail is'nt used by modern armies anymore.

Actually, mail remained popular up until the late 16th century, with the death of pike and musket and, as some say, the Renaissance.




I have not seen the type of axe like that been used in thrusting in any fenching material i've seen, could you please care to elaborate on that one?

This is speculation on my part, extrapolated from the length of the axe hafts (5' or so) and the shape of the blade and its similarities with axes that were known for use in thrusting.

[Ruerl]

Unfortunately, it is not obvious that a Diamond Shaped Spear Head will penetrate Mail significantly more effectively than any other type of Spear Head. Just pointing out that such a Spear Head tapers more narrowly than these others and assuming that it will therefore slip between the links or burst them open with ease does not constitute evidence of its effectiveness. On the other hand a Diamond Shaped Spear Head, I could well imagine being more effective against Plate, but in both cases it is evidence that we are here lacking.

As for the topic of the diamond pointed spear versus the chainmail I have been told that there has been made tests on such part, and I shall try to get it as soon as possible, though due to me moving that may be some time.


Quite evidently supposition on your part. 'The Greek period' is a lengthy one and you need to be much more precise about what you are referring to. Certainly, the classic Hoplite Doru had an iron/steel head and perhaps a Bronze 'Diamond Shaped' spiked bottom.

As I stated, I am not strong in the "greek period" and do not mind being corrected, as for the time of the period, I date it from the first post-minoan culture to the period just before the roman ascend and dominance of the classic world -sorry for the somewhat vague description.


Yes indeed, but a combination of art, literature, physical evidence and archaeological experimentation is all we have to go on. All are important parts of the whole for understanding the past.

Agreed, however we must keep our source critism in mind at all times wether studying cicero's account of how he led the trial against Verres or wether we look at the archeological finds, history is full of examples of how a source can be misinterpretated, for example Caesar Augustus, or emperor Augustus as he is more commonly known, where in a long period believed to have seen himself as above and better than the other roman citizens of the period, due to a fragment found wich stated that he was "prima inter" and then something lacked, making the historians do guesswork, another tablet with the full text where later found making the sentence complete to "primer inter pares" or "first among equeals".

This being said, we do actually have some pretty good sources on especially roman antique weaponry, I am in the lucky situation myself that I live in the town with one of the single biggest collections of roman period weapons (wich is ironic, the roman empire had laws against selling their weapons to outsiders, yet the weapons in the museum where tossed down into a bog after a battle as a sacrifice to the gods, that conserved them till today, the irony offcourse is that I live in Denmark quite a bit away from the furthest border of the roman empire).


Actually, this line of reasoning more clearly suggests that Tapered (Diamond) Shaped Heads were effective at penetrating Plate, not that they are more effective at penetrating Mail. On the other hand, Throwing Spears very often had narrower heads than Thrusting Spears during all periods, which suggests that there is a trade off with regard to design somewhere along the line.
Here is a link to a page where you can see a number of varied Spear Heads from the Late Roman Republic to the Late Roman Empire: Roman Military Equipment (http://romanmilitaryequipment.co.uk/figures.htm). You should be able to see there a great variety of Spear Head forms. Bear in mind that Lorica Segmentata was in common use only from the very Late Republic through to the end of the Early Empire and was never the only Body Armour in use. Mail, on the other hand, was in common use right through the period.


It is effective against plate to start off, very effective since its designed against such in the first place.
However! That its designed to deal with plate does NOT mean its ineffective or even worse, against chainmail, if a weapon is to be able to punctuate a plate then I would be pretty sure that it won't have problems with chainmail either, afterall if the reverse was true then the platewearer could just swap his plate with chain if he came up against a pike formation, or have a small chainshirt below the plate.


Yes, Linen (or Textile) Body Armour, as mentioned above, was relatively common, but that does not preclude the contemporary existence of Leather Body Armour any more than it does in the medieval period. However, where there is clear evidence for medieval leather armour, there is virtually none for ancient leather armour (in the Ancient Mediterranean).

According to Polybius' "history of the world" who wrote on the roman legion prior to the reforms of Gaius Marius the equipment and draft is according to age, starting with the velites (velox = quick/swift) who he does'nt give much explanation on except that they carry a shield and a throwing spear, then comes the Hastati (hastati means littrally "armed with a spear" (hasta) ), who are to wear a full panoply (pan = all, (h)opla = arms) who are to wear a shield, a thrusting sword called a spanish sword, two javelins, one brass helmet, greaves and in addition to this a small bronze breastplate placed in front of the heart, some soldiers who had more than 10.000 drachmas would instead of a heart protector wear a chainmail.

Note however that the above is according to Polybius*, and that he has some alterations as his text is designed for greek readers, hence the use of drachmas instead of the roman denari.

Bottom line on source critism however is that we can see some of the real things from the past by looking at the minor details that the author did not think of, there is for example an account of the freedom love of a german slave who takes the toilet cleaner and chokes himself on it, now we can offcourse not know wether or not that story is true, but we can from that story tell that the romans had a sort of toilet cleaners and toilets, same way when another description tells us that a slave committed suicide by placing his head between the spokes of the wheel so that his neck was broken, that story can offcourse be a lie, but the author gives us an insight in the shape of wheels back then wich we otherwise could have a hard time knowing in addition to this the example shows us that the roman author knew that breaking the neck of a man killed him and that it was common knowledge.

There are probably sources like these that also describe contemporary armour withouth having it as its main focus.

*source:
Jo-Ann Shelton "as the romands did" p. 245 & 246, ISBN: 0-19-508973-1

[Matthew]

As for the topic of the diamond pointed spear versus the chainmail I have been told that there has been made tests on such part, and I shall try to get it as soon as possible, though due to me moving that may be some time.

Okay, well, I will be interested in the data. The problem with such things is that they rarely prove to be conclusive (somebody will always dispute the test conditions).


It is effective against plate to start off, very effective since its designed against such in the first place.
However! That its designed to deal with plate does NOT mean its ineffective or even worse, against chainmail, if a weapon is to be able to punctuate a plate then I would be pretty sure that it won't have problems with chainmail either, afterall if the reverse was true then the platewearer could just swap his plate with chain if he came up against a pike formation, or have a small chainshirt below the plate.

Well, you see, Mail and Plate have very different resistances and, although there are some 'transitional' examples and exceptions, Plate was rarely worn over Mail, rather Mail was used to cover areas that Plate could not or such is my understanding.
Certainly, a tapering Spear Point will act differently on Mail and probably more effectively; I only take issue with the idea that it is significantly more likely to overcome Mail than other types of Spear Heads, and do not contend that it would behave worse than them.
So to clarify, my opinion is that Plate is a more effective defence than Mail and that a Diamond Shaped Spear Head is more effective against Plate than other types of Spear, but I do not think that it follows that it is significantly more effective against Mail. In short, just about any Spear Head or Sword thrust will go through Mail, given a good solid blow.


According to Polybius' "history of the world" who wrote on the roman legion prior to the reforms of Gaius Marius the equipment and draft is according to age, starting with the velites (velox = quick/swift) who he does'nt give much explanation on except that they carry a shield and a throwing spear, then comes the Hastati (hastati means littrally "armed with a spear" (hasta) ), who are to wear a full panoply (pan = all, (h)opla = arms) who are to wear a shield, a thrusting sword called a spanish sword, two javelins, one brass helmet, greaves and in addition to this a small bronze breastplate placed in front of the heart, some soldiers who had more than 10.000 drachmas would instead of a heart protector wear a chainmail.

Heh, a passage I am very familiar with. Even the level of detail he provides leaves us somewhat in the dark. For instance, he does not actually say 'Mail', that we are left to conclude for ourselves, though it could equally be Lorica Squamata as Lorica Hamata. The 'Spanish sword' is actually described as being good for both cut and thrust and recent archaeological finds suggest that it was rather longer than the later Gladius types. We have discussed this passage a few times over the course of these Threads and what conclusions can be drawn. RomanArmyTalk is an excellent resource for further information on the subject.


There are probably sources like these that also describe contemporary armour withouth having it as its main focus.

More than likely. As I say, the problems come when people want to say things definitively with regard to Arms and Armour, because there are always counter examples to be had. One text will say X penetrated Y easily, another will say Y resisted X easily; one test will favour X, another will favour Y.

For example, blows that chop men in half through body armour and all are common place in medieval literature and not uncommon in medieval history, but a realistic assessment of such feats suggests they are not probable. That said, they may well be exaggerations rather than outright fabrications.

By the same token, I would not say that a Diamond Pointed Spear Head is not more effective at penetrating Mail than another type, only that it is not likely to be significantly more effective.

[Stephen_E]

For example, blows that chop men in half through body armour and all are common place in medieval literature and not uncommon in medieval history, but a realistic assessment of such feats suggests they are not probable. That said, they may well be exaggerations rather than outright fabrications.



I suspect the "chopped a man in half" may be much like some of the "diamond point" debate. People using the same term for different things.

Technically you could say that a person hasn't been chopped in half unless they're actually in two peices. In literal use I suspect many very deep wounds to the torso would be decribed as "chopped in half".

Stephen

[Dervag]

So, to give an example, by this medieval usage the fatal blow that Miko dealt to Lord Shojo would qualify as "chopped in half?"

[Matthew]

Usually they are quite explicit as to what happens. For example:


Middle English Richard Coeur de Lyon


"Thou lyest,” quod R., “be Goddes grace!”
And wiþ hys ax he smot hym soo,
Þat hys myddyl fflow in twoo.
Þere halff þe body ffel adoun,
And þat oþir halff leffte in þe arsoun.’



Middle English Guy of Warwick


His swerd anon vp he hef,
Morgadour doun rit he clef
Fram þe heued doun to þe fot:
Of þat stroke no com him neuer bot.



Continuation Guy of Warwick


Sir Gij was wroþ anon fot hot,
& Berard on þe helme he smot:
To stond hadde he no space;
For boþe helmes he carf atvo,
& his heued he dede also
In midward of þe face.
Þurch al his bodi þe swerd bot
Into þe erþe wele half a fot,
Þat seiþe place.



Middle Englsih Charles the Grete

Charles, whyche sawe the facyon, descended and lyght of hys hors, alle wroth in hys courage, & sette hys shelde tofore hym, with hys swerde in hys hande, and hys barons came after hym ayenst the geaunt. & after that the kyng & he were assembled, Charles with hys swerde Ioyous smote hym soo myghtely that he clefte hym in two pieces, & myghtely recouerd hys stroke, that he maad hym falle to the erthe, and soo he was deed. Wherfore the Sarasyns were alle moued and affrayed,



Latin Pseudo Turpin


His strength was such that with one blow of his sword he could cleave a fully armed enemy knight on horseback in two from top to bottom, horse and all. He could easily straighten out four horseshoes with his bare hands at the same time. In a trice and with one hand, he could lift a fully armed knight, standing upright on the palm of his hand, off the ground as high as his head.



Middle English Pseudo Turpin

And in thys poynt Roulland, reconfermed in hys strengthe, trustyng veryly in the myght of god and in the name of Ihesus, as a lyon entered in to the bataylle, & emonge them he encountred a sarasyn whyche was gretter than ony of the other, & gaf to hym so grete a stroke wyth durandal vpon the hede that he clefte hym & hys hors in two partes, that the one parte went on one syde & that other on the other syde.



William of Tyre's Historia

Dux vero Lotaringie, etsi in toto conflictu optime se habuerat, tamencirca pontem, iam advesperascente die, tantum tamque insigne virtutis, qua singulariter preminebat, dedit argumentum, ut perpetua dignum iudicetur memoria factum eius celebre, quo se exercitui universo reddidit insignem. Nam postquam multorum capita loricatorum, sine ictus repetitione, solita virtute amputavit, unum de hostibus, protervius instantem, licet lorica indutum per medium divisit, ita ut pars ab umbilico superior ad terram decideret, reliqua parte super equum, cui insederat, infra urbem introducta. Obstpuit populus visa facti novitiate nec latere patitur quod ubique predicat factum tam mirabile.

The Duke of Lorraine had borne himself most valiantly throughout the entire engagement, but, toward evening, in the struggle around the bridge, he gave notable proof of the strength for which he was so distinguished. He performed there a famous deed worthy of remembrance forever ~ a feat which rendered him illustrious in the eyes of the entire army. With his usual prowess, he had already decapitated many a mailed knight at a single stroke. Finally he boldly pursued another knight and, though the latter was protected by a breastplate, clove him through the middle. The upper part of the body above the waist fell to the ground, while the lower part was carried along into the city astride his galloping horse. This strange sight struck fear and amazement to all who witnessed it. The marvellous feat could not remain unknown, but rumour spread the story everywhere.

and on a lesser occasion...


William of Tyre's Historia

In quo congressu domini imperatoris factum seculis memorabile dicitur accidisse, nam uni de resistentibus, viriliter et strenue dimicanti, quam vis loricato, uno ictu caput, collum *** sinistro humero et brachio coherente simulque partem subiecti lateris dicitur amputasse. Quod factum cives, tum qui hoc viderant, tum eos qui ex aliorum relatione idipsum cognoverant, in tantam deiecit formidinem, ut et de resistendo et de vita penitus desperarent.

During this engagement, the emperor is reported to have performed a memorable feat. He is said to have slain in a most remarkable way a Turkish knight who was making a strenuous and courageous resistance. With one blow of his sword, he severed from the body of his enemy the head, neck, the left shoulder with the arm attached, and also a part of the side. This indeed caused such terror, not only to those citizens who witnessed the feat but even those who had merely heard the story from others, that they lost all hope of resisting and despaired even of life itself.

These are probably best read symbolically than literally, but they are quite explicit about the events themselves. There are other passages that describe different fatal injuries. The 'chopped in half' motif is usually saved for a big moment or occurs to highlight the prowess of the hero.

[Stephen_E]

So, to give an example, by this medieval usage the fatal blow that Miko dealt to Lord Shojo would qualify as "chopped in half?"

<Relooks at comic>, hell yes. That blow went 90% through him. A nudge sideways and he'd literally fold in half sideways. I'd bet good money anyone writing about it would describe it as chopped in half. And I wouldn't quibble about medieval usage. Modern usage by media would probably be the same.

Stephen

[Dervag]

<Relooks at comic>, hell yes. That blow went 90% through him. A nudge sideways and he'd literally fold in half sideways. I'd bet good money anyone writing about it would describe it as chopped in half. And I wouldn't quibble about medieval usage. Modern usage by media would probably be the same.

StephenNever said I was quibbling. After all, I seem to recall that I myself used the word 'bisected' to describe what happened to Shojo. I was just trying to illustrate the point with a reference that we all have immediate access to and that isn't written in a foreign language such as Middle English.

OK, I exaggerate; I can sort of understand Middle English but only if I read it phonetically to myself in a silly voice. For some reason it helps me understand it when I say it.

[Wehrkind]

Reading stories like that though always remind me more of modern action movies than anything "realistic" though. The heroes do crazy things that are feasible with some arbitrarily high amount of strength or skill, but those levels are pretty much completely outside the realm of humanity. I always got the feeling that reading those stories as reasonable examples of what was done now and again in the times is like watching wire-fu or Outlaw Jose Wales or some such and thinking "yea, that's possible." Sure, it is possible shoot 4 men dead aiming from the hip within 3 seconds, yet it is unlikely to the point of impossibility. (Makes for a great movie, however!)

[sakusha]

This may not be the best place to pose this question, but could someone at least point me in the right direction?

I would like to try making (for a costume) a breastplate & pauldrons. Could I get any advice on how to do so or a location (GitP thread, website, or book etc.) that is better?

[Fhaolan]

This may not be the best place to pose this question, but could someone at least point me in the right direction?

I would like to try making (for a costume) a breastplate & pauldrons. Could I get any advice on how to do so or a location (GitP thread, website, or book etc.) that is better?

Were you wanting a historical breastplate & pauldrons, or a fantasy one?

And how much time, money & effort were you thinking? I've seen costume armor made from paper-mache and modge-podge (rather sad looking) all the way up to stainless steel.

Most people who are interested in armor for costuming end up renting it, or buying one of those cheezy plastic Roman things.

[Ruerl]

This may not be the best place to pose this question, but could someone at least point me in the right direction?

I would like to try making (for a costume) a breastplate & pauldrons. Could I get any advice on how to do so or a location (GitP thread, website, or book etc.) that is better?

Well, to better answer that I need to ask a few questions:

1: what intent do you have with the armour? And in what quality would you like it?
2: Is it for a one-shot use or is it a genuine hobby that you would like to delve into?
3: If it is a genuine hobby, do you like working with metal?

I cannot make armour myself though I know one or two who can, and when I asked around with the same question I was given a few very helpfull words:

1: Find someone to teach you, its a craft thats best taught, reading about it will take at least twice the time and yield half the quality.
2: If you only intent to make one piece of armour ever, forget about it and buy it online instead, its quicker and counting hours spendt working on a proper piece, cheaper.
3: If deciding to buy it, make sure you get your size down correct, get someone else to measure your size (And get something proper to wear beneath the plate and for gods sake, remember this in your measurements! A plate with nearly no padding hurts!), and do it twice just to be on the safe side, its bitter to buy (or make) a piece of plate that you can't fit into, plate does'nt adjust to your body like for example chain and as such requires quite a bit more work on making sure it fits *you* (on the bright side, if it is made properly its much more comfromtably to move in than chainmail).
4: If deciding to buy it: Buy a highly polished version of whatever you intent to buy, it does'nt cost additional and a tip on it: highly polished plate parts shows any faulths in the plate when they are made, thus a skilled smith will tend to sell you polished plate free of additional charge, a dark plate has a much easier time hiding faulths wich happened in the creation process.
5: If possible if buying it, make sure to speak to the smith in person and have him take your measurements, and chat with him about how you'd like your armour, that way you can often get a discount (I know thats happened to me :smallwink: ) and more importantly: you can be sure it fits you properly.

I personally own a plate helmet (sallet), a breastplate, backplate and full arms and to give you a few tips if you do aquire it:

1: Make sure you have the right tools to keep your plate in good shape, a polish (I use something called "autosol" wich can be bought in bike shops) but "VD40" can be used as well.
Also remember to have something to maintain the leather straps in your armour with, most plate pieces have leather straps that needs regulair maintenance.
2: Buy some *very* fine sandpaper, corn(sp?) 1000+, this is for the times your plate gets rust despite your best efforts, and it will happen.
3: Get an additional toothbrush, its good for reaching the hard places when you polish your plate.
4: Get something proper to wear beneath the plate and for gods sake, remember this in your measurements! A plate with nearly no padding hurts!

Finally, if you still intent to go through with making your own plate pieces, please tell wich country you are from, several people in here might be able to point you towards someone that could teach you in your own country.

In any case, good luck.

Regards

Lars

p.s.
Just to say it one more time: Take your measurements or better yet get someone else, preferably the smith to take them, if you are the smith, adjust the measurements constantly as you work.
Include padding in your measurements.

[sakusha]

Were you wanting a historical breastplate & pauldrons, or a fantasy one?

And how much time, money & effort were you thinking? I've seen costume armor made from paper-mache and modge-podge (rather sad looking) all the way up to stainless steel.

Most people who are interested in armor for costuming end up renting it, or buying one of those cheezy plastic Roman things.

I really want to make the costume so that I can enter it in a contest and because I'm a masochist like that.

However, it is more of a fantasy thing and it probably won't develop into a personal hobby. I'm willing to invest some money on it because I want it to look good, but I can't go all the way up to real armor. (I'm still in college.)

[Fhaolan]

I really want to make the costume so that I can enter it in a contest and because I'm a masochist like that.

However, it is more of a fantasy thing and it probably won't develop into a personal hobby. I'm willing to invest some money on it because I want it to look good, but I can't go all the way up to real armor. (I'm still in college.)

Okay, I have to be *really* specific here. Are you entering in a costume contest, or are you entering a costume into a contest. If you're entering a costume into a contest, that means you have to make a majority of the costume which eliminates the 'rent or buy' option right off the bat. :)

If you're interested in rent or buy, I recommend http://www.costumearmour.com/

If you have to make the costume yourself, here's a page of links http://www.costumes.org/History/100pages/militaryuniforms.htm#How%20to%20Make

[Swordguy]

Where are you and what's your budget?

[sakusha]

Where are you and what's your budget?

Ohio and around $100.

[sakusha]

Okay, I have to be *really* specific here. Are you entering in a costume contest, or are you entering a costume into a contest. If you're entering a costume into a contest, that means you have to make a majority of the costume which eliminates the 'rent or buy' option right off the bat. :)

If you're interested in rent or buy, I recommend http://www.costumearmour.com/

If you have to make the costume yourself, here's a page of links http://www.costumes.org/History/100pages/militaryuniforms.htm#How%20to%20Make

Yes, I'm entering the costume into a contest and thanks for the links!

[Fhaolan]

Yeah, for that kind of budget, and for it's purpose, what you need to be looking at is cosplay kind of stuff. The foam-base armor made by cosplayers when they want to match an anime or video-game character. Some of those links will send you in the right direction. Ignore the chainmaille links, you probably don't have the time to deal with that kind of stuff. :smallsmile:

[Swordguy]

Yeah, for that kind of budget, and for it's purpose, what you need to be looking at is cosplay kind of stuff. The foam-base armor made by cosplayers when they want to match an anime or video-game character. Some of those links will send you in the right direction. Ignore the chainmaille links, you probably don't have the time to deal with that kind of stuff. :smallsmile:

Go talk to LARPers, specifically NERO players (who get in-game protection dependent on the out-of-game armor they are wearing).

Nero Central Ohio (http://www.ohio-ogre.com/)

They're all about making armor on a budget.

[Wehrkind]

Leather with sections of metal is probably also a good way to go. I made my former roommate very nice bracers, shin guards and a cav. skirt out of leather I got on sale and some cheap sheet steel I got at a hardware store, for about 25$ total (I already had rivets and tools though). Smaller bits of metal are easier to work with, cheaper to aquire, and when designed artistically can really set off the look, all while being relatively simple in construction.
I also suggest leather since it can be dealt with more like cloth until you wax harden it, at which point it is quite resillient. You can also drill holes in leather easily, sew it if you'd like, glue it, dye it; all manner of things. I have seen very striking armor (for LARP) made with a basic leather vest with leather bits dyed different colors arranged in a mosaic pattern. (Granted, it was striking partially because the pattern *ahem* augmented the... it made the chick's tits look great, for lack of a better phrase.) Not to mention my fighting armor is red leather scale stitched to a canvas backing, and I am recognized rather far and wide for just that (no one knows me outside of it.) Simple design, fantastic effect.

In sum, metal is cool, but leather is easier and can be combined with metal to do very cool things at a fraction of the effort and cost.

[Skjaldbakka]

NERO player, here with link. Ironically, this armor will not work at a NERO event, due to its low-tolerance of heat and abuse, but I stumbled across it while researching making armor. It looks good, though:

http://amethyst-angel.com/armormaking.html

[Nekoshodan]

I have seen a bit of the discussions involving leather armor here, and I believe there may be something missing. Particularly when someone mentioned hardened leather being more susceptible to piercing.

I have only seen references to wax-hardening, and statements that say 'when' rather than 'if,' but there is another method of hardening leather that uses very hot water.


I much prefer water-hardened leather to wax-hardened. I have some of each, and the wax almost seems to act as a lubricant to any blade that tries to cut or pierce it. The water-hardened leather scales I have made on the other hand seem much more protective.

The downside is that water-hardening is a much less forgiving process, and leaves the product a bit more susceptible to the elements; not really waterproof, etc.

If you make a mistake in wax-hardening, you just heat it back up and try again. Water-hardening shrinks the piece a bit, and can warp the shape if you aren't careful. If you overdo it, it's too brittle. And once it's done, that's it. If you screwed it up, it's garbage.

I can't remember the exact site that first described the process to me, but it shouldn't be hard to find with a google search involving SCA and making leather armor. I'm probably mispelling it, but 'cuir buillet' a medieval term for hardened leather, actually means 'boiled leather'

Nekoshodan

[sakusha]

NERO player, here with link. Ironically, this armor will not work at a NERO event, due to its low-tolerance of heat and abuse, but I stumbled across it while researching making armor. It looks good, though:

http://amethyst-angel.com/armormaking.html

Wow thanks! That looks like it should help a lot!

Any idea how expensive polystyrene runs and how workable it is?

[SmileyX]

Alright i don't know how well this fits into the thread as a whole, but i thought this would be the best place to ask. My question has to do with the optimal range for firearms in D&D and D20 before they start taking penalties on AB. In the DMG a Renaissance pistol has a range increment of 50ft., and the Modern Era Revolver has a range increment of 30ft., to me this looks strange. If i were to go and design a set of 'Old West' Firearms, what Range Increments should i start with in terms of Revolvers and Rifles(I'm hoping to make several 'levels' of guns)? I'm sorry for the vagueness, and i hope this is the right place for such a question. Thanks ahead of time to anyone who helps me here.

[Mike_G]

Alright i don't know how well this fits into the thread as a whole, but i thought this would be the best place to ask. My question has to do with the optimal range for firearms in D&D and D20 before they start taking penalties on AB. In the DMG a Renaissance pistol has a range increment of 50ft., and the Modern Era Revolver has a range increment of 30ft., to me this looks strange. If i were to go and design a set of 'Old West' Firearms, what Range Increments should i start with in terms of Revolvers and Rifles(I'm hoping to make several 'levels' of guns)? I'm sorry for the vagueness, and i hope this is the right place for such a question. Thanks ahead of time to anyone who helps me here.


I'd give black powder pistols a range increment of 10'. Even modern handgun fights tend to get sloppy at ranges over 20 feet. Muskets would have a longer ranger, and rifled muskets even longer, but will load slower.

A recent test was done with very good late model civil war era rifle muskets, and at 80 yards, trained shooters were getting hits on a group of man sized targets in formation about half the time, and getting off two shots per minute.

Aiming at a single, probably moving target, under actual combat conditions, I'd assume that the percentage would be much worse, and that's for a very good musket.

[Pilum]

I don't know about Old West firearms, but for the sake of advancing knowledge (the purpose of this thread, I guess), a brief article about firing a 17th century matchlock: Click. (http://www.thesealedknot.org.uk/knowbase/docs/0038_LiveShoot.htm)

[Storm Bringer]

'Old West' firearms (i'm taking this to mean c.1860-90) tended to be rilfed, with magazines fed guns being introduced in this period. The armies of this time often lagged a few years behind the state of the art, and muzzle loading Percussion rilfe-muskets were the standard until the mid-1870's, well after magazine fed weapons were available. An (in)famous example is the Battle of Little Bighorn (aka Custer's Last Stand) , where the Indians were armed with mainly springfield made lever-action carbines that were both longer ranged and faster firing than tHe Cav's civil war era breech loaders.

The frist machine guns WERE around, but no-one really knew how to deploy them: Most armies saw crew served weapons like this as being a artillary system and mounted the guns on classic carridges and placed them like normal cannon. however, they found the guns did very little in this manner, as they spent most of the time out of effective range. the carridges also made it harder to sweep large areas ground, futher limiting their effectivness. sometime in the 1870's, these sorts of problems were ironed out and the guns became useful in combat, though still not the army destorying weapons of WW1 (we are still talking about manually driven automatic fire, and the systems jammed often and had much lower rates of fire than a modern MG.)


the classic Colt Navy revolver and it's ilk came about in this era. they were orignally presscussion cap single action guns (the user needed to pull back the hammer manually before firing, and reloading the gun took ages as each round had to be squeezed into the chamber with a lever.) later in the period, the break open design appeared (the flip out build is a 1900's idea), speeding things up a lot. Double action guns also appears (where pulling the trigger cocked the hammer then released it)

any questions on a particular weapon or weapon type?

[Fhaolan]

Actually, I find that an interesting sociological question around the American Civil War/Old West eras with regards to weapon development. In the modern era, weapon development is driven by the military, and it's difficult for civilians to get cutting-edge weaponry. In the Civil War/Old West eras, the military was lagging behind while the civilians were buying up the cutting-edge stuff.

What changed? And when did the flip occur?

[Storm Bringer]

Basically, the issues of budget and command lag held back the armies in this period: Many commanders didn't comprehend the effects of tech on their tactics (the Civil war started with armies trained to fight at Waterloo level tech, and bayonet and cav charges were thought of as valid tactics agianst rilfes and MACHINE GUNS), and the those who realised it did mostly found the money they had wasn't enough to rebuild their armies form the ground up in the manner that was needed.

Also, the effective peace between western armies in this period (the last major war between major european powers before 1914 was in 1871 with the Franco Prussian war, 43 years ago) ment that the armies couldn't see the ways the tech was affecting war, as they rarely fought a foe armed with simmilar levels of tech.

Also, the State of the Art tech was always harder to make and maintain than the army issue equipment. What works for a civilian hunter, Who might be in the field for a week or so, who has the time and training to maintain a tempermental piece of equipment, and who can easily go to a gunsmith to fix a damaged gun isn't always what works for a Army that may need to keep troops out of supply for weeks on end, and issue the gun to soldiers with only basic training in maintaince. Also, until mass production techinques could design a gun, it wasn't possible to make enough of them to equip armies with.

As time wore on, however, the high level commanders were replaced with newer soldiers who were more modern in training and outlook, and the kinks in tech were Iorned out, leading to high quality guns behing available at reasonable cost with tolrable levels of maintaince. Mass production allowed enough guns to be made, and the standard of training rose (even as the armies switched to conscription as the standard model of recruiting), allowing the line infantry to weild these weapons.

as to WHEN this happened, I'd say late 1870s-early 1880's. Armies fighting natives began to rely more and more on their better guns and training in this period (zulu wars, etc).

[Raum]

Development costs are what changed. Good black powder rifles could be turned out by small gunsmiths with a minimal to moderate investment in equipment. Most of it powered by cheap manual labor. They were also able to experiment...which led to some very odd weapons as well as some good ones. Today, even creating a relatively simple modern combat rifle requires a much larger investment in infrastructure. And once you start looking at weapons still under development, the investment goes up exponentially.

[Sulecrist]

Many commanders didn't comprehend the effects of tech on their tactics (the Civil war started with armies trained to fight at Waterloo level tech, and bayonet and cav charges were thought of as valid tactics agianst rilfes and MACHINE GUNS), and the those who realised it did mostly found the money they had wasn't enough to rebuild their armies form the ground up in the manner that was needed.

Sorry, do you mean World War I? Perhaps I've missed something, but I've been living a few miles from Gettysburg all my life, and a tourist for almost as long--I've never seen bayonet and cavalry charges outright condemned during that period (with a few exceptions) and never heard of machine guns being [edit: reliably] used.

Another thought occurs to me: do you mean a Civil war other than the American one?

[Zincorium]

Sorry, do you mean World War I? Perhaps I've missed something, but I've been living a few miles from Gettysburg all my life, and a tourist for almost as long--I've never seen bayonet and cavalry charges outright condemned during that period (with a few exceptions) and never heard of machine guns being used.

Another thought occurs to me: do you mean a Civil war other than the American one?

Storm Bringer wasn't saying they were condemned, he was saying they were still thought of as perfectly valid tactics regardless of the introduction of new weapons that made them less effective than they were previously. You can get that much, right?


The machine guns that were used in the civil war were all gatling guns, and those were very uncommon, so much so that they were rarely considered in tactical planning when they were present.

A more meaningful piece of equipment would be artillery pieces loaded with grapeshot, which if they were maneuverable enough to be aimed and fired before the cavalry wave hit would have decimated the entire unit and stopped the charge cold, grapeshot is no joke. The fact that the cavalry and infantry tactics were for the most part developed in a artillery/gatling gun/rifleman free world was simply not questioned until about after WW1.

[Sulecrist]

Storm Bringer wasn't saying they were condemned, he was saying they were still thought of as perfectly valid tactics regardless of the introduction of new weapons that made them less effective than they were previously. You can get that much, right?

The machine guns that were used in the civil war were all gatling guns, and those were very uncommon, so much so that they were rarely considered in tactical planning when they were present.

A more meaningful piece of equipment would be artillery pieces loaded with grapeshot, which if they were maneuverable enough to be aimed and fired before the cavalry wave hit would have decimated the entire unit and stopped the charge cold, grapeshot is no joke. The fact that the cavalry and infantry tactics were for the most part developed in a artillery/gatling gun/rifleman free world was simply not questioned until about after WW1.

Yes, grapeshot's quite intense. I misunderstood Storm Bringer's point about the popularity of those tactics, though--actually, I'm not sure what I was thinking. Probably about the general usefulness of bayonets rather than Falkirk-style infantry charges.

As far as gatling guns went, I was (previously) under the impression that they were entirely experimental at that time. I did a spot of research, though, and apparently they were effectively used on the Petersburg front. Were there any other major points in the American Civil War where they were employed, and how devastating were they?

[Dervag]

Sorry, do you mean World War I? Perhaps I've missed something, but I've been living a few miles from Gettysburg all my life, and a tourist for almost as long--I've never seen bayonet and cavalry charges outright condemned during that period (with a few exceptions) and never heard of machine guns being [edit: reliably] used.Gatlings were machine guns. I suspect that Zincorium overestimated the degree to which they were used, but they were used.

Moreover, by the end of the war US commanders were starting to figure out that bayonet charges against an entrenched opponent didn't work very well. However, the war ended a few years before this had time to fully permeate their brains, so the knowledge was lost or nearly lost even in the US during the forty or so years before the US fought another major war.

In Europe it wasn't learned; Europeans didn't pay much attention to the American Civil War.

[Ruerl]

In Europe it wasn't learned; Europeans didn't pay much attention to the American Civil War.

Pardon me? We had plenty of wars to learn from ourselves, it was learned in Europe as well, if you refer to the tactics during the first world war then i'd need to point out that 1: It was a futile charge *after* strategical bombardment to decrease visual range of the enemy 2: The US when involved in the war did pretty much the exact same thing.

Now, during the period in wich you had your civil war Europe had its own struggles, in Denmark specifically we had the very short war against the Preussian & Austrian armies (well, Preussian anyway, the small fleet Austria had and sent did nothing except getting sunk).

The type of war that was fought at that period was trench warfare wich had a heavy bombardment on the defended positions prior to the attack while the trenches where slowly digged closer and closer to avoid a straight charge against massed guns.

Point here is that people did not simply charge fortified positions with bajonets, that would have been rather stupid, and correct me if I am wrong, but did the american civil war not have the sides bombard the enemy positions prior to a storm? -I am not well founded into american history of that period, but it seems awfully silly to me that anyone would move against each other in large regiments where each side simply stands and shoots at the enemy while standing, that was the way of fighting the imperial england used during period in wich the american state gained independence.

[Zincorium]

Gatlings were machine guns. I suspect that Zincorium overestimated the degree to which they were used, but they were used.


I said pretty much just that 2 posts above, and no, I don't think stating specifically that they were VERY UNCOMMON is overestimating their usage.

Also, way to call all of Europeans ignorant, I'm sure they were ignoring a war that most were involved in economically (I'm sure at least Britain was supplying materials to the south, maybe other countries as well) is the strategy they were pursuing. The fact that communications were very limited probably reduced the impact of the strategic information gained I don't dispute.

[Storm Bringer]

tactically, the frist world war armies were innovating in how they fought: infantry always fought in dispersed formations, were equipped with machine guns at a company level, trained to a good standard of marksmanship and taught to shoot on their own initative, and were trained in making simple but effective entrenchment. Compare to the Union or Confederate regulars (at the start of the war at least), who fought shoulder to shoulder, loaded and fired when order by a NCO, and were not trained to take cover at all, much less make thier own.


In Europe it wasn't learned; Europeans didn't pay much attention to the American Civil War.

no, but they had their own examples to draw from: Koniggratz in 1866, where the austrains launched repeated bayonet charges under cover of superb cannon frie.....and got cut to ribbions by a hail of lead. Several simmilar events happend in the franco prussain war in 1870-71, where massed infantry attack were stopped by a mix of canister ('grapeshot' was a much larger ball type than the mustket balls used in cannister, and was almost never used on land), breech loading rifles and early machine guns (the latter with less effect due to inadquate knowledge of how to best use them) Their were plenty of examples of bayonet charges being a Bad Idea, it was just they couldn't think of a better way of doing it.



but did the american civil war not have the sides bombard the enemy positions prior to a storm?

yes, but the cannons lacked the power to hurt dug in infantry (you need Hi-ex rounds to do that, and the fusing tech of the time didn't allow them to be used effectively). Pickett's Charge (a move thought of at the time (by Pickett, no less) as pretty dumb) was preceeded by the largest cannonade of the Cvil War, with almost 300 guns on both sides firing for two hours, but even this failed to damage the union line enough to let the charge suceed.

[Wehrkind]

I don't think he was calling the Europeans ignorant Dervag, just saying that there was not enough interest in the military affairs of North America to allow the Europeans to recognize the deficiencies of the practice, and fix it. In a world with very good communication (the current), we still don't pay a lot of attention to regional conflicts, beyond a general idea of how our immediate interests are affected, and any particular break throughs or paradigm shifts. Generally it is back ground noise. In a world of telegraph at best, and more generally letters taking weeks to arrive, actual first hand knowledge of military affairs is largely limited to having advisors on site seeing what is happening. Otherwise you are limited to having others tell you what worked, not to mention what is going on in general. So in other words, unless you are paying so much attention that you send your generals over themselves to have a look see, you are not going to learn much.
The fact, as pointed out by another poster, that the Americans and Europeans were fighting in very much the same fashion in WWI demonstrates that both failed to really grasp the magnitude of the changes that technology was bringing. It also demonstrates that humans generally will chalk up things not working as they expect to mere anomoly or any manner of things. It usually takes a very long war or two with many obvious failings to really drive the point home that it is the tactics and doctrine that are the problem, not "sun spots" or "low cunning" etc. Of course, sometimes it is just bad luck.


Edit: Oh, and yes, people did charge fortified positions. They are still doing it, though not in a line any more. But in the American Civil War, it was not terribly uncommon to charge a dug in opponant in order to pry them out, with or without bombardment.

[Ruerl]

yes, but the cannons lacked the power to hurt dug in infantry (you need Hi-ex rounds to do that, and the fusing tech of the time didn't allow them to be used effectively). Pickett's Charge (a move thought of at the time (by Pickett, no less) as pretty dumb) was preceeded by the largest cannonade of the Cvil War, with almost 300 guns on both sides firing for two hours, but even this failed to damage the union line enough to let the charge suceed.

Cool, I did not know that, thank you.

On a sidenote however, I wonder for the preussian cannons at Dybøl Mølle* seemed pretty effective by the accounts on the soldiers who fought in that war, offcourse the Danish and Preussian equipment varied wildly in quality from the Preussian army having relativedly modern weapons where the Danes had outdated weapons.

And the preussians where likedly also the best millitarily equipped nation in the world at that time and it might have been an exception.

In any case, I think the bottom line of this is that the american civil war did not teach Europe anything new not for the lack of listening to it, but more because Europe where busy making its own experiences, the german unification wars did after all put Germany up as the new European great power and would put germany into a millitaristic lead that can be traced as one of the reasons for the world wars. (from a macrohistoric standpoint).

*the final descisive battle in the preussian-denmark winterwar of 1864 (-Damn you slien!**) seemed to be pretty effective, then again it might not have made that big a difference as the Danish millitary where directly sabotaged by its goverment's nationalistic ideals (a prime example of why no strongly nationalistic goverment with no grasp on practical millitary matters should ever interfere with the millitary matters and fire the best general the country had at the time for abandoning a deathtrap).

**reference to the watery area west of the old Bulwark "Danevirke" the winter was so hard that the ice froze making it easy for the german soldiers to simply walk around the fortified positions and fall the defenders in the back, for wich reason General De Meza simply pulled the troops away, a descision that costed him his job as the nationalistic goverment fired him.

[Neon Knight]

Question: About how long does it take to reload percussion cap and ball revolvers?

[Stephen_E]

I think it's somewhat unfair to say that the military people in general didn't learn anything from the lessons of the late 19th century conflicts.

As someone has pointed out WW1 did use variant offensive tactics, with more dispersed troops, gas ecetre, but defensive tactic improved as well, better trenchs, brabed wire, more machine guns, landmines ecetre

The troubles are that
1) The stategies were slower to change (old geesers rule),
2) They were having trouble working out a good response.

Lets face it. How do you cope with dug in trenchs with Machine guns, barbed wire and mines. No armour, no tactical air support, no loose flanks to encircle, and if you did breakthrough (and both sides did get BTs) no speed to encircle. They did try large amphibious invasions.

Lets face it, a lot of the stategic and tactical concepts of WW2 came from technology and ideas that'd been perculating 20 years from WW1 experiances. Some worked, some didn't, but both the failures and the sucesses were in response to people thinking about the lessons of WW1. Frankly a lot of the successful tactics and stategies of WW2 can be tracked to failed attempts at similair things in WW1, but due to inexperiance, lack of technolgy and other various reasons, the "prototype" tactic failed in WW1.

Stephen

[Storm Bringer]

Question: About how long does it take to reload percussion cap and ball revolvers?

depends on the skill of the users. they were slightly quicker than flintlocks to load. I havn't any hard and fast figures about their ROF, but i'd guess it's somewhere between 3-5 RPM for trained regulars, the latter being about as fast as is humanly possible. unskilled users would only get off maybe 2 in 60 seconds.

[Sundog]

depends on the skill of the users. they were slightly quicker than flintlocks to load. I havn't any hard and fast figures about their ROF, but i'd guess it's somewhere between 3-5 RPM for trained regulars, the latter being about as fast as is humanly possible. unskilled users would only get off maybe 2 in 60 seconds.

Actually, it takes about two minutes to load all six cylinders in a cap-and-ball revolver like the original Colt Navy. The ball has to be levered into position, the charge jammed in behind that, and the caps put on the holding nipples at the back of the cylinder - it's a fairly laborious process. Break-style revolvers reduced the time, but it was still common to carry pre-loaded spare cylinders rather than try to reload during a fight.

The more primitive pepperbox style revolvers were actually easier to reload, but required the placement of a percussion cap for each shot. Once a single-barrel revolver was loaded, it could be fires as fast as you could work the action.

[Joran]

Alright i don't know how well this fits into the thread as a whole, but i thought this would be the best place to ask. My question has to do with the optimal range for firearms in D&D and D20 before they start taking penalties on AB. In the DMG a Renaissance pistol has a range increment of 50ft., and the Modern Era Revolver has a range increment of 30ft., to me this looks strange. If i were to go and design a set of 'Old West' Firearms, what Range Increments should i start with in terms of Revolvers and Rifles(I'm hoping to make several 'levels' of guns)? I'm sorry for the vagueness, and i hope this is the right place for such a question. Thanks ahead of time to anyone who helps me here.

From the Wizards website, for firearm range increments:

The formula we used when designing the game is roughly 2/3 of the weapon's maximum effective range divided by 10. This calculation provides a base maximum range unaffected by feats or special equipment.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20modern/bp/20030218a

For the disparities in range increments, D&D had range increments that were much too high. When they formulated the rules for D20 modern, they reduced the range increments across the board (for instance, a long bow was reduced from 100 ft. in D&D to 40 ft. in D20 modern).
http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20modern/bp/20040713a

For an example of how to make up rules for a gun:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20modern/fb/20040224a

[Storm Bringer]

Actually, it takes about two minutes to load all six cylinders in a cap-and-ball revolver like the original Colt Navy. The ball has to be levered into position, the charge jammed in behind that, and the caps put on the holding nipples at the back of the cylinder - it's a fairly laborious process. Break-style revolvers reduced the time, but it was still common to carry pre-loaded spare cylinders rather than try to reload during a fight.

The more primitive pepperbox style revolvers were actually easier to reload, but required the placement of a percussion cap for each shot. Once a single-barrel revolver was loaded, it could be fires as fast as you could work the action.

sorry, I completly misread his question and was talking about muzzle loading percussion rilfes.

my bad:smalleek: :smalleek:

[Om]

Lets face it. How do you cope with dug in trenchs with Machine guns, barbed wire and mines. No armour, no tactical air support, no loose flanks to encircle, and if you did breakthrough (and both sides did get BTs) no speed to encircle.Not repeatedly smashing themselves against the same defensive lines would have been a start. Never mind learning from the previous centuries, most staff officers of WWI failed to learn from previous years of the same conflict! By the time that genuine innovations began to appear en masse (infiltration tactics and tanks), in 1917, millions of lives had already been lost and the war was drawing to a conclusion. Debacles such as Verdun or the Nivelle Offensive reveal the complete strategic bankruptcy of the commanders of both sides. They deserve little to no credit when judged on strategy.

This is of course not an agreement with the idea that Europe ignored the ACW. This is patently false. The British, French and Prussians all sent observers to monitor a conflict that was of intense interest to Europe. This was after all the first modern conflict and the European Powers were eager to learn about the role played by factors such as rail and advanced logistics. Some lessons were learned while others were discarded. What was not obvious at the time, and would not appear so for decades, was the extent that technology had increased the security of the defender. The ACW earthworks and trenches were a foreshadowing of things to come but were by no means the integrated defensive systems that would later cross Northern France.

Ultimately however the most important point noted by the Germans may well have been the sluggish nature of the ACW (where it was superior Northern resources that prevailed over Southern leadership). This could well have been the reason behind the creation of the Prussian/Germany plans for swift mobilisation to attempt to rapidly crush the enemy before the front could stagnate.

[Subotei]

I don't really think the British were without new ideas in WWI - by the time of the British Army's first major attempt at a decisive pitched battle, the Somme in 1916 (it basically took two years to train our Army, as the professional British Army was very small, not like the big continental powers), tanks were already being used, extensive barrages and gas warfare had been tried. What was lacking was the political will NOT to attack in circumstances where a decision wasn't possible - the pressure from home was for a victory and so attacks went on even though there was little chance of success until the tactics were worked out.

However to say, as some previous post have, that the Europeans hadn't learnt from the ACW is like saying that today we haven't learnt the lessons of Korea - things had changed massively from the 1860's, certainly in terms of simple infantry weapon range and firepower, let alone machine gun and artillery developments. For example trained British troops with a standard Lee Enfield rifle were expected to fire 12 rounds/min with accuracy, with reported maximum ROF of up to 30 rounds/min (the official record was 38/min!) and the rifle had an effective range of 1000 yards. Comparing that to facing ACW rifled muskets (which were the main infantry weapon, despite some later innovations) with a ROF 2-3 rounds/min that were effective to perhaps 500 yards is comparing Apples to Bananas. The British certainly learned more lessons from fighting the Boer War than the ACW, eg camouflage kakhi battle dress was adopted.

[Norsesmithy]

Question: About how long does it take to reload percussion cap and ball revolvers?

An experienced man can switch out a cylinder in 5 to 10 seconds, and most people were either carrying multiple guns, or multiple cylinders, when they used Cap and Ball guns.

Of course loading a cylinder takes a fair bit of time.

[Ruerl]

Ultimately however the most important point noted by the Germans may well have been the sluggish nature of the ACW (where it was superior Northern resources that prevailed over Southern leadership). This could well have been the reason behind the creation of the Prussian/Germany plans for swift mobilisation to attempt to rapidly crush the enemy before the front could stagnate.

And again, lets not forget that germany had three wars of their own in that century while they had the iron chancellor aka Bismarck, I am inclined to believe they learned something from those as well ;)

[Om]

And again, lets not forget that germany had three wars of their own in that century while they had the iron chancellor aka Bismarck, I am inclined to believe they learned something from those as well ;)Oh very much so. Regardless of whether the ACW inspired the idea of a rapid mobilisation leading to a swift conclusion, it was von Moltke et al who developed this concept, and a host of related innovations, through those three sharp wars.

[Mike_G]

Th Franco Prussian war of 1870, being fought with much more modern weapons and closer to home was more in the minds of the French and Germans at the begining of WWI. The rapid Prussian advance, and the use of bolt action rifles and primitive machine guns would greatly influence early WWI tactics.

When the rapid war of maneuver ground to a halt, both sides toyed with various tactics and technology to break the stalemate. WWI <i>looked</i> superfically more like the long, slow, bloody ACW than the brief, rapid, Franco Prussian war, but planning owed more to the latter.

[Neon Knight]

More questions about the glory days of the single action:

I have heard of pump action shotguns with external hammers that had to be manually cocked before firing. Has anyone seen an example of such a weapon?

With a Single Action Army you had to manually eject empty casings before reloading. About how long did it take to fully reload a SAA, from ejecting spent casing to inserting fresh rounds?

Does anybody know the effective range of a Winchester Model 86 lever action rifle?

I've heard that Sharps rifles designed for muzzle loading were converted to lever action cartridge firing rifles. Does anyone have any idea as to how this process worked and any data on how the resulting weapon performed?

[Storm Bringer]

More questions about the glory days of the single action:

I've heard that Sharps rifles designed for muzzle loading were converted to lever action cartridge firing rifles. Does anyone have any idea as to how this process worked and any data on how the resulting weapon performed?

hm....... not heard of a straight to lever firing build. most went to breech, then they got whole new guns for magazine feeds.


but, on a guess, you'd have to chop off the old, sealed breech, build the lever action breech, re-build the stock to inculde the magazine (box or tube, either way), then marry this to the old barrel. assuming you could mass produce the parts for the new breeches, any compent gunsmith could do the conversion in a reasonable time.





Does anybody know the effective range of a Winchester Model 86 lever action rifle?

Again, after a quick shearch, about 150-200 yards, when prone and steadied. standing, about 100. If on horseback.30 on a good day.

[Dervag]

Pardon me? We had plenty of wars to learn from ourselves, it was learned in Europe as well, if you refer to the tactics during the first world war then i'd need to point out that 1: It was a futile charge *after* strategical bombardment to decrease visual range of the enemy 2: The US when involved in the war did pretty much the exact same thing.OK, I deserved to walk into that one.

I do know that there were several wars during the period, most of them fought in large part because the Prussians were flexing their muscles at everyone in the vicinity. However, I should point out that none of them were fought with quite the scale and duration of the American Civil War, which involved very large armies fighting over hundreds of miles of front during a period of roughly four to five years. There were strategic lessons to draw from the Civil War that simply could not be learned by examining any war of the subsequent four to five decades.

Moreover, it is a simple fact that European generals and general staffs did not pay much attention to the American Civil War; Moltke famously dismissed it as "one armed mob chasing another."


The type of war that was fought at that period was trench warfare wich had a heavy bombardment on the defended positions prior to the attack while the trenches where slowly digged closer and closer to avoid a straight charge against massed guns.I was under the impression that there was a great deal of war of maneuver being fought in the open, as during the Franco-Prussian War at Sedan.


Point here is that people did not simply charge fortified positions with bajonets, that would have been rather stupid, and correct me if I am wrong, but did the american civil war not have the sides bombard the enemy positions prior to a storm?Preparatory bombardments of varying size and duration were quite common; if you have artillery you use it. The point remains that even though this kind of frontal attack (with or without preparatory barrage) rapidly stopped working well and frequently got slaughtered (for references see Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Cold Harbor, Port Arthur, and the Somme), generals didn't get the idea out of their heads until the First World War, when it was failing even more catastrophically than it had during previous wars.

It is definitely true that the US didn't do much better than anyone else, if at all, at learning that lesson. I should probably have said that, because it's true.


-I am not well founded into american history of that period, but it seems awfully silly to me that anyone would move against each other in large regiments where each side simply stands and shoots at the enemy while standing, that was the way of fighting the imperial england used during period in wich the american state gained independence.The fact remains that infantry routinely fought in close order up until about the turn of the century, standing and firing in the open. There was actually a good reason for this. Until the advent of repeating rifles and the widespread use of machine guns in the very late 19th century, it was still at least possible for troops armed with melee weapons (sabre cavalry, lancers, or infantry with bayonets fixed) to charge a a defending position and overwhelm it in hand-to-hand combat. So troops had to be able to put out a dense volume of fire, preferably in charge-breaking vollies, and they had to be close enough together to protect each other if the enemy got very close.

Once every soldier held a repeater and every regiment had a few machine guns, charges to melee range became so costly that armies stopped worrying about them as the primary threat, and started developing open-order tactics that protected soldiers from being shot rather than from being stabbed. This led to the twentieth-century style of entrenchments and foxholes. If a nineteenth-century army had tried to dig into scattered firing pits they might well have been destroyed in place by an enemy's bayonet charge, although the enemy would take heavy casualties in the process.


Also, way to call all of Europeans ignorant,Not ignorant, arrogant.

Remember that in the 1860s, the US was still considered a second-rate power by European standards. The generally poor performance of American troops during the War of 1812 was still within living memory (the US army got beaten like a drum everywhere except for a few major battles under a few exceptional commanders).

Thus, the American Civil War was widely regarded much as, say, the Iran-Iraq war was regarded in the 1980s. People in Europe didn't pay much attention to the strategy and tactics involved, nor did they put much effort into drawing lessons from the campaigns of American Civil War generals, on the assumption that it was just a bunch of backwards backwoods hicks fighting with bad tactics and primitive weapons.

Certainly, Europeans would sell weapons to the combatants, just as Western nations sold weapons to Iran and Iraq during the 1980s. But they didn't try very hard to look at the American Civil War for lessons that they could apply to their own militaries, with a few sporadic exceptions.


The fact that communications were very limited probably reduced the impact of the strategic information gained I don't dispute.There was telegraphy; there was printing. The information was there if, say, the Prussian/German General Staff had wanted it, but they didn't want it because they didn't expect to be able to learn anything from it. Perhaps they were even right.


Edit: Oh, and yes, people did charge fortified positions. They are still doing it, though not in a line any more.Well, you have to pry them out somehow. But modern tactics focus on things like leapfrogging fire and so forth, with the intent of at least trying to stop the enemy from firing on the attackers during the charge.


Lets face it. How do you cope with dug in trenchs with Machine guns, barbed wire and mines. No armour, no tactical air support, no loose flanks to encircle, and if you did breakthrough (and both sides did get BTs) no speed to encircle.Find another place to fight a battle. Dig a tunnel under their line and blow it sky high. Blockade their ports. Do anything except throw sixty thousand men away charging fixed fortifications to shift the enemy back a kilometer or two. If it's a choice between charging and doing nothing, then for God's sake do nothing. Doing nothing will get you better results than charging.


They did try large amphibious invasions.The Dardanelles offensive might actually have worked if it had been prosecuted more aggressively; the Turks were having a very thin time of it at several points during the battle.


Not repeatedly smashing themselves against the same defensive lines would have been a start.In fairness, they rarely attacked the same sector more than once.


Debacles such as Verdun or the Nivelle Offensive reveal the complete strategic bankruptcy of the commanders of both sides. They deserve little to no credit when judged on strategy.Verdun was a German decision to embrace the limitations of trench warfare by concentrating so much firepower into one area that the Germans would have enough of an advantage in a battle of attrition to break the back of the French Army. It more or less worked, too.

The Nivelle Offensive's strategic bankruptcy lay not so much in bad planning as in Nivelle's complete inability to understand the need for secrecy and surprise. He loudly advertised that he was planning an attack all over France during the buildup, and he distributed detailed lists of battle plans to subordinate commanders of low ranks. As a result, the Germans knew the attack was coming and roughly where for weeks, so they fell back on the Hindenburg line (a prepared set of fortifications).

Nivelle's great stupidity was in pressing the attack after the assumptions underlying it had changed (the Germans having pulled back from their exposed forward positions to a strong defensive line).

[Stephen_E]

I was under the impression that there was a great deal of war of maneuver being fought in the open, as during the Franco-Prussian War at Sedan.


The difficulty came with the Western Front in WW1 having no space to manuver.

Quote:Originally Posted by Stephen_E
Lets face it. How do you cope with dug in trenchs with Machine guns, barbed wire and mines. No armour, no tactical air support, no loose flanks to encircle, and if you did breakthrough (and both sides did get BTs) no speed to encircle.


Find another place to fight a battle. Dig a tunnel under their line and blow it sky high. Blockade their ports. Do anything except throw sixty thousand men away charging fixed fortifications to shift the enemy back a kilometer or two. If it's a choice between charging and doing nothing, then for God's sake do nothing. Doing nothing will get you better results than charging.

They found other places to fight. They dug tunnels (mile long affairs). They did blockades.
The other fronts stalemated. The tunnels gave BTs, but they never had the speed to exploit the BT. Blockades cause pain, but they don't win battles or wars directly. And as someone else pointed out, politically doing nothing was extremely difficult.

That said I did mention that Strategially was where the Allies were most bankrupt. Remember the most senior Generals gets to decide strategy. So we're largely talking about people who worked their way to the top through stubborness rather than talent. The previous 40 years of military action had been against outmatched enemies (and I include the Boer war here) rather than comparable "modern" conventional forces. Anyone with gumption tended to move on to something else. Beleive me, if you look at some of the other Generals available, Haig was far from the worst out there. :smalleek:


The Dardanelles offensive might actually have worked if it had been prosecuted more aggressively; the Turks were having a very thin time of it at several points during the battle.

As I mention above, after a long period without significant conflict the senior staff had a shortage of aggressive commanders. Thus even when they come up with a daring plan they didn't have a daring general to carry it out (although to be fair the General chosen suffered illhealth throughout the invasion due to the heat and general enviriment of the invasion. This will take the aggression out of even the best).



Verdun was a German decision to embrace the limitations of trench warfare by concentrating so much firepower into one area that the Germans would have enough of an advantage in a battle of attrition to break the back of the French Army. It more or less worked, too.

Your last sentance sums up much of WW1. They came up with the seeds of new strategies and tactics that "more or less worked," but in their untested form never worked well enough to gain victory.

I suspect the default promotion policy of the last several decades (he who most stubbornly hangs in waiting gets promoted) may've significantly contributed to the length and final conclusion of WW1. Several times victory should've occurred but one side or the other refused to concede. The initial German push should've won the western front. The French had almost no British support and they'd lost their industrial heartland. Realistically they should've sued for peace. That would've almost certainly resulted in the war ending elsewhere as well (oddly enough with all the alternative histories produced I've never seen one built on this).

Stephen

[Om]

I suspect the default promotion policy of the last several decades (he who most stubbornly hangs in waiting gets promoted) may've significantly contributed to the length and final conclusion of WW1.I'd place more emphasis on the autocratic nature of the societies and the aristocratic background of the commanders (http://www.bartleby.com/136/11.html). It would be impossible today for an army to get away with feeding millions of young men into the slaughterhouse of Flanders.


Several times victory should've occurred but one side or the other refused to concede.Well this is very much the whole point of the grand coalition wars. Despite the Germans coming close to Paris, the Allied industrial capacity was consistently superior and so the French were able to keep fighting. Unless a devastating blow had been dealt, historically taking Paris was key, this is unlikely to change greatly.

Even following the French mutinies in 1917 the British, and by this time Americans, were able to commit enough resources to hold the line while the French Army pulled itself together. In contrast the ineffectiveness of both Austro-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire actually reduced the resources that Germany could commit to fighting the Allies.

[Ruerl]

I'll start with dealing with the flame-bait you put forth:


Not ignorant, arrogant.

Please keep in mind that calling a large group of people wich you yourself not are a part of, a deragoratory term, on very loose foundation is arrogant as well.

Also, the europeans where no more or less arrogant than any other nation at the time, using a modern definition of arrogance to single out a group in a different historical context withouth considering the context you are in, is a basic faulth and the first thing you learn when studying history, furthermore by singling out europeans you are indirectly differenciating them from the other subject (ie: the americans during the civil war period) thus indicating that the other subject (the US) where different.

With that in mind I hope we can avoid singling out any group from that time period as "different" withouth putting them into context with the rest of the period. If we must use modern eyes to view the people of the period, then please keep in mind that you must apply the same glasses to all nations, and I am in the strong belief that all the powers of that time happened to be equeally arrogant. :smallwink:


I do know that there were several wars during the period, most of them fought in large part because the Prussians were flexing their muscles at everyone in the vicinity. However, I should point out that none of them were fought with quite the scale and duration of the American Civil War, which involved very large armies fighting over hundreds of miles of front during a period of roughly four to five years. There were strategic lessons to draw from the Civil War that simply could not be learned by examining any war of the subsequent four to five decades.

Moreover, it is a simple fact that European generals and general staffs did not pay much attention to the American Civil War; Moltke famously dismissed it as "one armed mob chasing another."

Pardon me, but there where several reasons for why the above is incorrect, firstly there was a *lot* of wars in that period, secondly if you wish to learn and study strategy at a grand scale you must study plenty of different examples, and from what I understand of the american civil war (and please correct me if I am wrong) the changes made during the war was only on a small scale and furthermore there where little application for the lessons learned in the american for modern armies of that time, the Preussians for instance had cabinloaded riffles and (from the time) modern cannons, they had that allready in 1864, secondly the decade following the danish-preussian war has a lot to bring in learning and I would claim that there where more to learn there than from the american civil war, the way the preussians used the railroads to organise their army in only two weeks, the war between france and preussen was over before it had begun due to german millitary readiness and the french lack of the same.

One of the most important lessons to be learned in this period is the idiocy of nationalistic goverments, both in the war against Denmark and the war against France this had a major impact on why the war ended as it did, in Denmark it was the faulth of a nationalistic goverment that fired the danish general De Meza for abandoning the undefensible line of Danevirke, in the french case it was by declearing war unprepared.

In the end however, the fact remains that the US civil war while observed, could not teach europe anything new, the new power of the world and the leading nation in millitary might where Preussia who repeatedly proved this in the german unification wars, and if we look at it from a macrohistoric point of view, i'd say that we have one of the big reasons for world war 1 and 2 here.

Regards

Lars

[Stephen_E]

Quote:Originally Posted by Dervag
Not ignorant, arrogant.




Please keep in mind that calling a large group of people wich you yourself not are a part of, a deragoratory term, on very loose foundation is arrogant as well.

Also, the europeans where no more or less arrogant than any other nation at the time, using a modern definition of arrogance to single out a group in a different historical context withouth considering the context you are in, is a basic faulth and the first thing you learn when studying history, furthermore by singling out europeans you are indirectly differenciating them from the other subject (ie: the americans during the civil war period) thus indicating that the other subject (the US) where different.



I have little doubt that the Europeans of the time were more arrogant than other countries for the simple reason that they were the great powers of the time. That isn't to say that some Europeans didn't watch the ACW and look for useful lessons, but the bulk of the military establishment did largely ignore it from the POV of learning anything.

This is exactly the same arrogance that you currently see in the US as a nation (individual people vary). He who is powerful must clearly be superior or they wouldn't be powerful. Back in 1860's the Europeans had the power so surely they must be better than everyone else. These days the US has the power so clearly they must be better. It's simple human nature unfortunately.

On a personal level you see it with the old line "there's no such thing as luck. You make your own luck".

Stephen

[Storm Bringer]

Intrestingly the lesson of the franco prussian war was that an army with a clear objective, good staff work, and an effecient logistical set-up could beat a equal or even a numbrically superior force quickly, and this was the lesson learned by most armies.

Of the 4 major powers at the start of WW1 (England, France, Germany and Russia), France and Germany had war plans that involved fast mobilisation followed by a rapid offensive. Britian planned to fight a mainly naval war as it's armies were small, but superbly trained (their is an oft mentioned tale of the germans in 1914 claiming the british must all have machine guns, due to huge accurate rate of fire their riflemen could pour out), and the Russains were hamstrung by the huge scale of their nation and thier undeveloped rail network.

[Om]

(their is an oft mentioned tale of the germans in 1914 claiming the british must all have machine guns, due to huge accurate rate of fire their riflemen could pour out)Well AFAIK that was only a single incident where a company of Germans was confused the British rapid (not accurate) rate of fire. Incidentally such training in delivering volleys, usefully when fighting in Africa or Asia, would be almost completely useless when the front settled down into trenches.


the Russains were hamstrung by the huge scale of their nation and thier undeveloped rail network.Note however that the Russians mobilised far faster than the German Staff, or the Schlieffen Plan, had anticipated.

[Dervag]

Please keep in mind that calling a large group of people wich you yourself not are a part of, a deragoratory term, on very loose foundation is arrogant as well.Frankly, a lot of continental Europeans of the 19th century did in fact regard American as "upstart colonials." Americans were, at the time, a second-rate military and economic power in a lot of ways. They had nothing like the global reach of the European nations. In science and culture, they produced less than European nations, especially when compared to Britain, France, and Germany.

Hence, a not unjustified sense of arrogance on the part of Europeans.


Also, the europeans where no more or less arrogant than any other nation at the time, using a modern definition of arrogance to single out a group in a different historical context withouth considering the context you are in, is a basic faulth and the first thing you learn when studying history, furthermore by singling out europeans you are indirectly differenciating them from the other subject (ie: the americans during the civil war period) thus indicating that the other subject (the US) where different.And your point is?

If you want to talk about European reaction or lack thereof to the American Civil War, you must inevitably "single out" the European nations to examine their reaction or lack thereof. In fact, it is impossible to talk about any group in any way, derogatory or complimentary, without "singling" it "out."

19th century Europeans tended to be arrogant towards non-Europeans, with reason. They were in fact on top of the world, being at the pinnacle of scientific achievement and of economic and military power. When Europe was cut, the rest of the world bled.

Americans and other colonial offshoots of European peoples got vastly more respect than non-European peoples could hope for during this period, of course, but the basic reality remained.


Pardon me, but there where several reasons for why the above is incorrect, firstly there was a *lot* of wars in that period,Yes, but the majority of them were rather one-sided, being fought by a technologically advanced power against a much less advanced power. Colonial wars didn't teach the kind of lessons that Western generals need to learn.


secondly if you wish to learn and study strategy at a grand scale you must study plenty of different examples, and from what I understand of the american civil war (and please correct me if I am wrong) the changes made during the war was only on a small scale and furthermore there where little application for the lessons learned in the american for modern armies of that time,The thing about the American Civil War was that it was fought over a very large scale and (importantly) a very long time. The American Civil War ran almost as long as the First World War. Thus, there were many opportunities for armies on both sides to launch foolhardy charges against an enemy in a prepared position, because much of the territory (especially northern Virginia and Maryland) changed hands several times during the war.

Most other wars of the era did not see-saw back and forth so extensively, probably because, unlike the early years of the American Civil War, they were not such a perfectly balanced struggle between a fairly competent but poorly supplied power on the one hand and a rather inept but well supplied power on the other hand.

Hence, there were about as many major battles and about as many casualties in the American Civil War as in all four of the Prussian wars combined.


the Preussians for instance had cabinloaded riffles and (from the time) modern cannons, they had that allready in 1864,I know they had modern cannons. I'm not sure what a "cabinloaded riffle" is, but the Dreyse needle gun, the first successful breech-loading rifle, had been issued to Prussian troops as early as the late 1840s. In fact, it was already starting to become outdated by the late 1860s, and ran into serious problems when facing weapons such as the French chassepot Fusil modéle 1866.


secondly the decade following the danish-preussian war has a lot to bring in learning and I would claim that there where more to learn there than from the american civil war, the way the preussians used the railroads to organise their army in only two weeks, the war between france and preussen was over before it had begun due to german millitary readiness and the french lack of the same.Again, I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at, but I believe that you're stating that the Prussian system of rapid mobilization was noteworthy, impressive, and in fact deserved to be imitated.

It was. And all the European powers adopted similar systems for use in later wars; it was one of the reasons that World War One got so big so fast. Everyone had a complex plan for mobilizing their troops and launching them at a pre-chosen target, and these plans could not be changed at the last moment. Thus, the Germans had effectively no option but to launch the von Schlieffen Plan; they could not stand on the defensive against France while attacking Russia, for instance. Likewise, the French had effectively no option but to launch Plan XVII and invade Alsace-Lorraine, even though the Germans were waiting for them there and had completely outmaneuvered them by instead throwing the weight of their army at Belgium.

The battle plans were governed by the railroad timetables, and the timetables had been laid out months or years in advance.

It wasn't that European nations didn't or couldn't learn lessons of military tactics from watching other nations fight wars, it was that they did not learn many such lessons from the American Civil War.


Well AFAIK that was only a single incident where a company of Germans was confused the British rapid (not accurate) rate of fire. Incidentally such training in delivering volleys, usefully when fighting in Africa or Asia, would be almost completely useless when the front settled down into trenches.Worked pretty good in the field, though.

Nobody had planned for the war to settle down into an endless trench stalemate in advance. Everyone expected this war to remain one of maneuver, with entrenchments only being used on a temporary basis either to strengthen the defender or to provide shelter for an attacker during battles that would last no more than a few days. The models were still the Franco-Prussian war, which remained a war of maneuver until the Prussians were in a position to besiege the French fortresses after breaking their field armies, and the Boer War, which was also mostly a war of maneuver.

In both wars there were areas of trench warfare, but trench warfare was never the prevailing condition on the entire front as it was during World War One.

[Pilum]

Regarding the Great War, there's a quote from Kipling in his official history of the Irish Guards (and what a man to write your regiment's memoirs!) which I unfortunately do not have to hand that goes something like this:

"Men would go about their normal business to the backdrop of a shellfire which in previous times would have been deemed heavy, but here was of no more consequence than a summer rain."

Much as I agree that the generals of the time could have shown more imagination, with benefit of perfect hindsight, such a war was largely outside their experience. Granted, there was the Franco-Prussian War (the first? :smallwink: ) but that was 40 years previous; trench warfare of a kind was known from it, but from what I've read (note caveat!!!) generally technology had greatly advanced for what a European Power could field beyond what the average staff officer could expect.

Hmm, I don't like that last sentence, but my brain's a bit too fuzzy to play with it.

[Dervag]

Much as I agree that the generals of the time could have shown more imagination, with benefit of perfect hindsight, such a war was largely outside their experience. Granted, there was the Franco-Prussian War (the first? :smallwink: ) but that was 40 years previous; trench warfare of a kind was known from it, but from what I've read (note caveat!!!) generally technology had greatly advanced for what a European Power could field beyond what the average staff officer could expect.

Hmm, I don't like that last sentence, but my brain's a bit too fuzzy to play with it.The one war that might have honestly warned them was the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5, and most of the European powers drew entirely the wrong lessons from the Japanese human-wave assaults that overwhelmed Russian defenses: they concluded that cold steel could beat hot lead, rather than noting the horrific casualties the Japanese took during the attacks.

As for the Franco-Prussian war, it was really the only; after that they became Franco-German wars.

[Om]

Hence, there were about as many major battles and about as many casualties in the American Civil War as in all four of the Prussian wars combined.Conversely there were about as many casualties in the Crimean War, that most futile of conflicts, as the entire ACW :smallwink:


It wasn't that European nations didn't or couldn't learn lessons of military tactics from watching other nations fight wars, it was that they did not learn many such lessons from the American Civil War.With hindsight we can note that the seeds of trench warfare were present in the ACW. That was not particularly obvious at the time however and defensive factors had multiplied manifold by 1914. As you yourself note below, neither side planned for a war of attrition and someone, perhaps it was you, noted above that even the Americans had barely grasped the new form of warfare by the 1865.

What is a very different question here is whether the European armies ignored the ACW. To this there is only one answer - they did not. Prussia, France and Britain all sent observers and made useful notes. It may have been that these were of too technical a nature (the role of rail for example) but lessoned were learned and used in the following European wars.


Nobody had planned for the war to settle down into an endless trench stalemate in advance. Everyone expected this war to remain one of maneuver, with entrenchments only being used on a temporary basis either to strengthen the defender or to provide shelter for an attacker during battles that would last no more than a few days. The models were still the Franco-Prussian war, which remained a war of maneuver until the Prussians were in a position to besiege the French fortresses after breaking their field armies, and the Boer War, which was also mostly a war of maneuver.I'm not exactly sure what you're disputing here. My comment was merely that the skills and training obtained through colonial wars were ill suited to Flanders. If I'm not mistaken that's pretty much what you also say in your above post :smallwink:

[Stephen_E]

I suspect what srewed the pooch for the powers in WW1 is that no one had allowed for the potential scale up of the conflict.

As has been mentioned it's unlikely that anyone intended to play trench war, the lessons from previous wars been that you manuver around the entrenched forces, and if absolutely necessary you can run straight over them. Both these points were technically still accurate in WW1, BUT they ceased to have any meaning if the size of armies reached the point that there was no room to manuver, and the depth was such that if you did storm right over the top of the trenches, there was another mile of trenches behind the ones you just took.

On the Eastern and ME fronts wars of manuver did indeed occur. The trouble is that neither side could win the war on the ME front, the Germans couldn't win the war on Eastern front, and the Allies weren't winning on the Eastern front. Ipsofacto, they both had to try and win on the stalemated trench fronts. And the Allies did, largely by running the Germans out of troops. The only choices were settle for an eternal stalemated war (political suicide for the Generals - telling your bosses you can't do your job leaves you without a job) or negoiatating a stalemate peace (probably political suicide for the Govts, since they'd expended massive propaganda to the populace painting the enemy as the vilest evil).

As I've gotten older the more I've come to suspect that given the mixture of limited competence at high levels, extreme stubborness in defense and the techincal abilities of the day, once the war locked then stupid butchery of repeated frontal assaults into trenches was inevitable. Sort of like watching a train wreck in slow motion. There's a point where the full disaster hasn't quite occurred, but there is no longer a way to stop it. The 1st year of war was the set-up, the remaining years were the crumpling and smashing of carriages.

Stephen

[Dervag]

Conversely there were about as many casualties in the Crimean War, that most futile of conflicts, as the entire ACW :smallwink:I can't tell if that was sarcasm. If it was, then I would point out that it was not the futility of the American Civil War that made it last so long and be so bloody; it was the fact that the two sides were very closely balanced for the first few years of the war. It wasn't until mid-1863 that the Union found generalship adequate to the task of balancing Confederate generalship, at which point the Confederates could no longer rely on superior generalship to outweigh Union manpower and equipment. And at that point, the Confederates finally began to lose, but that was after two years of stalemate. And it took an additional two years to actually defeat the Confederacy even after the parity between the two sides was broken in the Union's favor.

If that was not sarcasm, the statement is not true, unless of course Wikipedia is wildly inaccurate on this count. The two sides in the American Civil War suffered a total of roughly one million casualties. Wikipedia gives a much lower figure for the Crimean War.


With hindsight we can note that the seeds of trench warfare were present in the ACW. That was not particularly obvious at the time however and defensive factors had multiplied manifold by 1914. As you yourself note below, neither side planned for a war of attrition and someone, perhaps it was you, noted above that even the Americans had barely grasped the new form of warfare by the 1865.I'd swap out 'barely' for 'not'. The US military didn't really get the hang of the new tactical considerations.

My original contention was not that the entire panoply of modern tactics could be deduced from close observation of the American Civil War, but that the fact that frontal assaults across open ground against well-defended positions routinely failed with heavy casualties could, and that the European powers did not adequately learn this lesson.


What is a very different question here is whether the European armies ignored the ACW. To this there is only one answer - they did not. Prussia, France and Britain all sent observers and made useful notes. It may have been that these were of too technical a nature (the role of rail for example) but lessoned were learned and used in the following European wars.You're right, and I grossly overstated my case in claiming that Europeans did not pay attention to the American Civil War. However, it is definitely the case that they did not draw this particular lesson, one which was arguably the most important of all.


I'm not exactly sure what you're disputing here. My comment was merely that the skills and training obtained through colonial wars were ill suited to Flanders. If I'm not mistaken that's pretty much what you also say in your above post :smallwink:I think we are in agreement on this subject. The subtext to my point was that the European powers would probably have done a better job of preparing for the trench warfare of World War One if they had had the faintest idea that it was going to happen. As it was, they were unprepared, and were forced to adapt the tactics of storming a fortress to the situation of an endless trench line stretching across hundreds of kilometers.

It didn't work, because the tactics of storming a fortress simply could not drive an attack forward more than a few kilometers a day. Unless it is done recklessly, the attackers move too slowly to advance faster than that; if it is done recklessly, the attackers die before they can sustain the advance for long.

When storming a fortress, that was not a problem. Fortresses didn't have enough defensive depth to survive that kind of attack; the attackers only had to advance a few kilometers at most to completely conquer the fortified area and be able to continue on their way. But when instead of a fortress, the target was a zone hundreds of miles long and dozens of miles deep, the tactics of storming fortresses weren't enough. Breakthroughs were required, and no one had put serious prewar effort into developing a tactical system for breaking through a belt of entrenchments.

Hence the failed attacks of 1914-17, most of which were simply attempts to apply the tactics of storming a fortress on a larger and larger scale in hopes that a big enough storm would break the enemy line entirely.


As I've gotten older the more I've come to suspect that given the mixture of limited competence at high levels, extreme stubborness in defense and the techincal abilities of the day, once the war locked then stupid butchery of repeated frontal assaults into trenches was inevitable. Sort of like watching a train wreck in slow motion. There's a point where the full disaster hasn't quite occurred, but there is no longer a way to stop it. The 1st year of war was the set-up, the remaining years were the crumpling and smashing of carriages.

StephenSince the first year includes the failure of the Dardanelles Campaign to achieve a decision, I agree with you. I think the Dardanelles Campaign was the last chance the Allies had to achieve a useful result by maneuver warfare rather than by slaughter in France, because it was the last critical point of contact between the two warring alliances where the tactical situation hadn't hopelessly congealed.

[Stephen_E]

The crucial change for WW2 was that armour meant when you made that BT at the front layer the armour could speed through (compared to a kit laden man) before the deeper defense lines could be made ready.

Thus making static defense in depth a chancy proposition since doing so didn't guarantee the BT with exploitation not happening, and if it did happen you could lose everything.

I could see a static WW1 type war coming back if AT weaponry became such that tanks went the way of cavalry and no fast movement ground force replaced them. In that situation we'd be back to exploitation been done at the speed of an Infantrymans movement and static indepth defense rocks again.

Stephen

[Mike_G]

I can't tell if that was sarcasm. If it was, then I would point out that it was not the futility of the American Civil War that made it last so long and be so bloody; it was the fact that the two sides were very closely balanced for the first few years of the war.


I think he was calling the Crimean War futile, not the ACW. AS far as equlity in the ACW, the fact that most generals on both sides were educated in the same confilkcts, traditions and even academies, it's not surprising that the tactics were fairly standard.



If that was not sarcasm, the statement is not true, unless of course Wikipedia is wildly inaccurate on this count. The two sides in the American Civil War suffered a total of roughly one million casualties. Wikipedia gives a much lower figure for the Crimean War.


Actually, the combined casualties for Union and Confederacy for the ACW are closer to 600,000, only about 200,000 of whom were killed in combat. The majority died of disease or wounds, so tactics would have saved fewer men than sanitation and decent medical care.

The overall Crimean losses for both sides approach half a million, so it's not that far off. Again, more died from dysentery than grapeshot, but that's a common theme until the 20th century.

[Sundog]

More questions about the glory days of the single action:

I have heard of pump action shotguns with external hammers that had to be manually cocked before firing. Has anyone seen an example of such a weapon?

Pump, no; lever, yes. At least one French shotgun used this system. Seemed to work well enough.

My understanding is that the pump-action wasn't perfected until the early 20th century. By then internal hammers and dual-action were pretty much perfected also.



I've heard that Sharps rifles designed for muzzle loading were converted to lever action cartridge firing rifles. Does anyone have any idea as to how this process worked and any data on how the resulting weapon performed?

This was done, but the result wasn't anything to write home about. An entrepreneur a few years after the Civil War bought up a lot of Sharps', mostly surplus stock from the Army's switchover to repeaters, and had new one-shot lever action actions made for them. He did it on the cheap, for sale to South and Central American military forces; reliability and accuracy were predictably bad, but from what I can glean, he made a packet.

[Om]

If that was not sarcasm, the statement is not true, unless of course Wikipedia is wildly inaccurate on this count. The two sides in the American Civil War suffered a total of roughly one million casualties. Wikipedia gives a much lower figure for the Crimean War.Hobsbawm gives the figure of 630,000 and 600,000 for the ACW and Crimean War respectively. Troubetzkoy mentions roughly 500,000 deaths alone for the latter conflict.


My original contention was not that the entire panoply of modern tactics could be deduced from close observation of the American Civil War, but that the fact that frontal assaults across open ground against well-defended positions routinely failed with heavy casualties could, and that the European powers did not adequately learn this lesson.But then neither did the Americans... who experienced this war first hand. I feel that this is largely hindsight talking - the lessons that are so obvious today were not at all so in the 19th C. As such I think that you're being overly harsh on the European armies for failing to comprehend a lesson that no one else did either.

[Subotei]

The one war that might have honestly warned them was the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5, and most of the European powers drew entirely the wrong lessons from the Japanese human-wave assaults that overwhelmed Russian defenses: they concluded that cold steel could beat hot lead, rather than noting the horrific casualties the Japanese took during the attacks.

I don't think there's much evidence for that conclusion. All the evidence points to ever increasing industrialisation and mechanisation of war at the time rather than a return to the idea of 'cold steel'. The generals fighting WWI may not have been up to the job, but I don't think we can assign some kind of anti-technological motive to them to justify the why the war went into a stalemate situatuion.

[Ruerl]

Frankly, a lot of continental Europeans of the 19th century did in fact regard American as "upstart colonials." Americans were, at the time, a second-rate military and economic power in a lot of ways. They had nothing like the global reach of the European nations. In science and culture, they produced less than European nations, especially when compared to Britain, France, and Germany.

Hence, a not unjustified sense of arrogance on the part of Europeans.

Again, take things in context, also please note that there is a difference between fact and arrogance, the american nation where at that time weaker, there where sent observers, the experiences where dismissed.


And your point is?

If you want to talk about European reaction or lack thereof to the American Civil War, you must inevitably "single out" the European nations to examine their reaction or lack thereof. In fact, it is impossible to talk about any group in any way, derogatory or complimentary, without "singling" it "out."

Allow me to restate my point again:
Its wrong to use a modern term to highlight a historic situation or nation withouth judging the nations contemporary comparisons.

For example its perfectly viable to bring out the social customs of the 18th century if you are doing a work on the evolution of social customs in the country, provided that you use other sources of reference as well within the same framework, for example its fine to compare french culture 100 years ago with french culture today, but its not fine to say look at english culture 100 years ago while studying french culture today, unless you are studying the firsts impact upon the latter, and then you still need to include both nations the entire timescale within your work or you will be lacking critical sources.

Likewise, when highlighting the "europeans" in such a way you way to compare them to the contemporary nations, calling a nation arrogant withouth using its contemporaries to highlight it is simply wrong and not only that its a faulthy method, as I stated previously, it is one of the first things you learn when you begin to study history -and I ought to know having done exactly that (at the university of Aarhus if you care to know, no I did not finish it, but it does not mean that I remain ignorant as to the scientific method).

Simply put, its not possible to single any nation out in a historican context withouth having the right background to single it out from, what you are doing is that you are singling out a group withouth using the background of the entire discussion, the discussion where european powers learning/not learning from the ACW, hence its critical to compare europe's experiences with other nations prior to calling them arrogant.


19th century Europeans tended to be arrogant towards non-Europeans, with reason. They were in fact on top of the world, being at the pinnacle of scientific achievement and of economic and military power. When Europe was cut, the rest of the world bled.

That it called imperialism, its something the entire western way of thinking where faulthy in, from the US, to england to tiny Denmark (yep, even Denmark had colonies), if you want an american example then look at commodore Matthew Perry who using the gunboat policy forced open "trade" with Japan in 1852-1854.

I hope I made my point clearly enough this time around, and I kindly ask that you read my post twice before replying to remove any problems caused by my (frankly hideous) english.*

Regards

Lars

*I am sincere in that one, english is not my first or even my second language.

[Dervag]

The crucial change for WW2 was that armour meant when you made that BT at the front layer the armour could speed through (compared to a kit laden man) before the deeper defense lines could be made ready.Even then, success was not guaranteed unless you could breach the fortified line; it was easier and safer to find a way around. Tanks didn't really make an advance through fortified country that much faster once adequate antitank weapons were invented.

This led to the other crucial change: because of the tanks and trucks, armies could move faster than their enemies could entrench. This preserved the fluidity of the front and denied either side the chance to build up permanent, invulnerable lines throughout their position. There were specific exceptions to the rule, however, where fortified defenses in depth were constructed, such as the Kursk salient and the El Alamein position, and those proved damnably hard for even motorized troops to shift.


I could see a static WW1 type war coming back if AT weaponry became such that tanks went the way of cavalry and no fast movement ground force replaced them. In that situation we'd be back to exploitation been done at the speed of an Infantrymans movement and static indepth defense rocks again.I'm not so sure, because the really important effect of mechanized warfare was on strategic and operational mobility, not on tactical mobility. The most successful uses of armor, even back in World War Two, revolved around using tanks to shatter the lighter positions, while relying on infantry as the 'breaking and entering' tool for attacking fortified lines. In many cases, cavalry or motorized infantry could have achieved similar results, albeit to a lesser degree because they couldn't simply blast by troops who did not have heavy weaposn.


I think he was calling the Crimean War futile, not the ACW. AS far as equlity in the ACW, the fact that most generals on both sides were educated in the same confilkcts, traditions and even academies, it's not surprising that the tactics were fairly standard.It wasn't just the standard tactics, it was that the hamhandedness of early Union generals very closely balanced the inferior Confederate numbers.


Actually, the combined casualties for Union and Confederacy for the ACW are closer to 600,000, only about 200,000 of whom were killed in combat. The majority died of disease or wounds, so tactics would have saved fewer men than sanitation and decent medical care.Do you mean "dead," or do you mean "casualties?" There's a difference, and when I said casualties I meant casualties, not dead.


But then neither did the Americans... who experienced this war first hand. I feel that this is largely hindsight talking - the lessons that are so obvious today were not at all so in the 19th C. As such I think that you're being overly harsh on the European armies for failing to comprehend a lesson that no one else did either.You're probably right. I should have said "European and American," and then this whole silly squabble wouldn't have happened. I didn't spread the criticism around broadly enough.

Though in my defense I would point out that I never claimed that Americans did learn these lessons, or that they were substantially better at avoiding frontal attacks against well defended positions than anybody else.


I don't think there's much evidence for that conclusion. All the evidence points to ever increasing industrialisation and mechanisation of war at the time rather than a return to the idea of 'cold steel'. The generals fighting WWI may not have been up to the job, but I don't think we can assign some kind of anti-technological motive to them to justify the why the war went into a stalemate situatuion.I'm referring not to the general stalemate of World War One, but to a single, very specific problem: that the generals of the First World War had not yet fully realized how difficult it was to successfully rush and topple a fortified position with a frontal infantry attack.

I blame this on the failure to draw the correct lesson from the various failed frontal attacks of the previous fifty years, from Chancellorsville to Port Arthur.

Now, I'm not saying that all First World War generals were idiots who had nothing but the human wave attack on their tactical menu. I do not say any such thing. Such a contention would be ridiculous. Many of them were seriously concerned with the problem of breaking through a fortified enemy line and were quite capable and willing to use firepower to break such lines rather than simply ordering a bayonet charge.

However, if you read some of the stuff written by the generals whose doctrines prevailed in the early part of the war, it's chilling to see just how convinced they were that infantry could charge a fortified line, given the support of a modest cannonade. Many older generals were convinced that machine guns were a mere inconvenience to such an attack.

There were plenty of generals who knew better, on all sides. Henri Pétain, for instance, is famous for the Pétain doctrine: "Firepower kills." This may not seem controversial today, but it was a refreshing simplicity at the time, and one that a number of Pétain's contemporaries (such as Nivelle) tended to lose sight of.


Again, take things in context, also please note that there is a difference between fact and arrogance, the american nation where at that time weaker, there where sent observers, the experiences where dismissed.Arrogance can be based on facts and still be a mistake. The US was, as I believe you say, not a first-rate power at the time. I came right out and said that, and I believe it to be true. European nations had a reason not to expect much important knowledge to come out of America at that time. They were on top of the world. It was not at all surprising that they weren't particularly worried about developments on the other side of the Atlantic, and that they didn't sit down and completely rethink their tactics based on those developments.

The fact remains that they did not rethink their tactics, and that it wasn't until the slaughters of World War One made it universally obvious that the generals truly realized that frontal infantry attacks against a fortified position were a thing of the past except under special conditions.


Allow me to restate my point again:
Its wrong to use a modern term to highlight a historic situation or nation withouth judging the nations contemporary comparisons.I am not doing any such thing. Kindly refrain from assuming that I don't think or that I am ignorant of 19th century history. I may not be a professional historian, and I freely admit that there are gaps in my knowledge. But I'm not just making up nasty remarks for the joy of doing so.


For example its perfectly viable to bring out the social customs of the 18th century if you are doing a work on the evolution of social customs in the country, provided that you use other sources of reference as well within the same framework, for example its fine to compare french culture 100 years ago with french culture today, but its not fine to say look at english culture 100 years ago while studying french culture today, unless you are studying the firsts impact upon the latter, and then you still need to include both nations the entire timescale within your work or you will be lacking critical sources.I don't see why you can't, if that's what you're talking about. If you're comparing modern generals to the generals of 100 or 150 years ago, then it makes a lot of sense to say so if the generals of the past made a mistake. We know things now that our ancestors did not know then, that we learned by horrible bloody experience. If our ancestors had been quicker to learn, there would have been less blood and horror. And I'm absolutely certain that our descendants in the future will say the same thing about us. Human beings don't always learn new lessons as fast as they should. We today are no more immune to arrogance than the people of 100 or 150 years ago were, but to claim that they were not arrogant because they were just being themselves at the time (which is what you're doing, as far as I can tell), is neither reasonable nor accurate.


Likewise, when highlighting the "europeans" in such a way you way to compare them to the contemporary nations, calling a nation arrogant withouth using its contemporaries to highlight it is simply wrong and not only that its a faulthy method,What do you mean "using its contemporaries to highlight it?" If you want me to find other nations to compare European nations to, I can do so. For instance, we could compare the nations of Europe to Meiji Japan, a nation of the same era. By comparison, Meiji Japan was learning very quickly. Meiji Japan was very good at adopting new methods to solve new problems, instead of applying the old methods.

Or we can compare the nations of Europe to the nations of Europe, fifty to seventy years later. European armies showed much greater tactical adaptability in, say, the 1920s than they did in the 1870s. Some adapted faster than others, but all adapted.

Or we can compare the nations of Europe to a sort of historical average. When we do that, we see that they had a technological advantage over most of their enemies. And we see that Europeans had a general economic and cultural advantage over non-Europeans. And we see that those things gave Europeans a great sense of their own importance. This contributed to a "not invented here" mindset that limited their ability to learn lessons from non-European conflicts such as the American Civil War.


as I stated previously, it is one of the first things you learn when you begin to study history -and I ought to know having done exactly that (at the university of Aarhus if you care to know, no I did not finish it, but it does not mean that I remain ignorant as to the scientific method).Your assumption that I do not know this, or that I am not trying to do this, is not justified.


Simply put, its not possible to single any nation out in a historican context withouth having the right background to single it out from, what you are doing is that you are singling out a group withouth using the background of the entire discussion, the discussion where european powers learning/not learning from the ACW, hence its critical to compare europe's experiences with other nations prior to calling them arrogant.Actually, Europe's experiences with other nations are exactly the reason I am calling them arrogant.


That it called imperialism, its something the entire western way of thinking where faulthy in, from the US, to england to tiny Denmark (yep, even Denmark had colonies), if you want an american example then look at commodore Matthew Perry who using the gunboat policy forced open "trade" with Japan in 1852-1854.Yes, I know that is called imperialism. The fact that it's called imperialism isn't important to my argument. What matters is what the thing is, not what the name of the thing is.

Europeans were stronger and richer than non-Europeans, and they felt that their culture was superior to that of non-Europeans. Even when dealing with the Americans, who were the cousins of Europeans and who were not thought of as any kind of 'inferior race', that mattered. European nations could reach out across the globe and exert power that the US could not exert. America was constantly buying and imitating the products of European science and culture, and (in the 1860s) not the other way around.

Thus, Europeans tended to have an arrogant attitude towards America.


I hope I made my point clearly enough this time around, and I kindly ask that you read my post twice before replying to remove any problems caused by my (frankly hideous) english.*I did. It helped some. I can sympathize, because I can imagine myself trying to write posts in an online forum in German, and my German is not any better than your English, and is very likely worse.

I suggest that you stick to shorter sentences. That's what I do when I write in German. The shorter the sentences, the harder it is to make mistakes of grammar. The shorter the sentences, the harder it is to get the parts of a sentence 'out of order' in a way that confuses the readers of a foreign language. Long sentences and fancy grammar are for people who have been using the language for years and have everything nailed down.

[my_evil_twin]

New question, related to one I asked a while back:
Is there any history of mounted cavalry in pre-Norman Britain, or was it strictly a Norman import? I believe I saw a reference to mounted warriors in an account of the wars vs. the Vikings, but I couldn't determine their nature, their popularity, or even which side was using them.

[Ruerl]

New question, related to one I asked a while back:
Is there any history of mounted cavalry in pre-Norman Britain, or was it strictly a Norman import? I believe I saw a reference to mounted warriors in an account of the wars vs. the Vikings, but I couldn't determine their nature, their popularity, or even which side was using them.

Yes, the romans used cavalery as well to a smaller degree, and they where present before the normans ;)

Seriously though, cavalery is not by a long shot a medieval invention, it was one of the defining factors in Alexander the great's campaign and his fathers before that, it was one of the factors on why Hannibal kept beating the roman generals in the second punic war (until Scipio Africanus made Numidia break free from the carthagian confederation and thus gained the numidian cavalery).

[Storm Bringer]

horses for riding rather than pulling charriots and carts had been use in england since the roman conquest (though they used charriots before that point). The romano-british used cav, In particular King Authur and his knights. however the anglo saxons who replaced them fought on foot in shieldwalls, and only used horses as transport (they'd ride to the battle and dismount to fight). I can't claim that NO anglo-saxon fought from horseback, just that it wasn't thier normal way of war

[Subotei]

Certainly the Anglo-saxons and Vikings had horses and used them, though I can't recall any account of cavalry charges in battles of that period.

[Fhaolan]

The celts were avid horsepeople, the name of their horse goddess is part of the English language now because of it. Epona -> Pony. The Norse people also rode horses a great deal.

However, take a look at the *kinds* of horses they had. The modern Dale pony, Fell pony, the Fjord, the Icelandic pony, etc. are all descended from those horses and haven't really changed much since then. These are all relatively small and extremely hardy horses, not built for speed but for endurance and the ability to survive off of the meagerist feed.

The Normans were using horses specifically bred for their style of cavalry. That was part of the issue with their landing. If the Saxon king hadn't been up in the north dealing with a Viking invasion, he would have been able to do a lot better against the Normans as they struggle getting their horses off the ships. The were larger horses with more mass and a higher turn of speed, but required far more in the way of specialty care and feeding. I can't really point to the modern versions of these horses as those breeds have changed so much that it would just confuse the issue. They were supposedly slightly bigger than the Arab horse is now, though.

[Hannes]

Besides, fighting from horseback is kind of a pain in the ass, especially if you're using a sword or a one-handed axe. You have to bend over to effectively hit the guy... Nah, horses were meant for charging over infantry lines or, in the case of Arab horses, archery. But seriously, mounted combat was good if you were already inside enemy lines or were on flat ground with no rocks or holes around, and even then your enemy could get smart and erect a wall of sharp poles before their infantry.

[Adlan]

The Iron Age people of Britain use horses in warfare (as mounts and as chariot pullers, most famously by the Icini), and the Romans brought Cavalry.

There is one theory that goes that King Arthur was a Roman Cavlrey Officer who settled in Britain (or his descendant or some such thing, I'm not big into athurian ledgends).


However, the Vikings and Anglo Saxons used horses mearly as transport to the battle field, then dismounted to fight on foot. Tolkien belived that the Anglosaxons would have won hastings (and indeed it was a close run thing), if they had had cavalrey support, and so he created the Rohirrim as this culture.

[Subotei]

Besides, fighting from horseback is kind of a pain in the ass, especially if you're using a sword or a one-handed axe. You have to bend over to effectively hit the guy... Nah, horses were meant for charging over infantry lines or, in the case of Arab horses, archery. But seriously, mounted combat was good if you were already inside enemy lines or were on flat ground with no rocks or holes around, and even then your enemy could get smart and erect a wall of sharp poles before their infantry.

Horses are damn good at letting you cover ground - whatever the actual impact they may have had at the Battle of Hastings, the real benefit the Norman cavalry brought William was the ability to project his force across the country relatively quickly, to suppress the locals.

[Matthew]

Actually there is some evidence that Cavalry was employed by the Anglo Saxons prior to the Norman Conquest, as well as plenty of evidence that Dismounted Cavalry were often used post the Norman Conquest.

The Cavalry/Infantry divide is largely a product of the work of Charles Oman, who put a lot of stock in the wholesale transformation of warfare at certain pivotal points in history.

The Vikings, for instance, were certainly familiar with horses, one of their first objectives being to obtain them during any lengthy campaign, but this is where method of Warfare becomes an important consideration.

Battles were themselves fairly infrequent, raids and sieges being the prevalent forms. Obviously, horses were not particularly useful during sieges and tremendously useful for raiding.

A tantalising piece of literary evidence for Anglo-Saxon Cavalry can be found in Beowulf, where a Saddle is referred to as the 'Battle Seat' and horses appear to be highly valued.

As for Hastings, well, there had already been prototype Norman Style Cavalry in England prior to this battle, so the technology was hardly unknown. However, the choice of Harold to fight on foot was a common one for Medieval Commanders who wished to show that they were not going to flee and to stiffen the morale of their Foot ranks. We find it again at the Battle of the Standard, amongst other occasions.

The up and down of it is that Cavalry was known in England prior to the Norman Conquest, but its importance and frequency increased hugely afterwards.

[Edit]
Tolkien was a learned Scholar, but he was no Military Historian and relied on the prevailing view of the time for his conclusions about military practice.

[Wehrkind]

it does not mean that I remain ignorant as to the scientific method).


The scientific method does not apply to the study history and culture. I will repeat that, because it bears repeating.

The scientific method does not apply to the study history and culture.

Unless you can come up with a hypothesis, create controlled experiments to test the hypothesis, others can recreate these independanty, and everyone comes to the same conclusion, it is not science.

That is to say, unless you can recreate the exact situation as existed in WWI, see what happens, then recreate it exactly the same but change but a single variable, and then see how it works, and then have other people do the same, it is not science.

Now, I don't mean to pick on you in particular. It just makes my blood boil when people apply the word "science" to their field, be it sociology, history, or what have you, without actually creating the rigour that science requires.

I agree that one should attempt to be as fair and complete when studying such things as possible, and there are certain rules and observances that help the process. It just isn't science.

[Storm Bringer]

so.......

what name do i use to discribe history/sociology/other 'sciences' that study fields that cannot experiment in the manner you discribe, yet require you to supply equally solid evidence to back up any hypothesis?

anyway, to return to topic, does anyone know how advanced the central and southern african peopls got in relation to metalwork/armourcrafting and such, pre colonial era? I get the vide that apart form the med coast, the africans kinda skipped form iorn age tribes to 19th century and missed the middle bit.

[Stephen_E]

The scientific method does not apply to the study history and culture. I will repeat that, because it bears repeating.

The scientific method does not apply to the study history and culture.

Unless you can come up with a hypothesis, create controlled experiments to test the hypothesis, others can recreate these independanty, and everyone comes to the same conclusion, it is not science.

That is to say, unless you can recreate the exact situation as existed in WWI, see what happens, then recreate it exactly the same but change but a single variable, and then see how it works, and then have other people do the same, it is not science.



At it's narrowest and most pedantic usage, you're mostly right.

At its broader more common usage, you're worng, although it is difficult, and you can't, within current abilities, come to definitive conclusions on culture or most of historical matters. None the less you can take a scientific approach.

Make sure your data is as verifiable as possible.
Where physical issues are involved that can be repeated, do so.
If you have an hypotheisis apply it to a similiar historical situation and see if it's predicted result matches the actual result within a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Sure, you can't match exact conditions, but then neither do any experiments. Historical and sociological more clearly incapable of matching exact conditions, but it is a black/white off/on situation.

The scientific method doesn't demand perfection, but it requires the genuine attempt to follow it as much as possible, and recognising and noting the limitations of your data and capabilitys.

Re: History (as specific from culture). Much of physical data recovery involves solid scientific method. I supect people like Adlans Mother, who IIRC was involved in recovering data from the english ship sunk in Henry the Vths? time, would dispute the suggestion that they don't use the scientific method.

Stephen

[Ruerl]

The scientific method does not apply to the study history and culture. I will repeat that, because it bears repeating.

The scientific method does not apply to the study history and culture.

Unless you can come up with a hypothesis, create controlled experiments to test the hypothesis, others can recreate these independanty, and everyone comes to the same conclusion, it is not science.

That is to say, unless you can recreate the exact situation as existed in WWI, see what happens, then recreate it exactly the same but change but a single variable, and then see how it works, and then have other people do the same, it is not science.

Now, I don't mean to pick on you in particular. It just makes my blood boil when people apply the word "science" to their field, be it sociology, history, or what have you, without actually creating the rigour that science requires.

I agree that one should attempt to be as fair and complete when studying such things as possible, and there are certain rules and observances that help the process. It just isn't science.

Okay, now you are being downright silly, offcourse scientific method applies! Doh! Otherwise you might as well go tell the teachers at the various universities that they are wasting their time and in fact teaching rubbish.

Science is more than just lab science, ever heard the phrase "experimental archeology" ? Thats a science as well in how you recreate things from the past and research how they worked, or sociological studies? Or etnografy? Tell me exactly, why is it my fiancé who has a BA in archeology had to study sciencetheory as a required part of her study?

Your definition of science is different from the one taught at the universities and can apply only to the narrowest of fields, the fact is that the students of history and the other "soft" fields such as archeology learns scientific method as a required part of pensum, and now you claim that they don't? Don't be silly.

Now, please go on and let your blood boil, preferably long enough to get it out of your system that science is more than you make of it, and that it might have more definitions than what you have learned.

[Wehrkind]

what name do i use to discribe history/sociology/other 'sciences' that study fields that cannot experiment in the manner you discribe, yet require you to supply equally solid evidence to back up any hypothesis?
"Fields of study" is a term I have seen used. I am not attempting to nail down the proper appellation, I am saying "science" is at best extremely loosely applied, and the Scientific Method is not used as proper. One can use the term science to describe them, but it is no more proper than calling a woman a *female dog*.
Proper use of the Scientific Method is not to gather evidence to back up a hypothesis. The hypothesis comes first, then tested, then either thrown away or maintained. Enough experimental evidence, and it becomes a theory.
As well, the evidence those "soft sciences" require is nowhere near as solid as in say, physics. Pictures, books, writings, scraps of materials excavated etc. are all well and good, but you can not possibly know the different circumstances and myriad factors that went into it.
Take the Bayeux (sp) tapestry. People take a huge amount of information from it as evidence of what people fought with and in at the time. We see lots of chain mail with helmets. Suppose for a moment however, that the person sewing it simply really loved the way chain mail looked, as opposed to say, padded leather, and so over represented it. Would we know? Can we test that theory? No, we can merely decide it seems very unlikely given other finds. Since you can not recreate the situation, you do not know if changing the "I like chain mail pictures on fabric" variable would yield a different result.
Another example, Caesar's writings on the Gallic and Civil wars. They paint a very specific picture, but how do we know how accurate they are? We have some dissenting writings, and assume the truth is in the middle somewhere. We can not test that hypothesis though. We can find evidence either way, but without being able to recreate the situation, there is no way to be certain.
A final example, notice how most social sciences deal in % and correlation and the like. The reason for this is that the number of variables involved in people's actions are myriad. You can never get the exact same circumstances, and at best even the measurements are off. Why is it that some people grow up in poor neighborhoods and become rich, and some don't? There are studies that suggest certain things, but nothing concrete, where in every case something works. The best they can say is "There is a strong correlation between X behavior and Y result." That's all well and good, but it isn't science so much as studying. If your car only had a strong correlation between having gas and running, periodically it would run without gas, while other times it would refuse while having plenty. Your mechanic would simply shrug, not knowing why for certain, not enough to be able to fix it 100%.

Now, that isn't to say science is always 100% either. Sometimes it is extremely difficult to control all the variables (hence medical science doesn't always work.) However, if you cite some experiment as evidence, it had better be repeatable by any who wish to try and have the resources. While in history you can say "Well, these men agree with me, and while these others don't, these seem to be more reliable sources," in science you have to be able to say "This works EVERY TIME in these conditions," and be able to demonstrate why someone else's didn't.

If history was a science, we would know whether long bows could penetrate various types of armor, for instance, and could prove it.

@Stephen: Language is fairly exact, and the Scientific Method is VERY exact. If you can't experiment using controlled conditions, it isn't the Scientific Method. That's it. That invalidates the entire applicability. Real science does match conditions. That's the whole point. Perhaps not down to the molecular level all the time, but within an extremely narrow range as needed. If you want to call it science when you can not experiment and see what happens, fine. You are using the word incorrectly though.
Gathering data is not "science". It is study. There is nothing wrong with study, but unless you can run multiple experiments with similar conditions and compare the data, demonstrating that certain changes always produce certain resultant data, it isn't science. Rigorous does not equate to the Scientific Method. It is necessary, but not sufficient.
I am not saying this to put down the study of history, philosophy etc. I am very partial to those fields myself. I am saying it because no matter how much a historian thinks he knows about what happened and why, he can not prove it by making it happen again. Nor can he even be certain it happened as he believes, he can only come up with a theory that attempts to incorporate all the evidence; he can not use that theory to cause it to happen again.

@Ruerl: Just because something is not a science does not make it rubbish. English literature, public speaking, writing, art, theater, history, philosophy, and a myriad of other studies are not science, but they are very important to study. Importance is not required of science, and neither is science required to be important.
Experimental archeology is a very cute phrase, but it is only partially science in fact. See the above example of the long bow vs. armor. Sometimes it works very well, and sometimes it doesn't. Link any 3 examples of experimental archeology, and I will demonstrate their flaws in terms of the scientific method. Now, I am very much in favor of testing theories by trying them out whenever possible. You just can't recreate the situations effectively, however, except on the very small scale, and even still many assumptions have to be made.
Ask your fiancé just how many experiments she had to run, and how many others ran the same experiments, comparing results. Ask her how many semesters and classes were spent in "science theory" as opposed to labs. Ask her what "BA" stands for… It isn't the same. Learning how to even conduct consistent experiments alone is a huge part of the science curriculum in college. I spent almost as much time in labs as I did in lectures.
Again, rigor and consistency are very important in studies and science alike, but science has other additional requirements that such studies can not match.
Your university teaches it incorrectly, apparently. Only a few fields are true science. Many others attempt to apply the rigorous process of science to their studies, which is admirable, but unless they can use the information and data they gather to recreate situations and results, it is not science. Simply requiring you to learn what the professor calls "scientific method" does not make it science.

You are also incorrect, or at least have it backwards. Science is more than you make of it. It is not simply evidence. It is repeatable, not just by one scientist, but anyone. It is not some mere specificity in naming conventions and collation of data and findings. It is being able to come up with hypothesis about the data, create experiments to test the data, and then using that theory to predict the outcomes of events in each of similar circumstances. If you can not do everyone of those things, it is not useful the way science is useful, and it is not science.

[Storm Bringer]

I am not saying this to put down the study of history, philosophy etc. I am very partial to those fields myself. I am saying it because no matter how much a historian thinks he knows about what happened and why, he can not prove it by making it happen again. Nor can he even be certain it happened as he believes, he can only come up with a theory that attempts to incorporate all the evidence; he can not use that theory to cause it to happen again.


two things:

1) You ARE putting down non 'hard science' fields, regardless as to wether you ment to or not.

As it stands, i can summrise your statments as you saying that these fields are "not really sceince", and by a reasonable reading, conclude that you are implying they are below those that "are really sceince". I'm sure it's not what you ment, but that's a perfectly valid reading of your comments.

2) any Scientist who says he is 'certian' that something happed the way he says, and means by certain that doesn't belive that any other answer is right, is NOT a Scientist by definition.

everything in Science is open to questioning. Everything. Nothing is 100%, beyound any possible doubt certain, and any claims to the contry are bad science or Theology.

anyway, back to the actual purpose of this thread. If you wish to continue this debate, let it move to the relems of the PM.

on topic. does anyone know far eastwards the romans got? I know they took over the med coast, but not how far into the mid east they got.

[Om]

on topic. does anyone know far eastwards the romans got? I know they took over the med coast, but not how far into the mid east they got.They'd pushed fairly deep into Syria by the end of the Republic. This was where they met the Parthians, a rare fellow superpower, and AFAIK that's roughly where the border stayed throughout the centuries. It would probably be somewhere around where Mosul is today.

But Syria was something of an exception. Aside from Anatolia, Rome's empire in the Middle East was largely confined to the Levantine coast and Sinai.

[Matthew]

Also depends on whether you include Client Kingdoms. Probably Trajan had the most far reaching Empire.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9b/800px-Roman_Empire_Contestedterritory-1-_Revision.PNG

[Dervag]

Proper use of the Scientific Method is not to gather evidence to back up a hypothesis. The hypothesis comes first, then tested, then either thrown away or maintained. Enough experimental evidence, and it becomes a theory.Actually, there are many cases where the data come before the hypothesis, simply because no one has anything useful to build hypotheses around until the data come in.

Popper's version of the scientific method, with its intense focus on specific hypotheses that are supposed to be tested by repeated application of modus tollens (hypothesis H implies P; check for P; if not P, then H is wrong), oversimplifies. In many cases, you gather the data, then start throwing together models to explain it based on various working assumptions. After all, many of the sciences (such as astronomy) are fundamentally observative, not experimental. Astronomers cannot do experiments on stars or planets. Paleontologists cannot do experiments on extinct animals.

Popper's model works reasonably well for experimental sciences where you can reliably build an apparatus to test any imaginable theory. It does not work so well for sciences where data must be gathered by observing nature and cannot readily be generated under laboratory conditions. And yet it would be ridiculous to assert that astronomy or paleontology are 'unscientific' because they do not always fit the Popperian model. Popper was a philosopher, not a scientist, and his ideas of how science works were not necessarily perfect, appropriate, or an advisable pattern for all science to follow.


Take the Bayeux (sp) tapestry. People take a huge amount of information from it as evidence of what people fought with and in at the time. We see lots of chain mail with helmets. Suppose for a moment however, that the person sewing it simply really loved the way chain mail looked, as opposed to say, padded leather, and so over represented it. Would we know? Can we test that theory? No, we can merely decide it seems very unlikely given other finds. Since you can not recreate the situation, you do not know if changing the "I like chain mail pictures on fabric" variable would yield a different result.Do historians take the percentage of men wearing chain mail on the Bayeaux Tapestry as evidence for the percentage of men who wore chain mail in actual medieval warfare?

If they don't, then this is a strawman argument. Historians know quite well that they can't take a primary source's word at face value, and try to avoid doing so whenever feasible.


A final example, notice how most social sciences deal in % and correlation and the like. The reason for this is that the number of variables involved in people's actions are myriad. You can never get the exact same circumstances, and at best even the measurements are off.All the sciences deal in percentages, correlations, and statistics. It's not just sociology. Physicists do it too.

Dealing in statistics and correlations does not unmake a science. If it did then there would be no science.


Now, that isn't to say science is always 100% either. Sometimes it is extremely difficult to control all the variables (hence medical science doesn't always work.) However, if you cite some experiment as evidence, it had better be repeatable by any who wish to try and have the resources. While in history you can say "Well, these men agree with me, and while these others don't, these seem to be more reliable sources," in science you have to be able to say "This works EVERY TIME in these conditions," and be able to demonstrate why someone else's didn't.That is only true of the experimental sciences. In astronomy, for instance, observations are not repeatable. We can't look at the same supernova over and over to make sure that the same star explodes the same way every time. We can observe different supernovae in different times and places, but we can't repeat the same experiment over and over because there are no experiments. We can't make astronomical events happen; that doesn't mean that we don't do science regarding such events.

Insofar as history is science, it (like paleontology or astronomy) is an observational science that collects data by observing unique and nonrepeatable events, rather than by performing experiments in a laboratory.


@Stephen: Language is fairly exact, and the Scientific Method is VERY exact. If you can't experiment using controlled conditions, it isn't the Scientific Method.That assumes that the only thing that can legitimately be scientific is Popperian investigation-by-modus-tollens. Which is flatly not true.


Gathering data is not "science". It is study. There is nothing wrong with study, but unless you can run multiple experiments with similar conditions and compare the data, demonstrating that certain changes always produce certain resultant data, it isn't science. Rigorous does not equate to the Scientific Method. It is necessary, but not sufficient.Ah-hah. I see.

So the Scientific Method is the way science is done, and anything that isn't done according to the Scientific Method isn't science.

Isn't that a tautology? You're explicitly excluding the possibility of non-experimental science as a way of ensuring that the Popperian 'Scientific Method' covers all 'real' science. Thus, you end up claiming that astronomy and paleontology (for instance) are not science, but are instead 'study'.

This is at odds with the definition of science used by most actual scientists. You would be hard pressed to find a scientist (experimental or otherwise) who considered astronomers 'unscientific' for having to rely on observations of natural events beyond their power to duplicate. So if language is, as you say, exact, you'd expect that 'science' would necessarily include astronomy.


Your university teaches it incorrectly, apparently. Only a few fields are true science. Many others attempt to apply the rigorous process of science to their studies, which is admirable, but unless they can use the information and data they gather to recreate situations and results, it is not science. Simply requiring you to learn what the professor calls "scientific method" does not make it science.Again, I think you're being a bit pretentious here. The test case should be astronomy, and your position requires you to assert that astronomy is not science because I can't create a supernova in a laboratory, or cause stars to form during a timescale that the NSF would issue a grant for.


2) any Scientist who says he is 'certian' that something happed the way he says, and means by certain that doesn't belive that any other answer is right, is NOT a Scientist by definition.That isn't quite true, because there are times and places when it would be grossly unreasonable for a scientist to throw out a sea anchor when talking about why something happened.

For instance, if a scientist is trying to do mass spectroscopy and finds carbon atoms in his sample, he is quite justified in saying that he is 'certain' that he has found carbon, and not some other element that just happens to behave the same way that carbon does on a mass spectroscope. This is particularly true becasue no such element could exist without forcing a complete rewrite of the laws of subatomic physics, and no sign of any such element has ever been found in nature to date.

At a certain point, scientists have to make assumptions about reality and treat them as being functionally certain assumptions, or they will never get past the basic assumptions and will never be able to answer useful questions.

This is another flaw in Popperian 'scientific method'. In almost every case of experimental science, you could always explain an unexpected result by some violation of the commonly accepted laws of physics, such as the law of conservation of energy. In many cases, the experimenter must assume that either hypothesis X is wrong, or the laws of physics are wrong. Almost without exception, the correct answer is that hypothesis X is wrong. Therefore, unless they find some truly damning evidence contradicting an accepted law of physics, they treat that law as 'certain' and assume it to be correct, because otherwise they can't analyze their data effectively.

[Ruerl]

@Wehrkind:
You are either being so focused on your belief that you ignore the fact that a great deal of the proffesional world disagree with you, I sincerly hope that you reply well to the post that Dervag wrote for he has put down my thoughts better than I could, if you are able to ignore completly the factual teachings of a large part of the proffesional world and completly disregard the point that you *might* be wrong, then I am afraid its like discussing with a person believing the earth to be fivethousand years old at most due to being created by god at a certain point. -its a belief, but if its indiscussable then its not a fact that can be used in a discussion anymore, then its about faith and not rationale.

I am however, due to having studied history myself, going to point out a few ways where we can use the sources from say the republican roman period:

1: Hypothesis: Rome had toilets and they where accessible for a large part of the public.
2: Sources:
Archeology digging out toilets
Textworks describing maintaining toilets.

Now, archeology can only be viewed through our own eyes prior to having sources so lets take that first: We can only through the means of archeology state the fact that the romans had toilets, by the amounth of toilets found we can deduct that it was'nt an exclusive thing.

Thats about it that can be deducted from it, we could come with realistic guesses, but guesswork is not scientific proof, especially not if we use your definition.

Textwork: Now, any textwork dealing directly with the subject (toilets during the republican period in Rome) is bound to be flavoured by the writers opinion on the subject and as such we must first analyze why the author wrote what he or she wrote, since this is personal interpretation we must discard this -even though we may have a very good basis for understanding him due to other texts from the same period as well as our archeological background material.
Instead we are going to use say a source dealing with how slaves have committed suicide to avoid being killed as a show, for one of these examples state that a german choked himself on a sponge used for toilet cleaning.
Now, this is an indirect source and as such more valid, why? Because the author had no interest in glorifying something he wrote down as a "matter of fact" of his life, this gives us the impression that toilet brushes where avaliable even to slaves, especially since other sources from the period mention public toilets in a similair way, hence we can conclude from the indirect material where the authors had no interest in shaming or glorifying their toilets (because their subject where something else) that there indeed was a belief that there existed public toilets.

Remember that we only can take the author's words for true in the context that its his belief, even if its an indirect source. Because while we have no reason to question the author's belief we can question if his belief is valid.

Wich brings us back to the physical evidence provided with archeology wich backs the source's indirect evidence, and we can now safedly state that the romans has public toilets during the republican period.

And why can we be sure its not just made in a different period? Well, we can do a carbondating of the "leftovers" found in the toilet to start a place and from there pinpoint the style they have been made in to make a more precise date within the period provided by the carbondating.

Now, you may offcourse claim the above has nothing to do with scientific method, but then I could as well claim that the sun is pink with green spots, it would have as much hold in reality as denoting the above example to be unscientific.

Now, as for your questions to my girlfriend's occupation:
1: I know what "BA" stand for, its a Bachelor's degree, she has one in medieval and prehistoric archeology.
2: Archeologists does'nt spend time in labs, they have other scientists to work on that part, archeology is not an independent study, and she has to my knowledge had nine semesters with science theory.

Finally, lab science has its own rules for whats science, and there is a huge difference on whats science in the biology class to whats science in the history class, dismissing either as unscientific is blatant ignorance.

Regards

Lars

[Ruerl]

@Matthew: According to the lektor I had while I studied history the areas highlighted in the post where conquered under Trajan, so I would find it a realistic indication on how far the roman empire ever stretched east.

I have made some comparisons with later periods and in no other period did the empire stretch out that far, not even the east roman empire under Justinian.

[Wehrkind]

I responded to Storm Bringer in PM, but these are rather good points, and are relevant to this discussion (oddly enough.)

Seriously, before I begin, great post Dervag. It really made me think.


Actually, there are many cases where the data come before the hypothesis, simply because no one has anything useful to build hypotheses around until the data come in.
Data can come before a hypothesis of course. But the hypothesis must then be tested to see if it produces the expected results after. That second part is what the "soft sciences" usually are incapable of reproducing.
You mention throwing together a model, and that is critical. However, your model has to hold true in experimentation afterwards, and continuously, or be rewritten.
Now, nothing is 100% science, or 100% study. Study is required to get information for hypothesis etc, as you quite correctly stated. Science is required to test and predict what happens based on that data. It is a question of which is more prevalent.

In the case of astronomy, much of the information is observational. However, the hypothesis worked out from that observation are then tested against other occurances. Everything we know for a fact (as opposed to suspect to be true) in astronomy is due to applying laws of physics to the patterns we saw, and confirming the ideas by predicting correctly what happens when X Y and Z are present. For example, Einstein's theory of gravity affecting light was pretty shakey until a solar elipse demonstrated that the light from a star was bent to where it should not have been. The key being his theory predicted certain things happening in a certain case, and it actually happened.
In other words, astronomy is a science because you can launch a rocket out at a specific trajectory and speed, and know where it is going to hit on Mars. Gathering data is part of the study of astronomy (and in the case of astronomy requires a great deal of science to do). If all they were able to do is gather data, it would be a study, not a science. Science requires gathering that information, forming it into theories, then testing those theories.

Paleontology is a good example of one that goes both ways. Paleontologists' science comes from applying what they know about living animals to fossil remains, as well as attempting to recreate how they fit together to make a functional animal. That is why there are so many of them that disagree with each other over all manner of things. Disagreement is not a sign of a false science, but not being able to test their various ideas to see if it works is a bad sign. Hence, it is more a study than a science in many respects. Some are better described as "researchers" than "scientists", and some the other way. The trouble is, as you stated, while you can compare dinosaur bones to modern animals to try and understand how they worked, and look at prints and other evidence, you can not make a dinosaur from a kit and see if your ideas pan out.



Do historians take the percentage of men wearing chain mail on the Bayeaux Tapestry as evidence for the percentage of men who wore chain mail in actual medieval warfare?

If they don't, then this is a strawman argument. Historians know quite well that they can't take a primary source's word at face value, and try to avoid doing so whenever feasible.
The point was not that historians take percentages from one source, but rather that no source can be trusted. That's the trouble with history. If we have 45 sources that agree, and 5 that agree with something else, we can only assume that the 45 are correct, the truth is in the middle, or that the 5 were correct. We can't TEST that idea though. We have no idea if that 10% were brave idealists, telling it like it was in the face of oppression, or a few nuts who are no more worth listening to than the yapping of a dog. So we look for some supporting evidence, look at sources, and try to guess. Usually the result favors the 90%. As a result, our concept relies on what others say, and even then who we think is the better source. In otherwords, history is based on the appeal to authority fallacy, albeit supported by physical evidence and such as we can find it. Sometimes, there is a plethora of physical evidence, as well as writings and the like, which can really solidify our grasp, but for the most part we are viewing history through at least two lenses, that of those we read, and our own.

Now, how that differs from science is that science statements are repeatable, and thus free from the appeal. If your 10 year old says "I have been reading, and I am here to tell you that if the Germans had not shipped eastern Europeans over to the western front to fight the British and American forces, but had left them to fight the hated Russians, they would have won" what do you say? Maybe? How do you test it?
Now, by comparison, he says "If you place the 8 ball on the black dot on the pool table, and the que ball on the other dot, and then hit the que ball directly at the 8 ball without spin, if the 8 ball makes it into a pocket, they both will." That you can test, if you don't know the laws of particle physics and can ascertain that theoretically.

Essentially what I am getting at is that in science the crazy few can demonstrate they are correct. In non-science one can not demonstrate it, and thus must sway solely with arguments and evidence.



All the sciences deal in percentages, correlations, and statistics. It's not just sociology. Physicists do it too.

Dealing in statistics and correlations does not unmake a science. If it did then there would be no science.
Only in the areas where certain results are not fully understood, or when there are a multitude of nearly insignificant factors that change the outcome. Medicine often has this issue, as there are many nigh uncontrollable factors involved. Chemistry does to a point. Macro scale physics does, but usually not on the scale that it matters. Small scale phsyics is where it gets wierd, but that is a question of our knowledge being incomplete.
The more salient point is that while sociology can ONLY point out correlations, hard sciences can predict and demonstrate.



Insofar as history is science, it (like paleontology or astronomy) is an observational science that collects data by observing unique and nonrepeatable events, rather than by performing experiments in a laboratory.
Unlike astronomy, however, you can not to a high degree accurately use history to predict what will happen in the future. We know where Jupiter will be for any given moment for the next 100 years. We don't know what will happen between Iran and America in the next 10 years with any accuracy. That's the difference between a science and history. If you incorrectly calculate the position of Jupiter next month, I can theoretically demonstrate why it is wrong, and assuming I can do math, accurately predict the position. The best historians can not accurately guess what will happen.



So the Scientific Method is the way science is done, and anything that isn't done according to the Scientific Method isn't science.

Isn't that a tautology? You're explicitly excluding the possibility of non-experimental science as a way of ensuring that the Popperian 'Scientific Method' covers all 'real' science. Thus, you end up claiming that astronomy and paleontology (for instance) are not science, but are instead 'study'.
Well, that is how language (and logic) works. If science is done by a particular method, and something does not follow that method, it isn't science. It sounds to me like you are complaining that clipping one's nails should be called brushing one's teeth, despite the fact it involves neither teeth or brushing. They are both part of hygiene, just as study/observation and science/experimentation are both valuable ways to expand and build upon human knowledge, however, they are not the same parts.

As I have shown, different fields of study require different amounts of application of observation and experimentation (study and science as I put it previously). Only those where prediction and experimentation are available to prove theories are actually sciences in the full term. Others are studies. The two go hand in hand, but are different hands.



Again, I think you're being a bit pretentious here. The test case should be astronomy, and your position requires you to assert that astronomy is not science because I can't create a supernova in a laboratory, or cause stars to form during a timescale that the NSF would issue a grant for.
I hope I have made it clear why science does not need to create a super nova in a bottle, so long as they are in the sky, and their behavior can be predicted. (As an aside, astronomy has great benefit in the fact that most of the factors too small to easily measure are also too small to matter. Meteorology would have been a better example, for if ever there was a shakey science, it is there.)



For instance, if a scientist is trying to do mass spectroscopy and finds carbon atoms in his sample, he is quite justified in saying that he is 'certain' that he has found carbon, and not some other element that just happens to behave the same way that carbon does on a mass spectroscope. This is particularly true becasue no such element could exist without forcing a complete rewrite of the laws of subatomic physics, and no sign of any such element has ever been found in nature to date.

At a certain point, scientists have to make assumptions about reality and treat them as being functionally certain assumptions, or they will never get past the basic assumptions and will never be able to answer useful questions.

This is another flaw in Popperian 'scientific method'. In almost every case of experimental science, you could always explain an unexpected result by some violation of the commonly accepted laws of physics, such as the law of conservation of energy. In many cases, the experimenter must assume that either hypothesis X is wrong, or the laws of physics are wrong. Almost without exception, the correct answer is that hypothesis X is wrong. Therefore, unless they find some truly damning evidence contradicting an accepted law of physics, they treat that law as 'certain' and assume it to be correct, because otherwise they can't analyze their data effectively.
To sum this up perhaps a little more than I should, this is why Occam's Razor is important. However, sometimes the understood laws of reality are wrong. That's the beauty of the independant recreation of experiements. Others can try it over and over, not only in case you are doing it wrong, but also because sometimes they know of some bizzarre abberation in another field/experiement that helps explain the situation, and together can perhaps change the prevailing theories if it is demonstrated that it is more accurate in prediction.
The trouble with say, history is that we can never recreate the Greek and Persian wars with different sets of assumptions to see if we get Herodotus, or some odd abberation. We can just look at the same evidence someone else had and come to our own conclusions. If they are different, well, to the most convincing go the spoils.

Which is exactly why fellows like Mathew, Dervag, Om et al. can look at the same books and argue two very cogent yet exclusive positions at each other for pages on this thread, to our great edification.

[Storm Bringer]

i think what this is coming down to is that we feel you are insulting the 'soft' sciences and bascially saying they cannot prove something, and you can, thierfore your method is better, while you feel your argueing a matter of sematics.


anyway.........


We know where Jupiter will be for any given moment for the next 100 years

actaully, those sums are beyond any craft pocessed by man. Or have they suddenly found an answer to the three body problem?


In other words, astronomy is a science because you can launch a rocket out at a specific trajectory and speed, and know where it is going to hit on Mars.

No, that's not astromony, that's physics, or just engineering. Astronomy is looking at the Light/EM waves/Grav pluses of Mars/M31/whatever analying them and drawing your concludesions from those mesurements.

[Wehrkind]

@Wehrkind:
You are either being so focused on your belief that you ignore the fact that a great deal of the proffesional world disagree with you, I sincerly hope that you reply well to the post that Dervag wrote for he has put down my thoughts better than I could, if you are able to ignore completly the factual teachings of a large part of the proffesional world and completly disregard the point that you *might* be wrong, then I am afraid its like discussing with a person believing the earth to be fivethousand years old at most due to being created by god at a certain point. -its a belief, but if its indiscussable then its not a fact that can be used in a discussion anymore, then its about faith and not rationale.

I am however, due to having studied history myself, going to point out a few ways where we can use the sources from say the republican roman period:

1: Hypothesis: Rome had toilets and they where accessible for a large part of the public.
2: Sources:
Archeology digging out toilets
Textworks describing maintaining toilets.

Now, archeology can only be viewed through our own eyes prior to having sources so lets take that first: We can only through the means of archeology state the fact that the romans had toilets, by the amounth of toilets found we can deduct that it was'nt an exclusive thing.

Thats about it that can be deducted from it, we could come with realistic guesses, but guesswork is not scientific proof, especially not if we use your definition.

Textwork: Now, any textwork dealing directly with the subject (toilets during the republican period in Rome) is bound to be flavoured by the writers opinion on the subject and as such we must first analyze why the author wrote what he or she wrote, since this is personal interpretation we must discard this -even though we may have a very good basis for understanding him due to other texts from the same period as well as our archeological background material.
Instead we are going to use say a source dealing with how slaves have committed suicide to avoid being killed as a show, for one of these examples state that a german choked himself on a sponge used for toilet cleaning.
Now, this is an indirect source and as such more valid, why? Because the author had no interest in glorifying something he wrote down as a "matter of fact" of his life, this gives us the impression that toilet brushes where avaliable even to slaves, especially since other sources from the period mention public toilets in a similair way, hence we can conclude from the indirect material where the authors had no interest in shaming or glorifying their toilets (because their subject where something else) that there indeed was a belief that there existed public toilets.

Remember that we only can take the author's words for true in the context that its his belief, even if its an indirect source. Because while we have no reason to question the author's belief we can question if his belief is valid.

Wich brings us back to the physical evidence provided with archeology wich backs the source's indirect evidence, and we can now safedly state that the romans has public toilets during the republican period.

And why can we be sure its not just made in a different period? Well, we can do a carbondating of the "leftovers" found in the toilet to start a place and from there pinpoint the style they have been made in to make a more precise date within the period provided by the carbondating.

Now, you may offcourse claim the above has nothing to do with scientific method, but then I could as well claim that the sun is pink with green spots, it would have as much hold in reality as denoting the above example to be unscientific.

Now, as for your questions to my girlfriend's occupation:
1: I know what "BA" stand for, its a Bachelor's degree, she has one in medieval and prehistoric archeology.
2: Archeologists does'nt spend time in labs, they have other scientists to work on that part, archeology is not an independent study, and she has to my knowledge had nine semesters with science theory.

Finally, lab science has its own rules for whats science, and there is a huge difference on whats science in the biology class to whats science in the history class, dismissing either as unscientific is blatant ignorance.

Regards

Lars


That the Romans had plenty of toilets is not the hypothesis you test with evidence, it is the conclusion you reach from the evidence. That is no more science than saying "kitty cats have soft coats that you can pet." It is observation, though accurate and clever in the bits about indirect sources.
Now, if you were to take the fact that Romans had public toilets, and say "any suitably advanced society that can make sewers and buildings will make public toilets to meet at and use," THAT is a hypothesis. Not a true one, but a hypothesis. It can be tested. The trouble is that no hypothesis or theory is functional across the board, because of the corrupted information we draw from the past, vast differences in culture, geography, etc. So historians are unable to predict the future, or even the behaviors of other cultures with much accuracy. In effect, their ideas of cultures pretty much stick there, and are essentially only proven or disproven by more cogent theories, or more evidence. Not repeatable demonstrations of why they are wrong. In otherwords, you either talk your peers into agreeing with you, or you get lucky and dig up something that supports you.

By the way, BA stands for Bachelor of Arts. BS is Bachelor of Science. Not to demean your fiance, you understand, but to point out that most universities do not call acheology a science. It uses science, but is not itself a science.

Also, I never said I am absolutely right, and that there is no possibility I might be wrong. I just do not think I am. You would do well to avoid crying out that people believe there is no chance they could be wrong; in English it sounds remarkably like "you don't think my logic is convincing, therefore you are simply closing your eyes to the truth instead of confronting my arguments." Just a heads up.

[Wehrkind]

i think what this is coming down to is that we feel you are insulting the 'soft' sciences and bascially saying they cannot prove something, and you can, thierfore your method is better, while you feel your argueing a matter of sematics.


But that's the point, actually. Science is reliable and be used to change the world to fit our needs. History isn't useful in that manner.
It is not insulting to say "Wehrkind is not as fast a runner as Carl Lewis was." It is simply fact. It is important to remember that we can not get the kind of certainty that physics requires when dealing with history, otherwise you do get the kind of pointless argumentation that Ruerl decries. Since we can not run experiments over and over by different people, we can only be fairly certain at best.
Considering how many history, philosophy and literature books I have on my shelves compared to science, one could reasonably conclude I hold these subjects in great esteem. It is just the unfortunate fact that the scientific method is not something they can use as effectively as say physics.





actaully, those sums are beyond any craft pocessed by man. Or have they suddenly found an answer to the three body problem?

No, that's not astromony, that's physics, or just engineering. Astronomy is looking at the Light/EM waves/Grav pluses of Mars/M31/whatever analying them and drawing your concludesions from those mesurements.

Being able to predict where Mars will be in order for it to intersect the path of the rocket, that's astronomy.

And the three body problem is not solved to my knowledge, however, they know the paths of the planets extremely accurately. So accurately they can predict where they will be in the future well enough to fire probes at them from millions of miles away.

[Storm Bringer]

Being able to predict where Mars will be in order for it to intersect the path of the rocket, that's astronomy.


no, it isn't. that's just a matter of knowing how fast it travels, how fast we travel, and the paths we travel on. that is a bog-standard physics question. getting something to that point in space? physics and engineering.

working out the chemical compsition of a sun? astronomy. spotting a planet around a star? astronomy. working out the path a probe needs to take to get form A to B? physics.


they know the paths of the planets extremely accurately

they don't know exactly where the planets will be, because to do that they need to solve the 3 body problem, which we aggree hasn't been done. they know roughy where it will be, but only by extrapolating it;s apprarent path thought he solar system.

[Ruerl]

That the Romans had plenty of toilets is not the hypothesis you test with evidence, it is the conclusion you reach from the evidence. That is no more science than saying "kitty cats have soft coats that you can pet." It is observation, though accurate and clever in the bits about indirect sources.

No, the knowledge here is that the romans had toilets, we cannot physically say who sat on them, thats what the above method is used for.


The point was not that historians take percentages from one source, but rather that no source can be trusted. That's the trouble with history. If we have 45 sources that agree, and 5 that agree with something else, we can only assume that the 45 are correct, the truth is in the middle, or that the 5 were correct. We can't TEST that idea though.

Please refer to my post above to see how to use source critism, nearly all our sources have backups from indirect sources, hence we can rely on the one with the indirect sources wich is backed by archeology.


By the way, BA stands for Bachelor of Arts. BS is Bachelor of Science. Not to demean your fiance, you understand, but to point out that most universities do not call acheology a science. It uses science, but is not itself a science.

Perhaps in the states, look up your definitions before you claim to know them. BA is also the abbrevation used for biology bachelors, or math students with a bachelors degree.

Please keep in mind that the learning form vary from country to country before making yet another hard claim.


Also, I never said I am absolutely right, and that there is no possibility I might be wrong. I just do not think I am. You would do well to avoid crying out that people believe there is no chance they could be wrong; in English it sounds remarkably like "you don't think my logic is convincing, therefore you are simply closing your eyes to the truth instead of confronting my arguments." Just a heads up.

You have stated the absolute truth of your view thus indirectly stated you being absolute right down to the point that you have called lectors at the universities for "wrong"

To quote you:


Your university teaches it incorrectly, apparently. Only a few fields are true science. Many others attempt to apply the rigorous process of science to their studies, which is admirable, but unless they can use the information and data they gather to recreate situations and results, it is not science. Simply requiring you to learn what the professor calls "scientific method" does not make it science.

You are stating this in a way that intented or not, gives the impression of you having the absolute truth.


Unlike astronomy, however, you can not to a high degree accurately use history to predict what will happen in the future. We know where Jupiter will be for any given moment for the next 100 years. We don't know what will happen between Iran and America in the next 10 years with any accuracy. That's the difference between a science and history. If you incorrectly calculate the position of Jupiter next month, I can theoretically demonstrate why it is wrong, and assuming I can do math, accurately predict the position. The best historians can not accurately guess what will happen.

History has nothing to do with predicting the future, all the repeatings of history where the next period has been "predicted" through the "cycle of history" has been with that (in)fameous hinsight.

Henche your comparison between the differences of history and astronomy is based on the wrong fundament, use what history actually does proffesionally before drawing a comparison.

History and other "soft fields" of the university are as defined by the universities, science, you can argue till the moon turns green about it, but it won't change the definition given on it by those who work with it daily, to claim otherwise is frankly to belittle the subject and the hard work there is in it.

And yes, you have belittled the subject this is why I come off so strongly:


Now, I don't mean to pick on you in particular. It just makes my blood boil when people apply the word "science" to their field, be it sociology, history, or what have you, without actually creating the rigour that science requires.

In this you (perhaps unintentionally) implicate that studing the other fields does'nt require rigour, wich is coming off very strongly from a man who I have a suspicion haven't dealth with the fields he denotes an unscientific on a proffesional basis.

To recap the points here:
1: Your definition of science is not a universally shared one or even one broadly acknowledged, in fact I strongly believe its a miniority opinion within the academic world.
2: Your statements are coming off arrogant and deragoratory towards the other fields of science.
3: Trying to draw a "point" on my fiancé's education withouth having any idea what you where speaking about where both low and out of context of the discussion, and as a sidenote to that, your point failed due to your lack of knowledge of the different educational systems (and this is why I never express myself about foreign educational systems either -I can't).
-An apology for the third one would be in order.

Now, I am aware that I may have crossed the boundary of civil behaviour myself during this discussion, and I would like to apologize for that, my opinion on the matter however remain that you are incorrect and I can only assume that the place you where educated is to blame for it, perhaps even a single teacher, if you have more sources than this, please show them.

Now, again my apologies for going too far during our discussion, but I hope I have stated clearly enough why I felt insulted.

Regards

Ruerl

p.s.
I hope this will suffice, otherwise our discussion will just end up in a way that can be quickly summarized using the most reductionistic version of Occam's Razor ie: "Buh" and "yay"

[Dervag]

Data can come before a hypothesis of course. But the hypothesis must then be tested to see if it produces the expected results after. That second part is what the "soft sciences" usually are incapable of reproducing.The question is what kind of things qualify as a 'test'.

If by 'test' you mean that somebody built a bunch of apparatus and did a massive array of experiments that anyone else who can get the grant money to build the apparatus can repeat anywhere in the world at their convenience, then you are adopting an unreasonable definition of science: science is then defined as only things that can be done using laboratory apparatus, because anything based on observation of events in the physical world is inherently not repeatable under controlled conditions. There is no guarantee that a star will look the same tomorrow as it did today, and you can't dig up the same fossil 100 different times in 100 different places to test your hypothesis against a control group.

There's more to science than what men with lab coats do in air-conditioned rooms. Often a lot more.


In the case of astronomy, much of the information is observational. However, the hypothesis worked out from that observation are then tested against other occurances. Everything we know for a fact (as opposed to suspect to be true) in astronomy is due to applying laws of physics to the patterns we saw, and confirming the ideas by predicting correctly what happens when X Y and Z are present.And yet in many areas that you are dismissing as 'unscientific', people do precisely that. Sociologists, for instance, are constantly looking for ideas that will have predictive power, and will routinely look for examples that they can apply their models to.

If astronomy is science, sociology is science; albeit a science with a more recalcitrant subject matter.


In other words, astronomy is a science because you can launch a rocket out at a specific trajectory and speed, and know where it is going to hit on Mars.That's not astronomy; that's ballistics. There's a difference. Ballistics and astrodynamics (the stuff that lets you aim rockets and predict where planets are going to be) is actually a fairly straightforward application of physics. It has virtually nothing to do with most of the important, relevant, or interesting work done in astronomy over the past century or more.


Paleontology is a good example of one that goes both ways. Paleontologists' science comes from applying what they know about living animals to fossil remains, as well as attempting to recreate how they fit together to make a functional animal. That is why there are so many of them that disagree with each other over all manner of things. Disagreement is not a sign of a false science, but not being able to test their various ideas to see if it works is a bad sign. Hence, it is more a study than a science in many respects. Some are better described as "researchers" than "scientists", and some the other way. The trouble is, as you stated, while you can compare dinosaur bones to modern animals to try and understand how they worked, and look at prints and other evidence, you can not make a dinosaur from a kit and see if your ideas pan out.And this makes them not a science because they can't recreate their subject matter in a laboratory, according to your position.

What I'm trying to say is that this is an unreasonably restrictive definition of 'science'; it defines as nonscience many things that the actual scientists (even scientists as defined by your definition) will agree are in fact science. Moreover, since 'science' is a word that carries strong implications of intellectual rigor while 'study' is not, your relegation of the observational sciences to the category of 'studies' does in fact slight those sciences.

The scientific method is not about a robotic pattern of hypothesize, perform modus-tollens experiment aimed at refuting it, and keep the hypothesis if the experiment fails to refute, the way Popper described it. There are several different approaches to solving scientific problems that are all scientific. The common element in those approaches is not being able to set up a repeatable experiment (since you can't recreate a supernova or a dinosaur in the laboratory). It is the meticulous, systematic effort to identify mistaken assumptions about the subject of study.


So we look for some supporting evidence, look at sources, and try to guess. Usually the result favors the 90%. As a result, our concept relies on what others say, and even then who we think is the better source. In otherwords, history is based on the appeal to authority fallacy, albeit supported by physical evidence and such as we can find it.Truly adequate history is never based primarily on the authority of a particular source. Competent historians check the non-normative, objective facts wherever possible, only relying on 'sources' as a guide to where to look and only insofar as they are not given the lie by the facts.

The fact that they use sources does not make history a nonscience, although it can certainly be done in unscientific ways (as can virtually any subject of human inquiry).


Now, how that differs from science is that science statements are repeatable, and thus free from the appeal. If your 10 year old says "I have been reading, and I am here to tell you that if the Germans had not shipped eastern Europeans over to the western front to fight the British and American forces, but had left them to fight the hated Russians, they would have won" what do you say? Maybe? How do you test it?That isn't a statement about history. That is a counterfactual. There's a difference.

Counterfactuals are inherently untestable because they are based on things that cannot exist. There are counterfactuals in even the hardest of sciences. Physicists talk about frictionless surfaces and massless ropes.

Any statement about a hypothetical past other than the one we actually have is perforce a counterfactual, and is thus not subject to verification or falsification by experiment. It is not within the purview of history as a science. Historians-as-scientist may well note that the Eastern Europeans' morale suffered when they were shipped to the Western Front by examining primary sources that talk about the morale of soldiers. They may note that those Eastern Europeans did not fight as fiercely as similar Eastern European units sent to fight the Russians, by looking at records of the performance of Eastern European units. That is history as observational science.

To then try to conclude that if X had happened differently, Y would have been the result is not science, I agree. But it wouldn't be science in any other field of human endeavor either, because you can't perform an experiment on things that do not exist, have never existed, and can never exist.


The more salient point is that while sociology can ONLY point out correlations, hard sciences can predict and demonstrate.Again, this is because sociology is a younger field with a more recalcitrant subject material. Planetary motion is easy; there's only one force and a small number of factors involved, most of which are extremely small in effect.

Sociology is hard because there are many forces and many factors. Thus, sociologists are still in the stage of their science that, say, Tycho Brahe was in astronomy. They can gather data. They can come up with models that sort of make sense. They can predict some things and explain some things.

But they can't predict everything or explain everything, because the field hasn't had time to mature that far.


Unlike astronomy, however, you can not to a high degree accurately use history to predict what will happen in the future. We know where Jupiter will be for any given moment for the next 100 years.Again, that's only true because planetary motion is a comparatively trivial problem. Astronomy settled that question over three hundred years ago, back when astronomy and physics were still inseparable fields of research.

If you expect sociologists to produce results as good as the ones that astrodynamicists can produce about planetary motion, then you had darn well be willing to wait a few hundred years before asserting that they have failed. The sociologists are grappling with a much more complex problem; expecting them to give you perfect answers is about as reasonable as expecting Sir Isaac Newton to have pulled the entire Standard Model, complete with quantum chromodynamics and general relativity, out of his hat over the weekend.


Well, that is how language (and logic) works. If science is done by a particular method, and something does not follow that method, it isn't science. It sounds to me like you are complaining that clipping one's nails should be called brushing one's teeth, despite the fact it involves neither teeth or brushing. They are both part of hygiene, just as study/observation and science/experimentation are both valuable ways to expand and build upon human knowledge, however, they are not the same parts.The catch is that you have defined 'science' as 'I can build laboratory apparatus to examine a test case as many times as a I want anywhere in the world.'

That is not a valid definition. You are excluding from the category of 'science' many things that belong within the category, based on either the conventional use of the term or on the opinion of the actual practicioners of science (even if we use your definition to identify who is and is not practicing science).

It is as if you had defined 'dog' to mean only Great Danes and rottweilers, and therefore dismissed poodles, daschunds, and Labrador retrievers as being 'non-dogs' or 'canids'.

That is not how language works. You can't invent a new definition for something that excludes half the stuff that everyone else considers to be covered under that thing, and then expect people to buy arguments based on your new definition.

It doesn't make any difference that you have said that the nonscience of 'study' is important or legitimate, any more than it would matter if you said "well, poodles aren't dogs, but they are canids, and canids are just as good as dogs." The crux of the matter is that you have misdefined an important term in a fashion that is too restrictive, be it 'science' or 'dog.'


To sum this up perhaps a little more than I should, this is why Occam's Razor is important. However, sometimes the understood laws of reality are wrong. That's the beauty of the independant recreation of experiements.The point remains, though, that you never get past the initial assumptions, such as "energy is conserved," unless you can at some point take those assumptions as 100% certain. And if you can't get past the initial assumptions, like "energy is conserved," then you never get to the advanced interesting stuff like "under certain conditions, uranium nuclei undergo fission, releasing energy."

If the law of conservation of energy hadn't been taken for granted by the 1890s, it would have been nearly impossible for us to develop the understanding of radioactivity. This is an important example, because when people started observing radioactivity they did not treat it as a potential falsification of the law of conservation of energy. Instead, they went looking for 'new', unknown physical processes to explain this bizarre result, and they made considerable progress.


actaully, those sums are beyond any craft pocessed by man. Or have they suddenly found an answer to the three body problem?Nah, we can actually do that, at least to the limit of precision of our measuring apparatus (our ability to predict the location of Jupiter is as good as our ability to measure the location of Jupiter, so if we've made a mistake in our calculations we won't be able to detect it by measuring the result against reality; reality matches the predictions even when we look at reality as hard as we can.


By the way, BA stands for Bachelor of Arts. BS is Bachelor of Science. Not to demean your fiance, you understand, but to point out that most universities do not call acheology a science. It uses science, but is not itself a science.I sense an argument from authority.

[Adlan]

anyway, to return to topic, does anyone know how advanced the central and southern african peopls got in relation to metalwork/armourcrafting and such, pre colonial era? I get the vide that apart form the med coast, the africans kinda skipped form iorn age tribes to 19th century and missed the middle bit.

There were some fairly advanced Subsharan African civillisations, the Ashanti are the ones that come to mind.

Quite a few collapsed before western contact, but most were 'contaminated' if you can say that, by ideas and trade goods from cultures that did have western contact, and had machete's and guns long before they encounterd white people.

Cultures don't (well, rarely) develop in a vacuum, but as far as I'm aware, they never got much beyond medival technology.

[Awetugiw]

Perhaps in the states, look up your definitions before you claim to know them. BA is also the abbrevation used for biology bachelors, or math students with a bachelors degree.

Interestingly, math is indeed known for NOT using the scientific method. Biology usually does, but is in many cases quite a lot less strict in it than physics and chemistry.

Note by the way that I am definitely not arguing that things not strictly using the scientific method aren't science. "Scientific Method" is a bit of a poorly chosen name for what should be called "Falsification Method".

Still, one should not forget that history is a very different kind of science than, say, physics. We may not like it, but "Scientific Method" means one is using falsification, and as such it does not apply to many sciences.

[Wehrkind]

GAH! I put off writing for two days because I was in a black mood due to work.
Now the site ate my post, and I am in a worse mood!

I am afraid you will have to wait to be rebutted Dervag, at least until the bile goes down.

My closing question I will pose to you however, was "Assuming your definition, what study does NOT qualify as a science?" I was having trouble coming up with a list of even 5 studies represented at PennState.

[Storm Bringer]

GAH! My closing question I will pose to you however, was "Assuming your definition, what study does NOT qualify as a science?" I was having trouble coming up with a list of even 5 studies represented at PennState.

any that lie outside that definition, of course.:smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:


but seriously, if the overwhelming majority of the subjects taught at PennState were classed as sciences, how is that a problem?

[Dervag]

My closing question I will pose to you however, was "Assuming your definition, what study does NOT qualify as a science?" I was having trouble coming up with a list of even 5 studies represented at PennState.I'm not sure what you think my definition is.

I think my definition of a 'science' is a field of research or study in which the standard, routinely applied method of investigation includes both of the following major features:

1)Where possible, things should be quantified. There are places for qualititative factors in science, but those places are and must remain at the fringe of investigation, in the areas where quantification cannot reach. The ultimate goal of any scientific investigation, research, or study should be the most thorough quantification possible of the body of knowledge in question.

Fields where quantification is not the goal, or where quantification is utterly impossible, are arts rather than sciences, though they may be extremely rigorous and challenging arts.

Language studies, literature, the performing arts, and philosophy, in general, are not quantitative and are therefore arts. History is a borderline case because much of it is inherently nonquantifiable, but much of it is quantifiable. Historians who are trying to quantify where possible may be practicing science while historians who are not so trying are not.

2)The community of research or study in the field should engage in persistent and thorough fact-checking. Wherever a theory makes some statement with predictable consequences, any available examples should be checked to see if the consequences match the statement. If possible, examples should be created so that consequences can be monitored in a controllable and repeatable fashion. If this is not possible (and it may not be) then the science becomes much more difficult and there will be a lot more 'two steps forward, one step back' going on.

Most academic disciplines at least keep up a pretense of fact-checking, so it's hard to identify specific examples of disciplines which do not. One can point to certain 'postmodern' schools of thought in various disciplines as examples of groups which attempt to undermine the idea of fact-checking by asserting that it is philosophically unsound.

[Deadmeat.GW]

In that case Geology is not a science either, a heck of a lot of things that run of science cannot use this method due to either scale or simply improbability of repeating in the same exact circumstances the experiment.

The method requires being able to repeating something, just look at how many sciences cannot be repeated due to their nature.

Unless you are going to try and tell me that Volcanology is an 'art' too.

Movement of tectonic plates, behaviour of weather patterns, causes of earthquakes, ...

Behaviour of lightning strikes ...we are trying to recreate these in lab conditions but sofar due to environmental causes (i.e. electro magnetic fields, layers of soil that can causes differences in reactions, etc...) people involved in the field are pretty much saying that the study is very much in its infancy and the lab tests cannot be used as anything but guidelines of behaviour for lightning strikes.
We simply do not have the resources to account for everything that would affect a lightning strike in a lab under repeatable circumstance, often because the circumstances outside change due to the lightning strike itself.

This method is only applicable to specific sciences, calling other sciences not sciences or even more derogatory 'arts' is just demeaning.
You know what was a socalled science that was also called an art?

Astrology and Alchemy in the aspect of predicting the future or creating the philosopher stone.

And as for languages not being quantifiable...

I am not sure but are you actually saying that recreating the meaning of a dead language through methodical testing and comparative studies (hum, wait a second, repeatable tests and clear defined rules and guidelines...) like say Egyptian (ancient hyroglyphs) is not following this idea of falling under the aspect of the Scientific Method?

I am going to quote something here:

''The scientific method does not apply to the study history and culture. I will repeat that, because it bears repeating.

The scientific method does not apply to the study history and culture.

Unless you can come up with a hypothesis, create controlled experiments to test the hypothesis, others can recreate these independanty, and everyone comes to the same conclusion, it is not science.''

Check out how dead languages are rediscovered.

You take a hypothesis for what a given symbol means... Check.

You create controlled experiments... I.e. get different texts with the same symbols and or write a text with your hypothesis as basis for translating... Check.

Get other universities, colleges, linguisists, etc... try it out for themselves with the addition that they try and find an alternative way of solving the translation... Check.

Rosetta Stone anyone?

Ancient Babylonian tablets anyone?

The idea that a specific, as stated created by a PHILOSOPHER, method of determining science is the only method of determining whether or not something is a science is a fallacy especially since PHILOSOPHY is excluded of being a science by people wanting to use it to define science.

If a non-scientific basis is the basis for determining whether or not something is science does anyone else think this is a bit peculiar?

[Dervag]

Deadmeat, are you responding to me, or to Wehrkind? You might want to include some quotes from other people in your posts so that we can know things like that.

If you are responding to me, I consider geology a science because geologists try hard to quantify things and do lots of fact-checking.

I referred to language studies as being non-quantitative, but that doesn't mean I'm right. It's not an area I know much about.


The idea that a specific, as stated created by a PHILOSOPHER, method of determining science is the only method of determining whether or not something is a science is a fallacy especially since PHILOSOPHY is excluded of being a science by people wanting to use it to define science.

If a non-scientific basis is the basis for determining whether or not something is science does anyone else think this is a bit peculiar?Actually, if I were more confident that the philosopher in question (Popper) was deeply familiar with science and the practice thereof, I wouldn't think it was peculiar at all. It's only because I suspect Popper was not fully familiar with many of the sciences, and that he was operating with the traditional image of the scientist as a lab-coated experimenter working with big pieces of hardware to perform controlled experiments in an air-conditioned room.

Not everything is a science. The intellectual discipline that decides what is and is not science is not necessarily a science itself.

[Neon Knight]

Why did ancient peoples use chariots if plain old cavalry are better? It seems to me like a chariot is much more complicated and vulnerable. Knocking out even one horse or a wheel will bring the whole enterprise to a halt.

[Raum]

During most of the times chariots were in use, cavalry was inadequate at best. Chariots made it possible to separate the driver from the warrior, simplifying training. It could also carry more weapons than a single rider as well as providing more "armor" than personal armor allowed for at the time. It's also worth noting that heavy use of chariots was more common in hotter climates than cold, the chariot was armor that didn't over heat the warrior. Finally, prior to the stirrup, riders had to be extremely athletic to fight from a moving horse where a chariot gave warriors a reasonably stable platform to fight from.

When the stirrup became commonly used, riders didn't have to be as much of an athlete as before. Stirrups are also far cheaper than chariots. This gave warriors a stable fighting platform for far less cost than a chariot.

[Om]

Why did ancient peoples use chariots if plain old cavalry are better? It seems to me like a chariot is much more complicated and vulnerable. Knocking out even one horse or a wheel will bring the whole enterprise to a halt.Good question. The typical answer that I've seen is that horses simply got bigger.


When the stirrup became commonly used, riders didn't have to be as much of an athlete as before. Stirrups are also far cheaper than chariots. This gave warriors a stable fighting platform for far less cost than a chariot.Bear in mind that the stirrup only came into widespread use in Europe in the 8th C AD. This was certainly a factor in the dominance of cavalry in medieval warfare but even the Britons had long stopped using chariots prior to this.

Incidentally, I'm no expert on this but I don't think the impact of the stirrup was a matter of reducing the need for athleticism. Rather with pre-stirrup cavalry it was simply impractical/impossible to set your weight correctly for an under-arm thrust. It didn't matter how strong or athletic you were - without the stirrup you'd almost always be thrown off the horse on impact. Again, note that many, many cultures still employed cavalry using the weaker over-arm thrusting technique prior to the development of the stirrup or advanced saddles.

[Raum]

Bear in mind that the stirrup only came into widespread use in Europe in the 8th C AD. This was certainly a factor in the dominance of cavalry in medieval warfare but even the Britons had long stopped using chariots prior to this.

Incidentally, I'm no expert on this but I don't think the impact of the stirrup was a matter of reducing the need for athleticism. Rather with pre-stirrup cavalry it was simply impractical/impossible to set your weight correctly for an under-arm thrust. It didn't matter how strong or athletic you were - without the stirrup you'd almost always be thrown off the horse on impact. Again, note that many, many cultures still employed cavalry using the weaker over-arm thrusting technique prior to the development of the stirrup or advanced saddles.The under-arm thrust primarily mattered to heavy cavalry. Heavy cavalry had been around for for some time, but the stirrup and leverage it gave the lance made it far more effective. Stirrups also gave light cavalry a stable shooting platform, but an athletic rider could already shoot. On athleticism & the stirrup - it was dangerous to simply mount while carrying weapons without using a stirrup. Cambyses, king of Persia in 522 B.C., stabbed himself fatally while leaping onto his horse.

[Fhaolan]

Ha! Back on real-world weapon and armor-type questions! Things I can help with! :smallbiggrin:

Cavalry: Note that ancient Celtic, Roman, and whatnot saddles were *not* modern saddles simply missing stirrups. They were structured quite differently with four 'horns' that you brace your legs against when making more extreme manuevers and weathering impacts. Stirrups are easier to use, supposedly, but pre-stirrup calvalry weren't just sitting up on the horse with nothing to hang on to.

[I put the word supposedly in there because I've not had a chance to ride in a four-horn saddle myself. I plan on constructing one myself soon, but I haven't found enough technical details on their construction yet to do so.]

Chariots: The Celts used chariots long after other people abandoned the idea, despite living in very rough terrain that you would think invalidate the use of a chariot. There are many reasons for this. First off, Celtic chariots had a fundamental advantage over Roman chariots. They had a suspension system http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol5/5_1/karl_5_1.html, which allowed travel over much rougher terrain. Reconstructed chariots have been put through some pretty strange tests. I don't have a link to it, but I saw one test where the chariot was used to jump a significantly sized log. According to the driver, the technique used was much like what a modern skateboarder does, but on a much larger scale. He 'bounced' the chariot, which because of the rope suspension caused it to rebound off the ground and with the ponies pulling it jumping, it arced over the log.

Secondly, you can get a lot more oomph out of two ponies connected to a chariot than one pony in a saddle. Mainly increased endurance, as horses can pull far more weight for longer spans of time in a chariot. This allows the hero to carry a lot more gear and get to battles much farther away without changing horses.

Thirdly, while chariots may have been used in battle, the tales and myths from the period seem to indicate that the chariots were used mainly as transportation or as missile platforms. The hero would get down to fight when it came to hand-to-hand, leaving the charioteer to withdraw and return if and when the hero needed rescuing or relief. Or they would speed along the lines of battle, throwing javelins into the lines before hand-to-hand engaged.

And fourthly, prestige. The chariot carried a lot of prestige. Heroes, nobles, and kings rode in chariots. If you had a chariot, you *were* somebody.

[Matthew]

Yes, indeed. The 'Great Stirrup Controversy' is a matter of academic record. Nobody really knows why Chariots fell out of favour (or really exactly how they were used). If we take our lead from the Illiad, then we can pretty much say that Chariots were used for personal transportation and provided a stable platform from which to shoot Arrows, throw Spears or pursue a fleeing enemy, but were not driven amongst the foe. We do get Vegetius' rather interesting 'Armoured Chariot' as a possible response to Elephants, but that was likely theoretical.

The 'four horned saddle' has pretty much put to rest any idea that 'Shock Cavalry' were not possible before Stirrups or that the rider would somehow pole vault from his horse on impact. Stirrups were an evolution, not a revolution and though they first enter the archaeological record in the eighth century, they do not seem to have become widespread until later; what they particularly allowed for was the 'couched lance' and for the rider to 'rise up' from his saddle.

[Neon Knight]

Cool, thanks.

So, before man used iron, he used bronze and copper. Did the forging techniques used to make weapons out of copper and bronze differ greatly from those used for iron? Were weapons made from copper and bronze wielded in a manner vastly different than their counterparts? What weapons were typically forged from copper and bronze?

Also, I've heard some references to "meteoric" iron. What was that about?

[Matthew]

I'm no expert on forging techniques, but the short answer is yes, the techniques employed to make Bronze Weaponry and Armour differed from those used to make Iron/Steel (depending on your definition) Weaponry and Armour. That said, techniques were not evenly applied either, methods differed over time and region.

The 'Spanish Sword' of Polybius fame appears to have been particularly good, though exactly what he is referring to remains imperfectly known (though evidence is increasing). It was reported that such blades could be flexed by pulling them over a Legionery helmet and that they would spring back into shape perfectly. This is entirely possible and may show the quality of the blade, but every time such a feat was done the blade would actually be damaged, so I wouldn't recommend it.

The Celts, however, who we know to have been excellent Iron Workers are often depicted by the Romans (and Polybius' account may be the root of this accusation) as having to stop during combat and straighten out their Sword Blades. It occurred to me the other day that this might be evidence for mixed weaponry amongst the Celts (perhaps even Bronze Swords), but currently it is thought to be simple propaganda characterising the Barbarian Celts as untutored in civilised Roman ways.

Swords, Spears, Axes, pretty much everything was forged of Bronze and later replaced with Iron. Even long into the Iron Age, Greek Hoplites still used Bronze Butt Spikes for their Spears and wore Bronze Body Armour, as did the Romans, and Iron Mail with Bronze Helmets was not unknown (if I recall correctly). One good quality of Bronze is that it is apparently much less prone to rust than Iron (though, like the Statue of Liberty, it won't remain shiny forever). Furthermore, good quality Bronze is better than poor quality Iron, or so I am led to believe.

Meteoric Iron is Iron supposedly taken from a Meteor (and therefore possessing otherworldly properties). I don't know of any specific instances off the top of my head.

I'm sure somebody more knowledgable will correct any mistakes I have made.

Edit

Here are some links:

http://museums.ncl.ac.uk/archive/arma/welc/begin.htm
http://www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEquipment.html
http://romanmilitaryequipment.co.uk/figures.htm
http://astro.temple.edu/~tlclark/lorica/
http://www.legionsix.org/
http://www.reenactor.net/units/legioxxii/
http://www.4hoplites.com/index.htm
http://www.spartanwarband.com/index.php

[Fhaolan]

Cool, thanks.

So, before man used iron, he used bronze and copper. Did the forging techniques used to make weapons out of copper and bronze differ greatly from those used for iron? Were weapons made from copper and bronze wielded in a manner vastly different than their counterparts? What weapons were typically forged from copper and bronze?

Also, I've heard some references to "meteoric" iron. What was that about?

Bronze, copper, and early iron weapons tended to be cast rather than forged. So, yes, it varies greatly. :smallsmile:

In fact, casting steel swords also occured in some regions. The blade blank being ground and tempered after being excised from the caliber (another word for mold). :smallbiggrin:

Casting tends to encourage smaller weapons, to reduce the chance of critical failures due to impurities or flaws in the metal. Forging allows impurities in the metal to be worked out or homoginized, so it allows for longer, slimmer blades. Not that you *can't* cast a long blade, it just takes a higher level of casting skill and is therefore more expensive.

As such, what we would call short swords, as well as daggers, spearheads, arrowheads, axes and the like could be cast. These were the common weapons in the bronze age.

Oh, and just as a note, bronze is an alloy, and because of that the exact formulation of bronze used in different regions at different times varied quite a lot. For example, a Brittania spear head recovered in one dig had a chemical analysis of 1 part tin to 6 parts copper, an axe head in the same dig had 1 part tin to 10 parts copper, and a knife had 1 parts tin to 7.5 parts copper. Arsemic, zinc, phosphor may also be present in the bronze to varying degrees, each creating different properties in the metal.

Also note that the word bronze is modern and was not in the English language before the 18th century. Before that, the word brass was used to cover all copper-based alloys. It makes it a bit tricky when doing research on the topic when the terminology changes without notice. :smallsmile:

[Storm Bringer]

Cool, thanks.

So, before man used iron, he used bronze and copper. Did the forging techniques used to make weapons out of copper and bronze differ greatly from those used for iron? Were weapons made from copper and bronze wielded in a manner vastly different than their counterparts? What weapons were typically forged from copper and bronze?

Also, I've heard some references to "meteoric" iron. What was that about?

frist part: bascially, bronze was used for similar purposes as iron (swords, spear-heads, arrows, shields, and a few breastplates). larger pieces did bend more readily than iorn. though (thier are references to warriors stamping on their swords to straighten them in the middle of combat). In terms of forging, the big difference was sheer heat: iorn is only workable at much higher tempratures than copper, meaning you need far more powerful forges to work it. the other trouble is that the two major elements of Bronze, copper and Tin, almost never occur close to one another (their are two sites in the world where they do. two).

Intrestingly, bronze is better than the wrought Iron that replaced it. Yes, Better. However, it was cheaper to make iron (In europe, making bronze ment you needed a reliable trade route to Cornwall, the major suppiler of tin. That ment having ships than can deal with the storms of the Atlantic.), and iorn was good enough for most purposes. then, as forging technquies advanced, they made Steel, which is better than bronze.



second part: meteoric iorn is Iorn smelted out of a metor. Metors fall from Heaven. How could the porduce of heaven not be superior? (i.e. it has no chemical difference i know it, they simply thought it was. It's mythos thing)

[Neon Knight]

You people are so helpful and nice. I'd give you a cookie, but I eated it.

Last question, and then I'll stop bugging you.

I was told at one point that primitive gun powder weapons took so long to reload and had such short range that troops issued them wore heavy body armor and carried melee weapons in addition. They would get close to the enemy, fire a single volley, and then charge into melee, being so close to the enemy that pausing to reload would be pointless.

Is this factual? If so, what armies employed this tactic?

[Matthew]

Short answer, yes I am given to understand that such was the case with some early firearms and those tactics were employed. Long answer, it's going to depend a lot on the sources being used and I cannot think of any particular instances off hand.

Edit
Yep, it's a nice community here and it shows in these debates. We're all eager to share what we know, as our understanding can be tested and hopefully improved.

[Fhaolan]

second part: meteoric iorn is Iorn smelted out of a metor. Metors fall from Heaven. How could the porduce of heaven not be superior? (i.e. it has no chemical difference i know it, they simply thought it was. It's mythos thing)

Well, it depends on how far back you go, really. Meteoric iron is normally a relatively good quality nickel-iron alloy. If you compare that to the bog iron that a lot of people were working with at one time, it would be superior. :smallsmile:

[Storm Bringer]

first: everybody had melee weapons. everybody still does, as the bayonet is still standard issue. Musket armed troops were issued with swords until the mid-17th century (though the men called them 'hangers' due to their cheapness), and sailors still trained with cutlasses in the 1870's.

2nd: the Handgonnes of the 16th century took at least a minute to load in good conditions, and the matchlocks of the 17th didn't get more than 2 shots in 60 seconds. Even in the first half of the 19th century, the basic plan of attack was march into range, fire a volley and charge with bayonets and unloaded muskets much like you discribe.

Also, body armour was still very common on troops until the 17th century, as it would still stop swords and pikes, and could turn a killing shot into a wounding one (though the medical ability of the time kinda made up the difference). I Know it was still worn by pikemen in the English Civil War and the 30 Years War, but by frist years of the 1700's it was gone on foot troops (though still worn by some heavy cav, right up to 1914).

as to who used the fire and charge tactic, every european equipped army did.

ultmatly, until the nepoleonic wars, the infantry musket was good to about 100 yards at most. It was perfectly possible to cross the distance between two armies at musketshot before they'd reloaded. Indeed, this was the logic behind the highland charge.

[Neon Knight]

I should be more specific. The the way the description was phrased suggested that these soldiers were akin to dedicated heavy infantry troops, with the addition of the primitive gunpowder arms.

The suggested time frame for these tactics was the late medieval age, when a good suit of plate armor could still offer some defense against the firearms of the period.

[Dervag]

Why did ancient peoples use chariots if plain old cavalry are better? It seems to me like a chariot is much more complicated and vulnerable. Knocking out even one horse or a wheel will bring the whole enterprise to a halt.Chariots are vulnerable if they get stopped in an area where there are plenty of armed enemies around. Otherwise, the odds of a wheel getting knocked out are slim and the odds of a horse getting knocked out are somewhat lower- horses can withstand a fair number of incidental injuries without dying unless someone gets in a lucky shot or what might be considered a 'called shot'.


Cool, thanks.

So, before man used iron, he used bronze and copper. Did the forging techniques used to make weapons out of copper and bronze differ greatly from those used for iron? Were weapons made from copper and bronze wielded in a manner vastly different than their counterparts? What weapons were typically forged from copper and bronze?Bronze was typically cast rather than forged. You have to melt down the copper and tin to make an alloy out of them in the first place, so you might as well shape it using the same (hot) fire that you used to make it in the first place.

Because they were cast in a mold instead of being forged by beating them into shape with a hammer, it was much easier to make bronze weapons with elaborate surface weapons. Bronze weapons tended to be bulky and to include a lot of decorations, like patterns of ridges. For the rich warrior who could afford solid bronze plate body armor such as a breastplate, the armor was often sculpted to fit his body.


Also, I've heard some references to "meteoric" iron. What was that about?Some meteorites are made of a mix of nickel, iron, and trace constituents, similar in composition to the Earth's core. The chemical makeup of a nickel-iron meteorite made better weapons than most Iron Age blacksmiths were capable of making by themselves. With the invention of more advanced metalworking techniques in the post-classical era, meteoritic iron became less valuable.

There's nothing in that stuff that modern chemists couldn't duplicate, but there are things in a nickel-iron meteorite that a classical blacksmith wouldn't know enough to duplicate.


I was told at one point that primitive gun powder weapons took so long to reload and had such short range that troops issued them wore heavy body armor and carried melee weapons in addition. They would get close to the enemy, fire a single volley, and then charge into melee, being so close to the enemy that pausing to reload would be pointless.The part about "heavy body armor" is correct, though the armor in question was usually a breastplate and helmet rather than what we think of as heavy armor (like what knights wore).

Early muskets and arquebuses ('primitive gunpowder weapons') were so heavy that it wasn't practical to carry an additional melee weapon on top of them, except as an emergency sidearm. A long knife or short sword might work, though.

More often, formations of gunners were protected by blocks of pikemen. The pikemen were extremely good at holding enemy melee troops at bay, because horses wouldn't charge into the pikes and enemy foot soldiers were reluctant to do so, too. But they were slow and vulnerable to ranged attackers, which is where the gunners came in. Almost all gunpowder armies used this combination of 'pike and shot' for some period of time, until the invention of the bayonet allowed each individual gunman to carry an effective melee weapon and a gun at the same time, because his musket became an effective melee weapon with the addition of the bayonet.

The number of vollies fired during a battle varied.


I should be more specific. The the way the description was phrased suggested that these soldiers were akin to dedicated heavy infantry troops, with the addition of the primitive gunpowder arms.The only specifically designated heavy infantry of the early gunpowder era that I know of were grenadiers. Grenadiers were soldiers chosen for size and ferocity and armed with a musket and (predictably) some grenades. The grenades in question looked like the little black bombs you see in cartoons, with an iron shell and a long fuse cord made of something called 'slow match' (string soaked in flammable materials that would burn slowly). A grenadier had to light the fuse, standing at the front of the battle, wait until the fuse had burned down far enough that the enemy would not have time to pick it up and throw it back, and then throw the iron ball full of explosives far enough that the shrapnel wouldn't reach back to his own lines.

Predictably, this was a dangerous job. It was most commonly used in sieges and assaults against fortified positions, and it fell out of style as the 18th century rolled on and massed infantry formations got more effective and (somewhat) faster firing.


The suggested time frame for these tactics was the late medieval age, when a good suit of plate armor could still offer some defense against the firearms of the period.Actually, until the invention of smokeless powder and the high-velocity bullets it allowed, plate armor still defended against bullets. Even in the American Civil War, some soldiers purchased breastplates to protect them from bullets, and they worked. However, armor went out of style for the very reason that not many American Civil War soldiers wore breastplates: armor was expensive, heavy, and uncomfortable, and it couldn't protect you against cannons no matter how much you wore.

[Storm Bringer]

my understanding of Kasrkin's revised post is that he is on about the early 1500's, where guns were not yet the dommiant weapon.

[Neon Knight]

Yes, I am talking about the 1500s, when gunpowder weapons were brand spanking new and inly the wealthiest of nobles could afford to equip even small units with them. The responses I'm getting seem to be 1700 oriented.

[Adlan]

Meteoric Iron is interesting.

The First iron ever used was Meteoric, there are Iron Artifacts with the chemical composition of Meteors long before Iron Artifacts of smelted composition are found. The root word for Iron is debated to be from the Etruscan word Aisar which means 'the gods'. However, early Iron Artifacts are mostly ornamental, not practical, as it would have been rarer than gold.

I recall my mother telling me of one bog find (My mother was an Archeologist and Museum Curator), which was a celtic sword, mostly likely an offering to Sulis. The Centre was a rusted remain, but the edge was formed of metoric iron, which due to chrome present in it, was still whole. This shows that even the Celts, who were marvellous Craftsmen (the Romans may have written otherwise, but the way they adopt their swords, helmets, and other designs shows the truth), used metioric iron as an edge because it was superior to the iron they could smelt.



As far as Early Firearms, they were used in combination with pikemen and other infantry to protect them while they were reloading. AFAIK It wasn't untill the 1700's that the Pikemen and musketmen combined with the use of the bayonet. Then it was the Tactic, to load, and then charge with the bayonet.

There were still differences though, they didn't simply form two mobs and charge (usually), the french famously Favoured coloums, which could take alot of punishment on the way, and would over whelm with force of numbers concentrated in one place, while the British favoured the Line, which could give out alot of punishment, because every man could bring his weapon to bear.

[Ruerl]

Meteoric Iron is interesting.

The First iron ever used was Meteoric, there are Iron Artifacts with the chemical composition of Meteors long before Iron Artifacts of smelted composition are found. The root word for Iron is debated to be from the Etruscan word Aisar which means 'the gods'. However, early Iron Artifacts are mostly ornamental, not practical, as it would have been rarer than gold.

I recall my mother telling me of one bog find (My mother was an Archeologist and Museum Curator), which was a celtic sword, mostly likely an offering to Sulis. The Centre was a rusted remain, but the edge was formed of metoric iron, which due to chrome present in it, was still whole. This shows that even the Celts, who were marvellous Craftsmen (the Romans may have written otherwise, but the way they adopt their swords, helmets, and other designs shows the truth), used metioric iron as an edge because it was superior to the iron they could smelt.

Could we have a source reference for that one? Its an interesting idea to put it mildly that the first creations should have been of meteoric iron, and I for one hold it as highly dubious.
Also, please note that a bog can preserve metal much better than what one would think, the large collection found at "Illerup Ådal" is a proof of that (its one of the worlds largest collections of roman weapons, ironically found in a bog in Denmark thus giving us proof that the romans traded weapons with the "savages" north despite laws against the very same thing.).

Bottomline is that its not necessarry for a weapon to have any sort of "special" metal to survive in a bog for more than five centuries, its the quality of the bog that decides if it'll last more than the metal, also please note that some blades where thinner in the middle of the blade than on the edges giving a perfectly viable reason why that part could have rusted away before the rest, and not only that, a few blades actually had a different type of forging in the middle of the blade than the outer edges, the museum of Moesgaard has some brilliant examples of originals and re-created weapons next to them to show a comparison, its well worth a visit.

And to claim that the celts used meteoric iron on the edge of their blades is pardon me, highly unlikedly, its sounds more like an urban legend than a proven truth, but by all means, please prove me wrong. :smallsmile:

On stirrups:
I've heard an intriguing theory that the stirrups allready came to europe long before the middle ages albeit in a very different shape, problem with such theories are that its hard to prove archeologically due to lack of finds (the materials of such stirrups would have been simple rope or leather wich would'nt have lasted till today).

[Matthew]

On stirrups:
I've heard an intriguing theory that the stirrups allready came to europe long before the middle ages albeit in a very different shape, problem with such theories are that its hard to prove archeologically due to lack of finds (the materials of such stirrups would have been simple rope or leather wich would'nt have lasted till today).

Yeah, that sort of thing gets voiced from time to time, but there is no artistic evidence to support it, let alone any archaeological. The most often touted example is an unstirruped miniature of Charlemagne. Since the breakthrough with the four horned saddle, it has become an increasingly 'outsider' idea. That said, there is still plenty we do not know on the subject.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/sloan.html
http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/tekpages/texts/strpcont.html

Peter Connolley is the man to talk to about this. His work has revolutionised our understanding of Ancient and Early Medieval Cavalry.

[Adlan]

For Sources on Metoric Irons early use, a quick perusal of my mothers shelves gives the first book as A History of Metallurgy, by R. F. Tylecote. I remember it being mentiond on the Wiki as well.

And Indeed, the Celtic Sword Story is third hand, told to me by my mother, who was told it by a fellow archeologist. And indeed, Iron can survive in conditions one would think it would be destroyed in, however, In this instance, it is the fact that the centre (which I belive the story being mentiond as being pattern welded, which is wrought iron and steel, twisted and folded together, giving a cheaper mix a deal of the strength of the steel) was rusted, and the edge preserved.

Comming back to the Metoric Iron early use, I'm pretty sure of it's providence, and I stand by it.

[Dervag]

Could we have a source reference for that one? Its an interesting idea to put it mildly that the first creations should have been of meteoric iron, and I for one hold it as highly dubious.Well, meteorites have been around longer than human civilization, so even cultures that lacked the knowledge to refine iron (or even that iron could be refined) could exploit naturally occuring pieces of nickel-iron meteorite. For instance, the native Americans used pieces of the Canyon Diablo meteorite that formed Meteor Crater in Arizona, despite the fact that they never discovered the technique for making iron tools or weapons on their own.

[Ruerl]

I stand corrected in my belief on Meteoric iron was used as the earliest source of iron.

However, I still believe and I believe that modern archeology supports this, that the vast majority of weapons from the early times was'nt meteoric iron, in fact they where not even iron and as such I still believe its an urban myth that say the celts all used weapons forged with an alloy of meteoric iron.

As for the pattern welded blades, they may be slightly inferior in quality but damn they look good, however, such a blade could perhaps explain why the centre of the blade was rusted while the rest was more intact?

Regards

Lars
-who simply must get hold of a pattern welded blade somday just to use as a wall-hanger.

[Adlan]

Ruerl, Your misenterpreting me. Deliberately or by Accident. But I'm not saying the Celts used metioric Iron for all their work. I'm passing on a report, that I belive quite credible, of a Sword, of Celtic work, which had a band of steel forge welded round a central Pattern Welded core. The Edge remained while the core rusted away, because the Edge was made from Metioric Iron which contained Nickel and small amounts of Chromium, unless you theorise the celts had the technology and the ore to refine chromium.

I'm not saying:

that say the celts all used weapons forged with an alloy of meteoric iron.

Even if the Celts searched out every Metor that fell to earth, and all those for a thousand years before thier culture arose. They wouldn't have near enough Iron.

And I'm not saying:

However, I still believe and I believe that modern archeology supports this, that the vast majority of weapons from the early times was'nt meteoric iron, in fact they where not even iron

Indeed. As I said, metoric Iron would be rarer than gold, untill it was smelted, I doubt it was used for actual tools for manual use.

[Ruerl]

@Adlan, pardon my english, but I have been led to believe that the line I have quoted below indicates a plural form and as such giving an indication that you meanth it as a general trend amongst the celts, wich I offcourse doubted, I did not mean to misinterpret you, to do so would be rude and deragoratory to an adult discussion, something I believe neither of us would want.


This shows that even the Celts, who were marvellous Craftsmen (the Romans may have written otherwise, but the way they adopt their swords, helmets, and other designs shows the truth), used metioric iron as an edge because it was superior to the iron they could smelt.

If I misunderstood you in the above text, I would kindly ask you to elaborate what you meanth with the plural swords, helmets and other designs. This may seem like a trivial question but english is not my natural language and as such I have to ask it to get a better understanding.

If you by the above text refer to that the romans should have adopted the celtic designs then I would kindly ask you for a source of such as my own collection of sources on the romans are somewhat limited when dealing with primary sources, in fact I only have access to a mere 473 secondary* source texts spread out across the entire field of study.

Regards

Lars

*In this case I refer to the direct translations of the original texts as the secondary sources -since translation also means interpretation.
And since I can't read roman latin I can't read the primary sources. ;)

[Matthew]

Ah Lars, you are misreading. The clause within the brackets refers to how the Romans copied Celtic Body Armour, Helmet and Sword designs. It is separate from his comment about there being evidence for meteoric iron being used by the Celts.

[Adlan]

Yeah, the brackets are the important bit, not to worry though Lars, your English is far to superior to any of the foreign languages I know, of which, at best I can muddle along with a few words. And a lot of pointing and grunting.

The Most famous stolen design of the romans is the aptly named 'Gallic Helmet'

[Exarch]

Hey, guys. Sorry to be asking this, but I have no idea where this is in the thread.

Someone posted a link that allowed you to click on a weapon, and it would bring up a picture of the weapon with a height scale behind it.

I can't, for the life of me, remember its name.

Please help.

[Zen Master]

I've a question that should be a bit out of the ordinary for you guys.

Consider making a planetary assault. With the purpose of conquest. Amongst enemies of equal tech levels (futuristic, but not at the point of say FTL weapons). With the full resources of a full planetary system available to each side - but with one side having to overcome the challenge of bringing the fight to the other, which can find defensively.

Some points here:

Reinforcements, resupply, power generation, defensive positions all speak in favour (in my general assesment) of the defending planet.

At the extreme ranges involved in space combat, certain weapons could be dodged by a spaceship - this option isn't available to a planet. The same goes for defensive space platforms.

It might be possible to simply smash the planet to bits - but the point here is conquering it with the intention of ... well, using it. So while some slinging of asteroids into cities is valid, this cannot be the mainstay of the attack.

Following the above, at some point a bridgehead must be established, infantry and armor transported to the surface, and the entire population of the planet in question must be defeated (not as in genocide, just brought to heel).

Yea ... planetary assault seems a bit of a tricky proposal to me. Any thoughts, ideas, suggestions, ingenius, wild or even incoherent and insane are welcome.

Edit: Now it strikes me that this isn't necesarrily entirely Real World. Well um ... how about real world physics and logistics and stuff?

[Ruerl]

Since its a fully theoretical question its impossible to give a clear answer to, a few pointers however inspired by Liddel Hart's strategy can be used though:

1: The defending part by the very nature of the engagement will always be able to stop the attacker at a point best suited for the defender, to circumvent this you must be indirect and trick the opponent to believe you to be somewhere else, a sacrificial army is an option though an expensive one.
2: Both sides rely on a few factors, such as powersupply, the attacker should use his main fleet to draw out the enemy to battle in a position the enemy believes favorable and then disengage before any real battle can be joined, this distraction should be used to make a covert strike at the enemy powersupplies this again should be used as a cover to target a tertiary goal, namedly the civilian life on the planet.
A soldier generally has two loyalties: to his family and in this case, to his planet, threathen his family and he will want to be home to protect them, not far away where he can't do anything for them.
And finally, target the infrastructure of the planet, traffic lights alone will do tons to hinder the enemy troop transports for a few hours until the millitary takes over the control of the traffic lights to control the traffic and keep open their own transport routes, this will also force the enemy to draw troops away from the main battle thus weakening the resistance you will face eventually.
3: While 2 happens, continue baiting the enemy army, remain a threath but refuse battle, the enemy can either choose to go back to his planet with the main fleet or continuing to guard from assaulth, if he goes back to his own planet intercept him on the course if possible.
4: On fleet sizes: Multible smaller fleets working together will always be better than few large fleets, if we assume that the two planets has an equal level of technology then we can assume that the fleets are pretty much equeal, this means that the enemy if basing on large fleets will run into the problem of presenting a vulnerable rear to one of the other small fleets, and while you may need two or even three of your small fleets to get the same number as one of his large fleets then its fair, its not about massed firepower, its about how you put your firepower to use.

As for the final part, the logistics? Well, thats the part where you win or lose, hit his infrastructure, hit it hard, and he will be a sitting duck.

[Subotei]

Assuming the forces available to each side are equal (in numbers as well as tech level), the chance of success for the planetary assault force would be tiny unless they could achieve some kind of surprise. I can't think of a successful assault against an equal, waiting, opponent - looking at WWII amphibious operations as recent examples, just about all were against weak forces - even then the attackers took heavy casualties - eg the Pacific island assaults, Normandy. A general rule of thumb for assaulting troops is to have a 3:1 advantage in numbers to achieve success.

[Storm Bringer]

assuming a few things about the planetry systems:
A) one habitable planet. as far as we know, the odds of two planets able to support life in a system are tiny.

b) signifcant off-world assets. any culture able to wage war on a inter-system scale is going to have bases all over their system.

c) Artfical gravity systems of some sort, even if just the space ships spinning. Zero-g is bad for someone if left in it for an extended time, and to pull this off you'd need people at full health the moment they hit planetside, not after a week when thier muscles have adjusted. Also, some form of interial compensators to allow high G burns.

d)the attacking fleet is able to move at or near light speed. Even assuming the systems are next to each other (about 3-4 light years), this is still a huge distance for the attacker to run supplies.

e) re-useable shuttlecraft able to land and take off form planets at will.


Now, practically, the defender is going to be clustered about the homeworld and a few key stations, as without scanning systems that can work out to the AU range and are FTL, you're not going to see a foe coming far enough away to do anything about it unless your at your target.

first stage of the attack: a scout unit blasts though the system at near light speed, gatherig as much data as they can and sending it back to the main fleet (things like where planets are in thier orbit, where the stations are relative to the planets, etc). At near light speed the scout unit is effectivly untouchable, as without FTL scanners you can't see it until it's on you.

second stage: RKV attacks on milatry targets. take an large block of stuff, speed it up to near LS and point it at a known target, for example a major naval yard or a goverment orbiter. the effects of a light speed impact are hard to overstate. if you knew of an area target, you could use have the mass get to LS then break up into a cloud of smaller parts to hit mutliple targets. fire only at targets of purly militray nature at this point: factiores or space habatitats are right out. the aim here is to damage any central control, leadership and logistic systems before the foe can use them. any planetry defenses on the homeworld are a priority.


Third Stage: main fleet moves in, preferable at right angles to the plane of the system, and head straight for the homworld en masse. The aim here is to overwhelm the homworld defenses and get the troopships into drop orbits as soon as possible. as the foe has forces scattered to other sites across the system, if you stay at high speed for as long as you can, you should get to the homeworld before they can concentrate.

Now i will not delve deep into the methods of ship to ship combat. as frankly it would be total guesswork. I'm assuming that missles will be the primary weapons and CWIS/ECM the defenses. with enough numbers the attacks should be able to swap the defeners with missles and win the fight shortly. the troopships will unload thier first waves via drop pods onto suitable sites, in particular sites that can be suppiled and defended, and the warships will form a screen to protect the world form the remains of the defensers fleet (which i'm assuming are still numerous enough to be an issue).

Now, once planetside, the attackers will set up secure defensive sites before moving out to link up. orbital weaponry will be used on stragic chokepoints to try and slow defenders movements, Also, the attackers will call on the defenders to surrender or face RKV attacks on citys. this is really the key. if you hold orbit, you can blast any part of the world at will. drop a few rocks in the sea near their captial to underline the threat. hopefully the denfeners get the hint and order a truce.

form this point, you have two objectives: A) defeat the space elements of defenders system and B) claim and rebuild the world.



the above is just a possible attack plan. you could easily attack a major colony site and hold that ransome, or feint at the colony to draw the homeworld fleet out.

[Raum]

Consider making a planetary assault. With the purpose of conquest. Amongst enemies of equal tech levels (futuristic, but not at the point of say FTL weapons). With the full resources of a full planetary system available to each side - but with one side having to overcome the challenge of bringing the fight to the other, which can find defensively.With technology at or near our own, the orbital force has an overwhelming advantage...for as long as they can maintain fuel & supplies. Kinetic energy weapons (as simple as rocks dropped from orbit) can take out the majority of planet side infrastructure. Only the most hardened military facilities might be able to survive multiple strikes. However, with near modern day technology, it would be extremely difficult to maintain a long term orbital force of significant size, with the exception of satellites.


Reinforcements, resupply, power generation, defensive positions all speak in favour (in my general assesment) of the defending planet.I think you're correct, except for defensive positions.


At the extreme ranges involved in space combat, certain weapons could be dodged by a spaceship - this option isn't available to a planet. The same goes for defensive space platforms.

It might be possible to simply smash the planet to bits - but the point here is conquering it with the intention of ... well, using it. So while some slinging of asteroids into cities is valid, this cannot be the mainstay of the attack.Kinetic energy weapons don't need to be planet busters, they simply need to hit the targets they're aimed at. Striking cities would be a terror weapon, but striking infrastructure (power plants, dams, manufacturing facilities, ports, etc) and military targets will probably be more effective in the long run. Hitting those will directly affect the defenders' fighting capabilities.


Following the above, at some point a bridgehead must be established, infantry and armor transported to the surface, and the entire population of the planet in question must be defeated (not as in genocide, just brought to heel).You'd need troops on the ground eventually, but as long as you keep an effective force in space you can strike any concentrations of enemy troops. This should allow you to maintain a tactical numbers advantage even though you're at a disadvantage strategically.

Now if you add an effective defense such as science fiction style force shields, it becomes far more difficult. Also much harder to evaluate in a realistic fashion. :)

[Joran]

The simple answer to planetary assault is (to paraphrase "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress") to throw rocks.

For example, to attack Earth, just park at Mars and sling asteroids at Earth until Earth surrenders. Depending on size, the asteroids will do damage equivalent to or in excess of nuclear weapons. Even a water hit will cause tsunamis and great damage.


You'd need troops on the ground eventually, but as long as you keep an effective force in space you can strike any concentrations of enemy troops. This should allow you to maintain a tactical numbers advantage even though you're at a disadvantage strategically.

Assuming the ground forces don't have ways to intercept them, drop pods would give the attacking force unparalleled tactical movement. Find the weak spot, drop the troops, establish a base of operations, and attempt to intercept any forces going to quash it.

P.S. My major problem with any simulations I run in my head; they always end with "And then they launch nukes".

[Storm Bringer]

the thing is, your reliant on them holding back on the nukes.

however, nukes can be stopped. The US's SDI did show methods that WOULD have stopped nukes.

also, the aim here to conquor the planet with enough of the planet left to be cost effective. If you keep throwing rocks at it, you're gonna run out of planet worth hitting.

Finally, and this is the real killer, you could only throw rocks at earth form mars if you control the earths orbital space. otherwise thier is nothing to stop the defenders form just diverting siad rocks a bit.

[Ruerl]

the thing is, your reliant on them holding back on the nukes.

however, nukes can be stopped. The US's SDI did show methods that WOULD could have a chance to stop nukes.

also, the aim here to conquor the planet with enough of the planet left to be cost effective. If you keep throwing rocks at it, you're gonna run out of planet worth hitting.

Finally, and this is the real killer, you could only throw rocks at earth form mars if you control the earths orbital space. otherwise thier is nothing to stop the defenders form just diverting siad rocks a bit.

Fixed that for you :smallwink:

Seriously though, keep in mind that in a warfare at this scale civilian casualities is an acceptable factor, if you need to make civilian casualities to ensure that you get a quick surrender and as such fewer casualities in the long run, then thats what you do.

I'd like to think thats why the US dropped those bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to show the japanese through something that can only be descriped as an act of terror, that resisting was utterly useless, yes there was civilian casualities but I shudder at the thought of how many more would have died by a land invasion by conventional means.

To return closer to topic however, I believe that a direct millitary action withouth using spies in advance will always be faulthy, if you have near modern standard weapons then you should hack your way into the enemy system to learn the basics, then after this send in the scout ships, but to at any point launch your fleet in hoping to brute force your way through the enemy defences is at best suicidal, unless you have the aforementioned 3 to 1 scale.

Furthermore using drop pods to land your troops on a weak point needs to assume that the weak point has strategic value, no, honestly small commando teams striking at vital points to draw the enemy in the way you want them before launching your blow is in my eyes better.
Its just like in a fight man against man, if you can get your enemy to look away "behind you!" and then punch him as he turns away, then you win.
Dirty? Yes, but all is fair in war, because he who is unwilling to commit fully to the war will lose it in the end, its all the way or not at all in war.

[Zincorium]

I can't help but wonder if perhaps an effective weapon (if it could be done) would be to mess with the earth's magnetic field and let the solar wind sterilize the surface.

Don't know if there's any way to practically do this, as the earth's magnetic field although not incredibly strong is very very large.

[Subotei]

Earth's magnetic field has weakened and reversed polarity many times in the past, without causing sterilisation of the surface. It could wreck havoc with modern power grids, communications etc if it happended now, but beyond that I'm not certain it would be an effective weapon. And this also assumes that Earth is the target, as the discussion was general.

[Diego]

Mucking with the Earth's magnetic field is kind of a big deal - it is powered by movements within the Earth's core, and as such, by and large out of reach of most invaders (if it isn't, I think you're well beyond "futuristic" and into space fantasy).

However, mucking with the magnetic field can do some kind of crazy stuff...
http://www.spacew.com/gic/index.html
Wired communication would be completely shot as well.

[Dervag]

Since its a fully theoretical question its impossible to give a clear answer to, a few pointers however inspired by Liddel Hart's strategy can be used though:Watch it. Liddell-Hart's Strategy isn't the only book you should be reading here. There are some other concerns involved, such as the ones detailed in Alfred Thayer Mahan's works.


4: On fleet sizes: Multible smaller fleets working together will always be better than few large fleets,That's not always true. It depends on how many potential targets you have, how fast your fleets can maneuver, and (above all) how fast your fleets can communicate.

Napoleon's plan for the Battle of Trafalgar was to assemble his fleet and attack England. The problem was that his fleet was scattered in small squadrons, each trapped in one of the French or Spanish ports being blockaded by the Royal Navy. The British had more ships than he did, so they could afford to put a numerically superior squadron of ships in blockade of each port.

Napoleon responded by constructing an elaborate plan to link his fleets up in one port using a preplanned system of manuevers to fake out the British into thinking his fleets were headed for Egypt or the Caribbean and therefore forcing British ships to go chasing all over the place.

Unfortunately, it didn't work quite according to plan, because the speed at which ships could send messages in this era was the same as the speed at which ships could move. The British were able to amass a (slightly outnumbered) fleet to attack part of the total combined Franco-Spanish fleet, destroying it and Napoleon's plan.

Likewise, the Spanish Armada sent by Philip II of Spain in 1588 to conquer England was planned as a pair of fleets. Essentially, there was a 'warship component' of galleons sailing from Spain and a 'transport component' carrying experienced troops from Belgium. The distinction between warships and transports was blurry back then, but that was the idea.

The two components were supposed to rendezvous at sea, with the warships then guarding the transports as they landed the Duke of Parma's powerful army in England, conquering it.

But again, the plan didn't work because this was back when ships could move as fast as they could communicate. The English were able to assemble a large fleet of faster, more agile ships and defeat the 'warship component' of the Armada, leaving the 'transport component' with nothing to do and no one to protect it.

If your units cannot talk to each other quickly and rapidly recombine to face a large threat, dividing your forces too finely can easily lead to defeat in detail.

To make matters worse, if you only have one possible target of attack, having a divided force doesn't help you because all the enemy has to do is sit tight, dispatching whatever force is deemed necessary to handle any individual component of your force.

It all hinges on how fast the ships are relative to the radius within which they can engage a target and to the space involved, how fast you can learn what your enemy is doing, and how fast your fleets can communicate.

If we posit typical space opera science fiction technology, then communication is instant (or at least way faster than ships move), speed relativistic or faster-than-light, and intelligence gathering effectively real-time over interplanetary distances.

In that case, the space of a solar system is large but can be crossed by one of your units in at most a few hours. Ships presumably have the ability to fight at ranges measured in many, many thousands of kilometers or they'll never fight at all. Ships can be coordinated anywhere in the solar system, instantly (or at least very fast), and you can always know where your opponent is, or at least what general area they're operating in.

If all that is true, then your tactics will look a lot like those of fighter-based air warfare. Your central control will have to operate like something between the central plotting rooms used by the British to control their fighters during the Battle of Britain, and the environment in a modern AWACS aircraft (effectively a flying air traffic control tower with various kinds of weaponry and electronic warfare concerns mixed in). Operating in small fleets in this situation may work quite well, because ships can rapidly maneuver to converge on a single enemy from many directions.

On the other hand, if we posit more 'realistic' assumptions, we get something different. Assume that ships are limited by the need to carry reaction mass, that they have no artificial gravity and so can only accelerate at a few times the strength of Earth's gravity, that communication and intelligence gathering is strictly light speed, and that ships are effectively invisible except when maneuvering (because of their rocket engines) or when they are very close to you.

In that case, you get something completely different. I can see your attack coming long before it arrives if the speeds are low, and if you move fast enough to hit me without warning you must either start lining up for your attack run a long way away (so I can't see you maneuver). Even if you do move fast and surprise me at the same time, you'll bomb past me so fast that you can't do much to me except blast me with high-velocity bombardment weapons, and you'll need a really long time to slow down and come around for another pass.

Other details: I can tell the difference between an invasion fleet and a bombardment fleet from a long way off. Invasion fleets must slow down to approach their target; bombardment fleets are better off not slowing down and using their own velocity to boost the speed and punch of their bombardment.

In this case, it makes perfect sense to mass your defenses in one place, assuming you aren't worried about the enemy building up a gigantic arsenal of bombardment weapons and wrecking your planet entirely. The enemy will have to come at you in that place, moving fairly slowly, or they can't attack your units effectively at all. Which means that whatever happens you have a good chance of engaging them on your own terms, under the cover of your best sensors and control facilities (the ones presumably on or near your planet).


Assuming the forces available to each side are equal (in numbers as well as tech level), the chance of success for the planetary assault force would be tiny unless they could achieve some kind of surprise. I can't think of a successful assault against an equal, waiting, opponent - looking at WWII amphibious operations as recent examples, just about all were against weak forces - even then the attackers took heavy casualties - eg the Pacific island assaults, Normandy. A general rule of thumb for assaulting troops is to have a 3:1 advantage in numbers to achieve success.The attacker's first job must be to obtain 'space superiority' by defeating the enemy's mobile spacegoing fleet. If they can accomplish that, they can either invade or force the enemy to surrender by threatening them with standoff bombardment by weapons of mass destruction.


Now, practically, the defender is going to be clustered about the homeworld and a few key stations, as without scanning systems that can work out to the AU range and are FTL, you're not going to see a foe coming far enough away to do anything about it unless your at your target.

first stage of the attack: a scout unit blasts though the system at near light speed, gatherig as much data as they can and sending it back to the main fleet (things like where planets are in thier orbit, where the stations are relative to the planets, etc). At near light speed the scout unit is effectivly untouchable, as without FTL scanners you can't see it until it's on you.The catch is that objects moving at near light speed will be very visible because of the energetic collisions between the object and the stuff in its way (like space dust and interstellar hydrogen). So while it will be right behind the wavefront of light coming from it, you may be able to see it so far ahead of time that you have hours or days of warning anyway. Certainly, modern astronomers could detect an object approaching the solar system at near light speed from a long way off.


second stage: RKV attacks on milatry targets. take an large block of stuff, speed it up to near LS and point it at a known target, for example a major naval yard or a goverment orbiter. the effects of a light speed impact are hard to overstate. if you knew of an area target, you could use have the mass get to LS then break up into a cloud of smaller parts to hit mutliple targets. fire only at targets of purly militray nature at this point: factiores or space habatitats are right out. the aim here is to damage any central control, leadership and logistic systems before the foe can use them. any planetry defenses on the homeworld are a priority.If you use relativistic bombardment, you will cause a lot of collateral damage. If you use it on a planet, the planet will almost certainly end up uninhabitable; even a relatively small missile or rock moving at that speed would have sufficient energy to wreck a planetary ecosystem.


I can't help but wonder if perhaps an effective weapon (if it could be done) would be to mess with the earth's magnetic field and let the solar wind sterilize the surface.

Don't know if there's any way to practically do this, as the earth's magnetic field although not incredibly strong is very very large.As others have noted the Earth does not end up sterilized even when there is no magnetic field shielding it for a brief period of time. Moreover, you can't really mess with a planet's magnetic field without using enough energy to do almost anything you like to it. The field is generated by the entire core of the planet rotating. The part of it out in space is simply a manifestation or consequence of that rotation. You can't use stuff in space to change the Earth's magnetic field unless you've got enough power to induce spin in the Earth's core.

And if you can do that then you can do anything else you want.

[Zen Master]

Wow - my odd-ball question got answers. Not only that - but lots of them.

Anyways - ballistic weapons, yes. They would be available for both sides. As in, on making their approach in-system, would have to contend with being bombarded with near-relativistic asteroids. Similarly, I imagine a world capable of (and quite possible expecting) attack would have further ammo (asteroids) stored in orbit for use by defensive platforms.

One thing I hadn't really considered was the presence of defensive fleets - and of course there would be. On the other hand, in the setting I'm thinking of, the daunting scale of a succesful planetary assault has rendered the very idea rediculous. I also thing the attacking fleet will be of a fabulously staggering size. I mean, we're talking millions of groundtroops, all their support gear, supplies, infrastructure, plus whatever is needed to get to the planet in the first place.

This could possibly be tens of thousands of ships.

[Dervag]

Wow - my odd-ball question got answers. Not only that - but lots of them.

Anyways - ballistic weapons, yes. They would be available for both sides. As in, on making their approach in-system, would have to contend with being bombarded with near-relativistic asteroids. Similarly, I imagine a world capable of (and quite possible expecting) attack would have further ammo (asteroids) stored in orbit for use by defensive platforms.You don't use asteroids to bombard an approaching fleet.

You use relativistic gravel (or an asteroid with a chewy explosive center that will blast it into gravel once you get it up to speed).

Gravel moving at any meaningful fraction of light speed will have a speed measured in thousands of kilometers (or miles, if you're an American non-physicist) per second. It would pack enough of a punch to gut almost any structure human beings have ever built. The only things it could not destroy would be things built to withstand a nuclear attack, and even they could be cracked by using a fast enough or big enough bullet.

An asteroid is overkill. Moreover, even at light speed you still have to line up your shots, and if the target is millions of kilometers away (which it has to be to get your relativistic bullets up to speed), then it can move enough to dodge your asteroid. Whereas dodging a hailstorm of gravel is much harder, especially when each individual pebble packs the punch of a nuclear bomb.

Of course, even then, if the ships are truly fast you won't be able to hit them this way. In space, weapons don't stop moving due to air resistance, so it's easy to make extreme range sniper shots against an enemy who keeps moving in a straight, predictable course. The only defense is to zig-zag so that the enemy can't draw a bead on you until they're very close.


One thing I hadn't really considered was the presence of defensive fleets - and of course there would be. On the other hand, in the setting I'm thinking of, the daunting scale of a succesful planetary assault has rendered the very idea rediculous. I also thing the attacking fleet will be of a fabulously staggering size. I mean, we're talking millions of groundtroops, all their support gear, supplies, infrastructure, plus whatever is needed to get to the planet in the first place.Well, a planet can provide millions of ground troops. How many it can send off to another planet depends entirely on the cost and speed of spaceships, and on how well the ground troops can 'live off the land' at their destination.

Also remember that you don't necessarily need millions of troops to garrison the planet. It depends on what you want. For instance, if you want this star system as a forward base in a larger war, you may not care what they do on the planet as long as they build no spacecraft or surface-to-orbit weapons. In which case all you have to do is park enough bombardment power in orbit around their planet to nuke it into a billiard ball.

Likewise, if you're a spacegoing, conquering empire that works on the principle of the Mongols or Aztecs, what you want is tribute from a conquered enemy. The Mongols ensured that they'd be able to keep getting tribute by forcing their defeated enemies to take apart their defenses, leaving them helpless if angry Mongols came back because they hadn't paid their tribute.

The Aztecs didn't bother for religious reasons, but the idea is similar.

Now, if you want to administer the conquered planet you're probably screwed unless you can force the locals to do it for you by threatening to blow them up from orbit.

[Zen Master]

Watch it. Liddell-Hart's Strategy isn't the only book you should be reading here. There are some other concerns involved, such as the ones detailed in Alfred Thayer Mahan's works.

..........

And if you can do that then you can do anything else you want.

Long but very nice post, which I did read.

The thing about manouvering is g-forces. Yea it's all good and nice to be able to travel fast, but the faster you go, the more linear your movement is going to be, or you are going to be just so much mush in your cockpit.

Fully automated spacecraft are entirely possible, likely and reasonable - but a battle between automated fleets of robot ships just isn't near as fun. They would handle g-forces a bit better though.

So if a ship is attempting to thunder through the system at near-lightspeed, it is going to find itself on a collision course it cannot deviate from (due to the g-force thing) with another object at near-relativistic speed.

So by need I see the attacking force approaching at somewhat less than lightspeed.

The other very important consideration is attack range vs. sensor range. Since we're talking about outer space, any lump of rock hurled at the planet can be launched at pretty much any distance imaginable - patience provided. However, with decent sensors and a defensive readiness a counter-missile can and will be launched, and asteroids don't dodge too well. So for simple, dumb missiles to work, the defensive capabilities of the planet must be impaired. Or overwhelmed.

What I'm thinking is, it is very difficult for even a very, very large fleet to amass the total firepower a planetary system geared for war could muster. Basically I'm thinking that to have any chance of succes, the fleet would have to chip away on the defenses for quite a while. Possibly - if we assume the planet in question is less than totally self-sufficient - an embargo would help too.

[Zen Master]

You don't use asteroids to bombard an approaching fleet.


You get asteroids in all shapes and sizes tho - I'm not really suggesting speeding a planetkiller up to the speed of light to take out a space corvette.

I hear what you're saying though, and I fully agree.



Now, if you want to administer the conquered planet you're probably screwed unless you can force the locals to do it for you by threatening to blow them up from orbit.

The basic assumption of the setting I'm imagining here is that A) there are a number of civilisations in space, each with a number of colonies (these being insignificant compared to the parent world), and B) these civilisations basically agreeing that a planetary assault is simply too huge an undertaking to ever be succesful.

So while everyone prepares for conflict, the reality of an invasion is not expected. Sort of like no one ever really expected nuclear war.

Also, there has been conflict aplenty - but always involving the colonies, which are far less well-defended.

[Zen Master]

P.S. My major problem with any simulations I run in my head; they always end with "And then they launch nukes".

Add to your simulation a very significant defensive presence.

Add to your simulation that nukes can be launched from planetside also.

Add to your simulation that the defenders can launch from space as well - they have their own fleets.

Add also that if there is a convenient planet to park at and throw rocks from, that planet is initially in the hands of the defenders.

Edit: Hell, why even assume that nukes are to be considered particularly powerful? Even today, the americans have mass-drivers, and an artillery barrage from say 12 of those babies will not leave you wanting much for nukes.

[Dervag]

The thing about manouvering is g-forces. Yea it's all good and nice to be able to travel fast, but the faster you go, the more linear your movement is going to be, or you are going to be just so much mush in your cockpit.That's my point.

If we posit technologies that let you not worry about g-forces, so that your ship's acceleration can be measured in hundreds or thousands of gees, we get a very different situation from the one that we get when we don't. I wasn't explicit enough about saying this before, but it's definitely informing my arguments. If ship drives can get a ship going to a large fraction of light speed in a period measured in hours (as in David Weber's "Honor Harrington" universe), we get one kind of space warfare. If ship drives are limited to accelerations no more than a few times the strength of gravity, we get a completely different kind of space warfare.

In the former case, it makes sense to divide your forces because you can probably reunite them fast enough to converge on a powerful enemy from several directions. It's OK for ships to operate in squadrons or small task forces, the way that real-life aircraft do, because like real-life aircraft they can cross the theater of operations in minutes or hours.

In the latter, it doesn't, because you can't. If you send a flotilla of cruisers out to investigate the anomalous energy readings indicating enemy action around Neptune, you can't possibly bring those ships back fast enough to deal with a large squadron of incoming ships that are armed with relativistic weapons to blow up your orbital defenses. So you concentrate your defenses at critical points, because you can't redeploy your defenders in time to face a well-planned threat.


So by need I see the attacking force approaching at somewhat less than lightspeed.That applies if you don't want to destroy the defending target and if you're actually worried about hitting something.

The odds of hitting a large object (such as a planet or spaceship) are incredibly tiny for any single ship. As the Sage put it, "space is big."

The odds of hitting a small object (such as a grain of sand) are somewhat more serious, and as I said above, being hit by a pebble or a loose screw is about as bad as being nuked if you're moving at near light speed.

However, if your ships are even capable of relativistic speeds, they must have some way to defend themselves against this kind of threat. Unless your interstellar drive works by teleporting between stars rather than 'sailing' between them, the threat of hitting something relativistic remains. So fear of collisions is not the dominating concern here. The really important question is what kind of attack you intend to launch and how long you want to hang around in the vicinity of the target.


You get asteroids in all shapes and sizes tho - I'm not really suggesting speeding a planetkiller up to the speed of light to take out a space corvette.

I hear what you're saying though, and I fully agree.Well, when I hear 'asteroid', I don't normally think 'pebble'. Pebbles are better for taking out mobile targets for the same reason that bird hunters fire birdshot out of their shotguns and not solid lead slugs. You only need a small fraction of your weapon's energy to destroy the target, so you might as well split that energy into lots of little shots, each one of which has an X% chance of hitting, than concentrating it in one shot that has an X% chance of hitting.

[Stephen_E]

I'd point out you can't use near-lightspeed KE weapns on the defnding planet.
Anything large enough survive friction passing through the solar system (at LS inter-solar-system isn't empty) will wreck the real estate.

Basically unless you're talking cheap-as interstellar travel the attacker looses with even tech. Economics kill the attacker.

If you do have cheap-as interstellar travel you still in deeps**t because you specified no FTL. This means that the attackers have to travel a decade or two, carrying their supplies, and running into defenses a decade or two better than them.

Target near orbital facilities with near-LS KE weapons doesn't work either. Your targeting simply isn't good enough, especially considering how little the orbital facility has to move to make you miss. Also doing so without effectively killing the planet is very dodgy.

How can you do it?

Threat) Fire off your planet killers with escorting fleet. Inform the defender that they can surrender and be conquered, or die. Of course if they give you the finger you either cave or destroy the planet. Either way you lose. Also it's possible they'll send a planet killer back at you before they die.

Surprise) Infiltration, combined with "friendly vistors", backed up with a stealthed invasion fleet is your best bet. Non-fatal bacteriological weapons to hinder defenses are also good.

Little Guy vs Little Guy If both sides have small numbers and limited resources but inherited high tech (ala two colony worlds duking it out) then all bets are off and it probably swings to the attacker if they can avoid economic death. War isn't cheap.

Basically attacking someone with better tech (note as the defender they'll have better tech if your societies have equal tech, because the attackers are always behind thanks to travel time) and poorer resources (because you can't carry all your resources with you) and poorer numbers (see previous) is a hiding to nothing unless you win on the 1st move.
The Little Guy vs Little Guy is most palatable because it is easier to get a 1st turn win.

Stephen

[Awetugiw]

How do you conquer a planet? By striking first. Space based weaponry is basically one shot one kill. Or multiple kills, of course.

Get yourself some spies (either 'real' ones or simple sensor packages). Now launch your invasion fleet and a bunch of missiles. Make sure the missiles arrive a bit before the fleet. Use the missiles to target large warships, small warships (assuming there exist things like large and small warships, depending on how technology develops either category may well not exist), orbital military (and maybe governmental) structures, planetary military (and maybe governmental) structures. Have the missiles hit within seconds from each other (less than one minute between first and last should be possible), in the order specified due to evasive abilities.

Now, having destroyed most large warships, some small warships, all military orbital structures and most planetary structures (that you could find, some planetary structures might be successfully hidden), you have effectively already won the war.

Defenders advantage only holds if the defender can fortify himself in some way, so that an enemy first strike can be shrugged of. There are no fortifications that protect from relativistic missiles. The only reason some ground based structures might survive is because the attacker wants to avoid collateral damage.

Of course this all depends on whether it is possible to launch something like a surprise attack. If it isn't, then conquering other planets probably isn't a viable option. You could destroy planets, but to actually conquer them would cost far more than conquering them would gain you.

[Sundog]

"You can bomb a hill, napalm it, shell it for days, gas it, nuke it, but until you send an 18 year old boy with a rifle to hold it, you don't own it."

I'm not sure who said that (and I'm certain I paraphrased), but I'm sure the meaning get's through.

Air power cannot win a war. Space power, ditto. To beat someone, you have to either occupy the enemy's lands or exterminate the enemy, or break his will to resist.

Suppose you do take the high orbitals and prepare for ground bombardment. What do you hit? Your intelligence, frankly, is unlikely to be up to the task of finding all the important targets. Top command centres will be buried a hundred meters down and hidden from view. Ground to orbit weapon systems will be made swiftly mobile, requiring fast reactions to nail (or out-and-out area bombardments - something invasion forces would be loathe to use.

Low orbit spy satellites could not survive in a lightspeed weapon environment; if not outright destroyed, they would be rendered blind, deaf and dumb in short order by ground based lasers. A larger ship venturing low could expect missiles, mass-driven projectiles and more lasers - too many to survive, if it stays low for very long and allows more launchers to come into play as the planet continues it's spin beneath him. So, a besieging fleet would be forced to rely upon what could be seen from the high orbitals, through atmosphere.

Sooner or later, they would be forced to go for a spacehead. Here, though, the attacker has certain advantages. He chooses the timing and the battlefield, and can make decisions based on logic and what he CAN see - things like population density and terrain. For instance, in such a case today on Earth, I would probably choose the Rio Plata in South America - remote, slightly (if at all) populated, and while rugged, not lethally so.

As far as the actual attack went: first, send a large number of smaller ships into low orbit to engage the defenses. Once those are fully engaged, spacedrop pathfinder teams into the target area - a Heinlein/Starship Troopers drop, each man in an individual capsule, special forces teams to capture specific targets, prepare dropzones and hold off/eliminate fast reaction teams.

Once they're down, wait six hours. This should be enough to evaluate the situation, and allow them to do their jobs. Then, D-day mk-2. Your big battleships drop to low orbit and cut loose on any targets the destroyers couldn't handle, and escort the troop transports down. Either landing-capable big ships or dropships could work - I'm a Big Lander fan myself, get an entire brigade down and rolling in one hit, but the concept of dispersing your foces against casualties is also valid.

Fortify your spacehead and ready the area for still more arrivals. When you're ready, smash your way out - and once that's accomplished, your enemy is doomed. With forces on the ground to spot for you, your fleet can retreat to the high orbitals and take the role of orbital artillery. If you use your brains, from then on the enemy will be slowly ground back until he either accepts his fate and surrenders or you smash his forces permanently.

[Om]

Now, having destroyed most large warships, some small warships, all military orbital structures and most planetary structures (that you could find, some planetary structures might be successfully hidden), you have effectively already won the war.Except for the small task of actually taking control of a planet that may be inhabited by billions...

[Zen Master]

"You can bomb a hill, napalm it, shell it for days, gas it, nuke it, but until you send an 18 year old boy with a rifle to hold it, you don't own it."

I'm not sure who said that (and I'm certain I paraphrased), but I'm sure the meaning get's through.

Air power cannot win a war. Space power, ditto. To beat someone, you have to either occupy the enemy's lands or exterminate the enemy, or break his will to resist.

........

Fortify your spacehead and ready the area for still more arrivals. When you're ready, smash your way out - and once that's accomplished, your enemy is doomed. With forces on the ground to spot for you, your fleet can retreat to the high orbitals and take the role of orbital artillery. If you use your brains, from then on the enemy will be slowly ground back until he either accepts his fate and surrenders or you smash his forces permanently.

When you finally get planetside, you must have retained enough of your troop strength to mount an attack on the entire population of the planet. Also, I basically assume that every weapon on the planet short of those carried by hand will be capable of attacking your landing zone, if not immediately, then in very short order. All sorts of missiles have that ability today, and artillery is coming, just you wait and see :)

It very much hinges on my point of leaving the planet useful. Since that is the objective, you cannot bombard it back to the stoneage - and that basically means that you will make planetfall into an enemy that is still fighting back. Dropships - however one envisions them - will be under heavy fire, and so will the troops once disgorged from their monstrous maws.

I see it as a very, very difficult undertaking. But with help from infiltrators and sympathisers planetside, maybe it can be done.

It's important to remember though that any weapon or tactic available to the attackers will (at least initially) also be available to the defenders.

Edit: That was a very long quote there - I shortened that down a bit.

[Zen Master]

How do you conquer a planet? By striking first. Space based weaponry is basically one shot one kill. Or multiple kills, of course.

So are planetary defence weapons. Also, missiles can and will be intercepted and destroyed - maybe not all, but likely most.


Get yourself some spies (either 'real' ones or simple sensor packages). Now launch your invasion fleet and a bunch of missiles. Make sure the missiles arrive a bit before the fleet. Use the missiles to target large warships, small warships (assuming there exist things like large and small warships, depending on how technology develops either category may well not exist), orbital military (and maybe governmental) structures, planetary military (and maybe governmental) structures. Have the missiles hit within seconds from each other (less than one minute between first and last should be possible), in the order specified due to evasive abilities.

All these targets will have ample time to move out of the way. Of course, interstellar stealth missiles are a possibility, but again, the same are available to the defenders.


Now, having destroyed most large warships, some small warships, all military orbital structures and most planetary structures (that you could find, some planetary structures might be successfully hidden), you have effectively already won the war.

Provided - the word is provided ...


Defenders advantage only holds if the defender can fortify himself in some way, so that an enemy first strike can be shrugged of. There are no fortifications that protect from relativistic missiles. The only reason some ground based structures might survive is because the attacker wants to avoid collateral damage.

Sensor range and your own relativistic missiles do that quite well.


Of course this all depends on whether it is possible to launch something like a surprise attack. If it isn't, then conquering other planets probably isn't a viable option. You could destroy planets, but to actually conquer them would cost far more than conquering them would gain you.

Not in the long term. A full planetary system, all its people and possibly all its colonies (assuming they are not developed to the point that they could survive without the parent world) would certainly be worth the effort, over a long enough timeline. Say - maybe as little as 10-20 years.

[Zen Master]

It likely feels like I'm just opposing every argument made ... I'm really not, I'm trying to build an idea of what it would take, and whether it could be made possible.

Basically, I envision some military genius pulling it off - only I'm not a military genius, so I'm a bit hazy on what the brilliant plan would be :)

[Sundog]

When you finally get planetside, you must have retained enough of your troop strength to mount an attack on the entire population of the planet. Also, I basically assume that every weapon on the planet short of those carried by hand will be capable of attacking your landing zone, if not immediately, then in very short order. All sorts of missiles have that ability today, and artillery is coming, just you wait and see :)

It very much hinges on my point of leaving the planet useful. Since that is the objective, you cannot bombard it back to the stoneage - and that basically means that you will make planetfall into an enemy that is still fighting back. Dropships - however one envisions them - will be under heavy fire, and so will the troops once disgorged from their monstrous maws.

I see it as a very, very difficult undertaking. But with help from infiltrators and sympathisers planetside, maybe it can be done.

It's important to remember though that any weapon or tactic available to the attackers will (at least initially) also be available to the defenders.

Edit: That was a very long quote there - I shortened that down a bit.

De nada - it was a long post!

I don't believe in long-distance surface to surface bombardment in a lightspeed weapon environment. Not that it can't be done - any laser interception screen could be overwhelmed by sheer numbers - but I don't believe it can be done inside your economic curve, which is to say, the results would not be worth the price paid.

Mid-range stuff - such as conventional artillery - would still be useful. While actually easier to intercept (ballistic trajectories), the much cheaper nature of unguided shells would make firing a sufficient number to get some through more economical.

Also, you wouldn't be fighting the entire planet. You wouldn't even be fighting the entirety of his reaction forces. He has to consider the possibility of your opening another front - he MUST hold back enough reserves to be able to react to such an assault. In fact, if he is throwing everythng but the Kitchen Sink at your spacehead, outflank him. Using Earth as our example again, drop a second spacehead in the Great Rift Valley in Africa - you've just doubled his logistical problems, but from orbit the distance between the two sites is identical - your logistic equations effectively haven't changed. Plus, he can't ignore the second assault - you're much too close to his manufacturing centres in Europe.

Against the forces of an entire planet, An invasion would be very difficult. But provided you have gained space superiority, it should be doable.

[Joran]

Or you just leave the fleet at home and sprinkle the atmosphere with a biological agent. Or use nanotechnology and kill the entire population or at least render it harmless. Or use a series of nuclear weapons to detonate an EMP pulse. Or use a neutron bomb to irradiate the cities.

Unless the defender has technology to defend against this kind of attack.

This sort of speculation makes my head hurt, considering it uses technology that we can't really conceive of at the moment. To accelerate an asteroid to hit a planet is easy; to find a way to defend against such an attack, especially on a large scale is hard.

[Awetugiw]

So are planetary defence weapons. Also, missiles can and will be intercepted and destroyed - maybe not all, but likely most.
Maybe. This all depends on sensors vs stealth and speed. A relativistic missile is very hard to intercept, simply because it is moving incredibly fast. And you'll have to hit it hard enough to make sure inertia doesn't make the fragments of the missile hit either. Of course this might well be possible, but that depends fully on the ability to detect the missile long before they arrive.

Of course even then overwhelming the defenses with a lot of missiles might be an option, but that would be very expensive indeed. And you'd definitely not hit the warships.


All these targets will have ample time to move out of the way. Of course, interstellar stealth missiles are a possibility, but again, the same are available to the defenders.
Indeed, stealth vs. sensors is crucial here. However, I don't think the defender would have much use for stealth, and especially for interstellar stealth missiles. The time those missiles need to accelerate just isn't available once the fight has started. And stealth is very unlikely to work at the distance the spies would be, so "stealthing" military facilities is unlikely to work.


Provided - the word is provided ...
Of course. However, as long as the condition I gave (there is such a thing as a surprise attack) holds I think there is a very good chance.


Not in the long term. A full planetary system, all its people and possibly all its colonies (assuming they are not developed to the point that they could survive without the parent world) would certainly be worth the effort, over a long enough timeline. Say - maybe as little as 10-20 years.
Well... If we add in the colonies, maybe.

I'm not really worried about the cost of the ships and soldiers themselves. What will really cost you is the fuel. Transporting a couple of small relativistic missiles, an orbital bombardment force and a very, very small army is one thing, enough ships to destroy the enemy fleet, and the orbital bombardment force and army mentioned before... Well, that is quite another thing. You could perhaps reduce the cost by sending slow ships with frozen crew and soldiers, but even then the cost would be absurd.

It is very unlikely that trade of physical objects between different solar systems will ever be profitable (information would trade a lot better of course). Interstellar conquest would be even more costly than trade.

If you have that kind of recourses at your disposal, just destroy the other planet, and build yourself (part of) a Dyson Sphere. Much better investment.


Of course that was not what you asked for, so I'll add another small idea. Don't send all your soldiers. Instead, make sure you achieve space superiority, then take a small piece (preferably an island or something) of the planet. Don't engage the main force of the planet, just destroy anything that approaches the small area you took. Since you have space superiority, that should be possible. Now have the people you dropped on the small piece of land start a small colony there. As long as they can get enough resources for themselves and the fleet in orbit you can maintain the status quo. In the meanwhile, have your people 'start mas-producing babies'. In say 50 years you'll have a large enough army to actually take the planet, without having to ship all the people.

Or, better yet, don't take part of the planet, take moons, asteroids, and the like. Get a colony, get enough people. Conquer the planet.

Of course this gives the same problem as colonizing other planets: chances are they will not stay loyal to the home planet for very long. But that's quite another matter, which will also be a problem with conquest.

[Ruerl]

@Dervag: Watch what? My point here is that a direct attack would be a folly and that the main target always must be the enemy communication centre, its basically what you said as well.

My theoretical suggestion was based on both fleets having roughly the same technology and power unlike the historical examples you cited, and as such my theoretical suggestion builds around changing the odds before we have any real battle beginning, no matter the distance, there will always be distances where you are threathening before you go into combat as well, those are the distances my theory relies on.

The rest, well thats about disrupting the opponents infrastructure so that it may tip the balance in the battle to come.

And at the end of the day, thats what the strategy of the indirect approach is all about.

[Subotei]

This sort of speculation makes my head hurt, considering it uses technology that we can't really conceive of at the moment. To accelerate an asteroid to hit a planet is easy; to find a way to defend against such an attack, especially on a large scale is hard.

Very true - the topic is so broad its pointless trying to specify anything other than broad principles. I think its true to say defeating the defending forces and taking over an equal tech/equal numbers enemy is very, very difficult even with surprise.

One point which I don't think anyone has mentioned is the possibility of the defenders striking back - as their riposte would not be aimed at taking over the opposition homeworld they could devote much less resource to it and use extremely planet-unfriendly weapons. The best defence would be the fear of counterstrike - as per the cold war nuclear deterrent - rather than laser batteries, orbital missile bases or whatever.

[Dervag]

"You can bomb a hill, napalm it, shell it for days, gas it, nuke it, but until you send an 18 year old boy with a rifle to hold it, you don't own it."

I'm not sure who said that (and I'm certain I paraphrased), but I'm sure the meaning get's through.

Air power cannot win a war. Space power, ditto. To beat someone, you have to either occupy the enemy's lands or exterminate the enemy, or break his will to resist.With space bombardment you can exterminate the enemy if you choose, and you can sometimes use that threat to coerce them into certain courses of action (such as shipping you a thousand tons of plutonium as tribute every year, or destroying all their surface-to-space weapons and spacecraft and not building any more).

Again, there were empires that functioned without maintaining a garrison in every conquered province; these empires operated by forcing their defeated enemies to dismantle their defenses or face total massacre. Depending on the goals of your spacegoing empire, that may satisfy you.


As far as the actual attack went: first, send a large number of smaller ships into low orbit to engage the defenses. Once those are fully engaged, spacedrop pathfinder teams into the target area - a Heinlein/Starship Troopers drop, each man in an individual capsule, special forces teams to capture specific targets, prepare dropzones and hold off/eliminate fast reaction teams.

Once they're down, wait six hours. This should be enough to evaluate the situation, and allow them to do their jobs. Then, D-day mk-2. Your big battleships drop to low orbit and cut loose on any targets the destroyers couldn't handle, and escort the troop transports down. Either landing-capable big ships or dropships could work - I'm a Big Lander fan myself, get an entire brigade down and rolling in one hit, but the concept of dispersing your foces against casualties is also valid.

Fortify your spacehead and ready the area for still more arrivals. When you're ready, smash your way out - and once that's accomplished, your enemy is doomed. With forces on the ground to spot for you, your fleet can retreat to the high orbitals and take the role of orbital artillery. If you use your brains, from then on the enemy will be slowly ground back until he either accepts his fate and surrenders or you smash his forces permanently.If you do have to land, that sounds like a really good plan.


Not in the long term. A full planetary system, all its people and possibly all its colonies (assuming they are not developed to the point that they could survive without the parent world) would certainly be worth the effort, over a long enough timeline. Say - maybe as little as 10-20 years.That depends heavily on the cost of occupation. Again, occupation on, say, the Allied occupation of Germany model is going to be prohibitively expensive. That kind of thing is never profitable on a large scale and long term.

If, on the other hand, you settle for tribute in exchange for not being bombed into the Stone Age (or possibly the Hadean Era), you may be able to 'occupy' the enemy on the cheap.


@Dervag: Watch what?In this case, "Watch it" is a very slangy, colloquial way of saying:

"There is more going on here than you might realize and more going on here than is covered by Liddell-Hart's theories. There are situations where dividing your forces is a very bad move. It is not automatically a good idea simply because it allows you to feint and pounce. So be careful before advocating a division of forces without knowing the details of the capabilities of the two sides. Sometimes, dividing your strength fails horribly."

[Zen Master]

Unless the defender has technology to defend against this kind of attack.


Wouldn't it be quite enough if he had the ability to duplicate the attack? Also, while some methods of depopulating a planet are less destructive than others, the point of invasion is to go there yourself. Neither a virus nor nanotech (no matter how you envision that killing off the entire populace) are really something you'd want to use.

EMP's and neutron bombs are very nice, but definitely available to both sides. Also, EMP's are a good deal more deadly to invading spaceships than to shielded and hardened military surface installations.

[Zen Master]

What will really cost you is the fuel.

Fuel? Even with todays technology, the fastest space engine is the neutron drive, with further interesting thingies on the drawing board. I don't really envision an invasion force dragging cubic kilometers of solid rocket fuel across the vastness of space.

While I'm not going to foolishly commit myself to the defence of a reactionless drive, I'm going to claim that some way of converting power (as in fusion) to thrust will be a necessary assumption.

I mean seriously, otherwise I could see it as a problem for a planet to ever provide enough fuel for a fleet this size.

[Ruerl]

In this case, "Watch it" is a very slangy, colloquial way of saying:

"There is more going on here than you might realize and more going on here than is covered by Liddell-Hart's theories. There are situations where dividing your forces is a very bad move. It is not automatically a good idea simply because it allows you to feint and pounce. So be careful before advocating a division of forces without knowing the details of the capabilities of the two sides. Sometimes, dividing your strength fails horribly."

Ah yes, but we do not know the capabilities of each force, henche why I suggested what I did, point in this case being that I went out by assuming that both planets had equeally powerfull forces.

In any case, lets move on.

On forming a bridgehead and using the moons/asteroids of the system:
Would'nt it be valid to assume that those where in fact allready occupied by a defensive force? Most of the models being used here have the common flaw that they assume superiority of the attacker, but, to quote the OP that started the discussion:


Consider making a planetary assault. With the purpose of conquest. Amongst enemies of equal tech levels (futuristic, but not at the point of say FTL weapons). With the full resources of a full planetary system available to each side - but with one side having to overcome the challenge of bringing the fight to the other, which can find defensively.

Emphasis mine.

Point of this is that anything the attacker can do, the defender can as well, so unless you can destroy the enemy infrastructure thus weakening him, I do not see how you would overcome his defences, as Dervag pointed out communication may be very fast meaning that the defender may be able to respond to the attacker's every move with ease, and very possibly countering it.
Or even create an artificial weakness that is in fact a trap for the approaching fleet.

Regards

Lars

[Awetugiw]

Fuel? Even with todays technology, the fastest space engine is the neutron drive, with further interesting thingies on the drawing board. I don't really envision an invasion force dragging cubic kilometers of solid rocket fuel across the vastness of space.

While I'm not going to foolishly commit myself to the defence of a reactionless drive, I'm going to claim that some way of converting power (as in fusion) to thrust will be a necessary assumption.

I mean seriously, otherwise I could see it as a problem for a planet to ever provide enough fuel for a fleet this size.
Every engine will require fuel, of sorts. Not the old-fashioned kind, but you will still need two things.
1) Stuff to throw away to get momentum. (Unless you manage to create a reactionless drive, indeed)
2) Stuff to give the energy to throw away the other stuff.
Now I agree that fuel may not be the best word for either, but that, unfortunately, doesn't make it any cheaper.

The percentage of the total ship mass needed for the two types of 'fuel' depends on the type of engine you use, and the speed you want to achieve.

I've been calculating a bit to see if I can determine the mass ratio needed for 'fuel' for some scenarios, but I got a bit lost between reference frames. I'll try again a bit later.

[Storm Bringer]

just use bussard Ramjets. they take thier fuel from interstellar space.

(the above is an somewhat simplistic view of things. I'm pretty sure theirs more to it than that, just not what it is)

[Wardog]

A few other things that need to be considered and which unfortunately make things even more complicated).

Firstly: how are you getting there?

Is this like Star Wars, where even one-man fighters have extremely rapid interstellar or even trans-galactic warp capability?

Or Star Trek, which is similar but scaled down (small craft are warp capable, but not as good as large ships, and in either case, relatively "slow" and can be detected while in warp)?

Or Babylon 5, where only large ships are capable of creating their own jump gates, and small ships have to either hitch a ride, or use pre-built jumpgates. And even large ships will use pre-built jumpgates if they can, due to the energy cost of opening your own.


With SW-style logistics, you can have a fleet of Star Destroyers in orbit over their home world before they know whats going on.

Things will be very different if you're obliged to use your enemy's jump gate, only to find they're built it in low orbit round Jupiter, so not only do you have a long sub-lightspeed journey to your target, but you also have to pull you fleet out of the planet's gravity well. While being shot at by the defender's fleet who were waiting for you because they knew that would be where you appear.

Also, if you are using pre-built jumpgates, wormholes, etc, the attacking fleet may only be coming through a few ships at a time (vs. the entire defending fleet), whereas with SW/ST-style travel, the entire fleet can warp in together.


Secondly, once it gets to the ground-war stage, what sort of units would be involved?

Will it be Power-armoured super-soldiers / mechs / etc, that can only be threatened by a comparably equipped enemy? Or is will it just be "soldiers" (albeit with futuristic weapons), who could potentially be taken out with a hunting rifle / roadside bomb / teddy bear with a pointy stick?

This makes a big difference too. In the first case, the war would be the attacker's army vs. the defender's army. In the second case, it could potentially be the attacker's army vs. the defender's entire planet.

The second case would therefore require a much larger army, as so much more supplies. This in turn would make a quick victory more important, as otherwise the defender might just need to hold out long enough for the attacker to run out of food/ammunition.


Finally, what sort of planetary governments/societies are we talking about?
Feudal? Multi-government? Federation? Dictatorship?

Are these planet-sized, highly-organized nation-states, capable of waging total war, with most of the population involvded (willingly or otherwise), either fighting directly or in producing munitions etc for the war effort?

Or is it a futuristic version of a medieval feudal society, where wars are fought by an aristocratic elite and their private armies, and for most of the population the only thing victory or defeat affects is what name to put on their tax cheques?

Or is the target planet composed of many independent nations? In which case, you may be able to play one off against the other. (Or alternatively, succeede in uniting former enemies against you, and end up facing a much harder opponent than you expected).

[Om]

A few other things that need to be considered and which unfortunately make things even more complicated).

...In other words the entire problem relies on information that we do not have and cannot accurately speculate on. As such it is, to my mind, a complete waste of time.

[Stephen_E]

In other words the entire problem relies on information that we do not have and cannot accurately speculate on. As such it is, to my mind, a complete waste of time.

IIRC the original OP did say no Faster-Than-Light travel. So no jump gates, transwarp ecetre.

Not sure different govts make much difference. The concept that a one govt can wage "total war" better than another is deeply flawed IMO, with little if any RL evidence to back it up.

To be honest I look on the question as a simple exercise in broad strategic principles. Once you remove the "destroy enemies planet" principle, which the OP did, it's a simple question of attacking someone when you're on opposite sides of a large, fairly uninhabitable terrain feature.

Stephen

[Dervag]

just use bussard Ramjets. they take thier fuel from interstellar space.

(the above is an somewhat simplistic view of things. I'm pretty sure theirs more to it than that, just not what it is)Trouble is, they're very antistealthy and don't react well to disruption of the ramscoop field. Also, they don't work at low speeds, which makes them poorly suited for maneuvers inside a solar system.


Not sure different govts make much difference. The concept that a one govt can wage "total war" better than another is deeply flawed IMO, with little if any RL evidence to back it up.No, it's actually true.

For instance, Nazi Germany had a much harder time waging "total war" than their Soviet enemies. In Soviet Russia, all the state had to do to militarize production was issue certain orders. The bureaucracy for carrying those orders out was already in place, established by Stalinist ruthlessness. In Nazi Germany, on the other hand, the bureaucracy was not in place, and the Germans did not fully militarize their economy until 1943-44.


To be honest I look on the question as a simple exercise in broad strategic principles. Once you remove the "destroy enemies planet" principle, which the OP did, it's a simple question of attacking someone when you're on opposite sides of a large, fairly uninhabitable terrain feature."A very large river crossing," eh?

[Stephen_E]

Quote:Originally Posted by Stephen_E
Not sure different govts make much difference. The concept that a one govt can wage "total war" better than another is deeply flawed IMO, with little if any RL evidence to back it up.



No, it's actually true.

For instance, Nazi Germany had a much harder time waging "total war" than their Soviet enemies. In Soviet Russia, all the state had to do to militarize production was issue certain orders. The bureaucracy for carrying those orders out was already in place, established by Stalinist ruthlessness. In Nazi Germany, on the other hand, the bureaucracy was not in place, and the Germans did not fully militarize their economy until 1943-44.

There were a number of other features.
The Soviets were defending, the Germans attacking. Imminient death can do wonders for concentrating the mind.
My understanding is that Hitler was worried that the Germans might rise against him if he put the screws on (extremely unlikely IMO). Basically it was a failure of nerve rather than a inability for it to be done. Hitler often showed a tendancy to attacks of "nerves" and what could even be called cowardice on a non-personal level (he was strong with those he perceived as "weak").


"A very large river crossing," eh?

:smallbiggrin: I was thinking more on the lines of Deserts/Forests/Oceans.
Where the attacker and defender are small relative to the terrain feature.:smalltongue:

Stephen

[Dervag]

There were a number of other features.
The Soviets were defending, the Germans attacking. Imminient death can do wonders for concentrating the mind.
My understanding is that Hitler was worried that the Germans might rise against him if he put the screws on (extremely unlikely IMO). Basically it was a failure of nerve rather than a inability for it to be done. Hitler often showed a tendancy to attacks of "nerves" and what could even be called cowardice on a non-personal level (he was strong with those he perceived as "weak").The thing is that the danger of revolt is itself a feature of a government. Some governments are more likely to be overthrown if their people feel that they are bearing a heavy burden than others. Some styles of government do not lend themselves as well to certain kinds of activity (such as mass mobilization), except by becoming like those styles that are good at it.

Thus, a government characcterized by decentralized economics and a volunteer military may become good at mass mobilization, but only by centralizing production and instituting conscription (as in World War One Britain).

If all governments are equally effective at mass mobilization, then it strongly implies that all governments are functionally equivalent, because they must all do more or less the same things if they are to perform the same task equally well. I would argue that this cannot be the case.

[Stephen_E]

The thing is that the danger of revolt is itself a feature of a government. Some governments are more likely to be overthrown if their people feel that they are bearing a heavy burden than others. Some styles of government do not lend themselves as well to certain kinds of activity (such as mass mobilization), except by becoming like those styles that are good at it.

Thus, a government characcterized by decentralized economics and a volunteer military may become good at mass mobilization, but only by centralizing production and instituting conscription (as in World War One Britain).

If all governments are equally effective at mass mobilization, then it strongly implies that all governments are functionally equivalent, because they must all do more or less the same things if they are to perform the same task equally well. I would argue that this cannot be the case.

I suspect given a certain dearth of hard facts, and much of the research on the topic been more faith based than scientific we're going to have to agree to disagree.

I'd argue that no govt type is particuly inclined to have revolts occur. Revolts linked to govt operations are more linked to the quality of the govts performance rather than the type. Monarchies generally saw significant revolts when particuly badly lead.

I'd point out that the US mass mobilised as well as anyone in WW2.
Functionally there isn't much difference between govts (note: "isn't much" doesn't equal "none"). The difference is much more in the quality of the specific govt. Basically govts are constrained by the wealth and population they have. Military is effectively "waste economy". You can only convert so much of your economy to military before you kill your economy. Doesn't matter what form of govt you have, once you exceed your sustainable economic level of military (or any other waste) you start a clock ticking. How fast the clock runs is determined by how far you exceed the limit, but when you run out, your economy crashes, that's it! (One beef I have with some WW2 game designers is that they posit the US having an unlimited military/economic growth while everyone else is limited. Mythology trumping reality).

Note: Of course if you drop back under the critical level before you reach crash time you can reset the clock.

Stephen

[Ruerl]

Not sure different govts make much difference. The concept that a one govt can wage "total war" better than another is deeply flawed IMO, with little if any RL evidence to back it up.

We should keep other factors in mind within the context of the goverment question, namedly the population, for example the US where well able to mobilize during WW2, but say the vietnam war was lost more because of the protests from the population than that of the actual enemy.

Or to name a highly toxic subject: Irak -Is the states winning or losing this one or is it a stalemate? And how much of this is pressure from the population? Is withdrawal being used by some politicians as a way to score their points to the coming election? Ie: Will a potential president be able to win an election by stating that he (or she) will pull out the troops? -And will the opposition have to promise the same thing to keep up in the election campaign?

If yes, then i'd claim that the democracy* or any goverment relying on the goodwill of the population, will be less able to wage a full scale war, a communistic goverment who works independently of the world market would for example be able to ignore its populations plight to a much larger degree, and being independent of the world market it would not be liable for its economy crashing anytime soon -providing offcourse that its independence of world economy also is meaning power to sustain itself completly in all aspects.

In short: I would say disagree with the text quoted above and claim that the goverment will make a difference, and a huge one at that.

Regards

Lars

*forgetting a moment that the US does'nt have a democracy but a republic

[Zen Master]

In other words the entire problem relies on information that we do not have and cannot accurately speculate on. As such it is, to my mind, a complete waste of time.

I'd like to think that the speculation is fun in itself - also, the problem is complex, so it's an interesting mental exercise to my mind. You sound like you consider it futile because there isn't a 'right' answer.

I'll give a bit of info as to why this interests me. I'm writing a story. The story may become a roleplaying scenario, or a novel, or something I do in my spare time to amuse myself.

What I pointed out in the first post wasn't the absence of FTL travel, but the absence of FTL weapons. The ability to strike a target at a point in time that is BEFORE the shot is fired is just ... way too theoretical for my taste.

Also, FTL travel will not be instant, will not be ultra fast (well, by comparison - FTL is ultra fast by definition, but Warp 9 is even more ultra), but will be a somewhat cumbersome affair. Mainly because easy FTL to low planetary orbit would solve most of the strategic problems involved.

So what I'm thinking is very large ships dedicated entirely to facilitate the jump to lightspeed, with smaller ships - including carrier class ships - latching on to the jumpship and being carried along.

Also - we discussed g-forces earlier. It strikes me that moving at near-relativistic speed and hitting a planetary gravitational field would likely turn ship and crew to paste - though I'm entirely unsure of the physics behind.

Anyways - the story as I see it will have three separate parts.

One part will be the story of an infiltrator(s) paving the way for the coming invasion by sewing unrest, and promising outside help to revolutionaries.

The second part will be the story of a ground-infantry soldier in the invasion.

The last part will tell the tale of the defender who manages to draw a third party into the fight - basically a third power will assault the space elements of the invaders, allowing the defenders on the ground to push back the (otherwise succesful) invading forces.

As to the forces involved, I've always considered the mech-style weapons platform to be needlessly impractical. Low profile has been an advantage since the advent of the basic bow and arrow - it didn't suddenly become obsolete with the introduction of large scale robotics. So infantry, tanks, air/spaceforce and ... well personally I have a thing for thunderbirds (as in flying, low altitude tanks).

[Zen Master]

We should keep other factors in mind within the context of the goverment question, namedly the population, for example the US where well able to mobilize during WW2, but say the vietnam war was lost more because of the protests from the population than that of the actual enemy.

Or to name a highly toxic subject: Irak -Is the states winning or losing this one or is it a stalemate? And how much of this is pressure from the population? Is withdrawal being used by some politicians as a way to score their points to the coming election? Ie: Will a potential president be able to win an election by stating that he (or she) will pull out the troops? -And will the opposition have to promise the same thing to keep up in the election campaign?

If yes, then i'd claim that the democracy* or any goverment relying on the goodwill of the population, will be less able to wage a full scale war, a communistic goverment who works independently of the world market would for example be able to ignore its populations plight to a much larger degree, and being independent of the world market it would not be liable for its economy crashing anytime soon -providing offcourse that its independence of world economy also is meaning power to sustain itself completly in all aspects.

In short: I would say disagree with the text quoted above and claim that the goverment will make a difference, and a huge one at that.

Regards

Lars

*forgetting a moment that the US does'nt have a democracy but a republic

Government type is clearly a factor - and an important and interesting one.

In my mind, the agressor here is Earth, and Earth is a democratic federation (the federation consisting of the old nation states, and the colonies).

But military matters on Earth (or rather, everywhere except on Earth - as in, in space) are conducted by a Colonial Command - an organisation that is basically free from interference from the state, and has a rather fascistic outlook on all things, pretty much.

[Stephen_E]

Quote:Originally Posted by Stephen_E
Not sure different govts make much difference. The concept that a one govt can wage "total war" better than another is deeply flawed IMO, with little if any RL evidence to back it up.


We should keep other factors in mind within the context of the goverment question, namedly the population, for example the US where well able to mobilize during WW2, but say the vietnam war was lost more because of the protests from the population than that of the actual enemy.

Or to name a highly toxic subject: Irak -Is the states winning or losing this one or is it a stalemate? And how much of this is pressure from the population? Is withdrawal being used by some politicians as a way to score their points to the coming election? Ie: Will a potential president be able to win an election by stating that he (or she) will pull out the troops? -And will the opposition have to promise the same thing to keep up in the election campaign?

If yes, then i'd claim that the democracy* or any goverment relying on the goodwill of the population, will be less able to wage a full scale war, a communistic goverment who works independently of the world market would for example be able to ignore its populations plight to a much larger degree, and being independent of the world market it would not be liable for its economy crashing anytime soon -providing offcourse that its independence of world economy also is meaning power to sustain itself completly in all aspects.

In short: I would say disagree with the text quoted above and claim that the goverment will make a difference, and a huge one at that.


The US mobilised just fine for WW2 and Vietnam. They never tried to do a massive mobilisation for Iraq.
They couldn't maintain their mobilisation for Vietnam because they couldn't keep public support.
The USSR had the same problem with Afghanistan.
Russia, did even worse in the 1st Chechen conflict.
The USSR fell apart because their military expenditure was more than their economy could survive, so they eventually crashed. I see no evidence that communism protected them at all. I'd also note that their economy was far from isolationist.
I suspect the US military expenditure may well be a major feature in killing the US the same way eventually.

In short I think it's pretty obvious that democracies can mobilise to military production as fast as any other form of govt.

I think there is evidence that decentralised economies can mobilise as fast as centralised economies. There's also plenty of evidence that countries can have difficulties, but I don't see the evidence as showing the type of govt is the important factor. I'd suggest that evidence would suggest quality (competence) of the govt concerned, how well the war is conducted (long wars with no clear victory in sight and no clear reason are killers on morale even more than they are on economies) aggressive wars - i.e. wars which you start (All but WW2/allies amongst the examples given were aggressive on the part of the country been discussed) are much harder to sustain regardless of govt (although this varies some if the combat zone is such that any territory lost turns it inot a defensive war, for example the Iran/Iraq war).

Note "can" doesn't mean "will" because of all the IMO more important factors re:how well they mobilise civilian production/manpower into military.

Stephen

[Storm Bringer]

What I pointed out in the first post wasn't the absence of FTL travel, but the absence of FTL weapons. The ability to strike a target at a point in time that is BEFORE the shot is fired is just ... way too theoretical for my taste.

Also, FTL travel will not be instant, will not be ultra fast (well, by comparison - FTL is ultra fast by definition, but Warp 9 is even more ultra), but will be a somewhat cumbersome affair. Mainly because easy FTL to low planetary orbit would solve most of the strategic problems involved.


well....with a FTL system that allows a reasonable travel time between systems (Say, 1 month or thier abouts), the logistics of an attack become far simpler as the supply lines have effectively been cut by a massive amount, as well as the stockpiles needed in at the end of them. in that set up, an attack becomes plausible.


So what I'm thinking is very large ships dedicated entirely to facilitate the jump to lightspeed, with smaller ships - including carrier class ships - latching on to the jumpship and being carried along.

Spacing Guild Heighliner. very Dune.



The last part will tell the tale of the defender who manages to draw a third party into the fight - basically a third power will assault the space elements of the invaders, allowing the defenders on the ground to push back the (otherwise succesful) invading forces.

As to the forces involved, I've always considered the mech-style weapons platform to be needlessly impractical. Low profile has been an advantage since the advent of the basic bow and arrow - it didn't suddenly become obsolete with the introduction of large scale robotics. So infantry, tanks, air/spaceforce and ... well personally I have a thing for thunderbirds (as in flying, low altitude tanks).

actaully, you could get away with just the rumor of a third party joining. Have a document apprantly stating the third party is going to attack (or threaten to attack) the attackers home get captured by the attackers. They would then be forced to send at least some of their forces to bolster thier homeworlds defenses. That would give the remaining defenders spacefleets (with possible help form the third party) the chance to force the attacks weakened fleet out of orbit and re-gain the high ground. once done, they could offer the return of the trapped ground troops as a barter for peace.

and, if you want some ideas as to a peusdo-realistic set-up for a future battlefield, have a peek at the Dirtside rules. they are pretty light on the fluff, but it is their and does give ideas.

[Awetugiw]

I'd like to think that the speculation is fun in itself - also, the problem is complex, so it's an interesting mental exercise to my mind. You sound like you consider it futile because there isn't a 'right' answer.

I'll give a bit of info as to why this interests me. I'm writing a story. The story may become a roleplaying scenario, or a novel, or something I do in my spare time to amuse myself.

What I pointed out in the first post wasn't the absence of FTL travel, but the absence of FTL weapons. The ability to strike a target at a point in time that is BEFORE the shot is fired is just ... way too theoretical for my taste.

Also, FTL travel will not be instant, will not be ultra fast (well, by comparison - FTL is ultra fast by definition, but Warp 9 is even more ultra), but will be a somewhat cumbersome affair. Mainly because easy FTL to low planetary orbit would solve most of the strategic problems involved.

So what I'm thinking is very large ships dedicated entirely to facilitate the jump to lightspeed, with smaller ships - including carrier class ships - latching on to the jumpship and being carried along.

Do realize that FTL travel will obviously defy causality just as much as FTL weapons. I don't remember who originally said it, but "Relativity, Causality, FTL. Pick any two." does unfortunately hold. Personally, I'd say that if you really want to make that choice (instead of just ignoring the problems) the best bet is to ditch relativity. The other two are necessary for interstellar SF. Of course, when writing a story or roleplay setting it is best just to ignore those things. Like you should ignore a lot of other things.

In my previous replies I, obviously, chose relativity and causality, but that's just because I was trying to give a realistic scenario, not an interesting one from a storytelling point of view.

Have you ever read Atomic Rocket (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/index.html)?
It's not that accurate itself, but it does give a pretty good idea of some of the problems SF scenarios encounter. And it is specifically designed to help people who don't want physics to stand in the way of a good story.


Also - we discussed g-forces earlier. It strikes me that moving at near-relativistic speed and hitting a planetary gravitational field would likely turn ship and crew to paste - though I'm entirely unsure of the physics behind.
Ehm, no? It's acceleration, or, equivalently, the application of force that would turn the ship and it's crew to past. Gravity doesn't give a greater force/acceleration at higher speeds.

Hitting the planet itself, or small objects around the planet would of course annihilate the ship, with very little chance of avoiding a collision, since you're moving so fast.

-edit: fixed quote tags

[Om]

I'd like to think that the speculation is fun in itself - also, the problem is complex, so it's an interesting mental exercise to my mind. You sound like you consider it futile because there isn't a 'right' answer.Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against idle speculation. It just seems to me that people are arguing over weapons/tactics that so far in the future that this speculation becomes hopelessly inaccurate or theoretical. It would be akin to medieval peasants discussing the finer points of Blitzkrieg.

Don't let me stop you of course but I'd suggest that this thread might not be the best place for such a conversation.


Note "can" doesn't mean "will" because of all the IMO more important factors re:how well they mobilise civilian production/manpower into military.Well that's the crux of the matter. In both theory and practice the command economy is the more capable of reconfiguring itself towards military production. The theoretical aspect is simple - the government simply decides how many tanks it wants and the entire economic structures shift to accomplish this - but for practice its best to look at WWII. This was the last time that both free market and state socialist economies were on a war footing.

Its fairly obvious that in WWII the USSR was able to successfully cope with both the military and industrial challenge posed by the Axis. The only power that could match its industrial output was the US - which was untouched by the war. Both the total dedication of resources towards the war and the mass movement of workers and factories towards the Urals could clearly not have been carried out under any other economic model. And all this at a time when some huge percentage (10?) of the population was actively in military service.

[Stephen_E]

Well that's the crux of the matter. In both theory and practice the command economy is the more capable of reconfiguring itself towards military production. The theoretical aspect is simple - the government simply decides how many tanks it wants and the entire economic structures shift to accomplish this - but for practice its best to look at WWII. This was the last time that both free market and state socialist economies were on a war footing.

Its fairly obvious that in WWII the USSR was able to successfully cope with both the military and industrial challenge posed by the Axis. The only power that could match its industrial output was the US - which was untouched by the war. Both the total dedication of resources towards the war and the mass movement of workers and factories towards the Urals could clearly not have been carried out under any other economic model. And all this at a time when some huge percentage (10?) of the population was actively in military service.

In WW1 the French lost the heart of their industrial capacity at the start of the war and yet both held the line and rebuilt their industrial cpacity over the next few years.

In WW2 the British also did massive mobalisation. They started with a relatively small army and massively militarised their economy while simultaneously pumping up their army from the cadre that survived the French collapse.

It should also be noted that the WW2 Soviet experiance has been somewhat inflated by the horribly mess Stalin had been making of the economy pre-war.

In short the WW2 Soviet experiance both could've be done under other economic/govt models, and have been done!

[Om]

In WW1 the French lost the heart of their industrial capacity at the start of the war and yet both held the line and rebuilt their industrial cpacity over the next few years.Didn't we do this before... or was that someone else?

Regardless, the question is not as to whether a government can mobilise but the degree to which its economic influence can be directed towards the war. In WWI all the European powers assumed control of their economies to the degree that they were effectively state capitalist. (Incidentially this is something that threw Lenin off - he assumed that the Western economies were entering a new evolutionary phase) Clearly there is a trend towards centralising the economy in times of war - the benefits of this being obvious - and the USSR merely carried this to its logical conclusion.

The simple fact is that in the period '41-'45 the state socialist USSR decisively out-produced everyone save the USA. This is despite losing a huge chuck of its industrial regions and many millions of its citizens. This is a feat without parallel in modern history and a great deal of the credit must go to the Soviet state for its ability to mobilise and direct its national resources with startling efficiency. To my mind this achievement stands for itself.

Of course we should also note that "free market" economies during this period were exceedingly rare. While I don't know about the US, the European powers almost uniformly repeated the policies of WWI and effectively subordinated their market economies to the government. Each of them subsequently recorded impressive increases in production, most notably in Germany, although not on the scale of the USSR. The moral is clear enough - if an economy is not directed by the state prior to such a war then it will be become so at some point during the conflict. In such a realignment the command economy, which is already explicitly driven by the government, retains the edge.


It should also be noted that the WW2 Soviet experiance has been somewhat inflated by the horribly mess Stalin had been making of the economy pre-war.You're joking, right? The increases in production during the early Five Year Plans were so large as to make percentages meaningless. In both relative and absolute terms it was the most intensive period of economic growth ever seen. As much as I hate to say this, Stalin* was the reason the Germans invaded an industrial superpower and not an agrarian backwater.

*Well not exactly; he was just implementing Trotsky's policies after all. But that's beside the point.

[Zen Master]

Have you ever read Atomic Rocket (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/index.html)?


No - but I will now.


Ehm, no? It's acceleration, or, equivalently, the application of force that would turn the ship and it's crew to past. Gravity doesn't give a greater force/acceleration at higher speeds.

Hitting the planet itself, or small objects around the planet would of course annihilate the ship, with very little chance of avoiding a collision, since you're moving so fast.

-edit: fixed quote tags

Um ... no, I kinda know that. What I mean is, as you go blazing along at the speed of light, you enter a planets gravitational field, and (pardon me if I get some terms of details wrong here) since gravity affects space, your course changes. Now, this in itself is no problem - the problem comes if you decide to counter that. Apply force: Apply paste.

Um ... see?

It might still be wrong, but at least I'm trying, right? =D

[Zen Master]

well....with a FTL system that allows a reasonable travel time between systems (Say, 1 month or thier abouts), the logistics of an attack become far simpler as the supply lines have effectively been cut by a massive amount, as well as the stockpiles needed in at the end of them. in that set up, an attack becomes plausible.

That's not quite how I see it. Space should still be a very substantial obstacle, with travel times measured in years. Only you know - fewer years than if traveling below the speed of light. The main point here is - if there are to be say 5 civilizations that have some sort of contact, it will have to be a very large bit of space to be believable. That means A) that travel is measured at least in decades, or B) that it is possible to somehow beat the speed of light.


Spacing Guild Heighliner. very Dune.

Oh I don't know - to me, the main component in Dune space travel was the Guild members folding space by the power of their minds. And psionics has no part in this (or DOES IT?)


actaully, you could get away with just the rumor of a third party joining. Have a document apprantly stating the third party is going to attack (or threaten to attack) the attackers home get captured by the attackers. They would then be forced to send at least some of their forces to bolster thier homeworlds defenses. That would give the remaining defenders spacefleets (with possible help form the third party) the chance to force the attacks weakened fleet out of orbit and re-gain the high ground. once done, they could offer the return of the trapped ground troops as a barter for peace.

and, if you want some ideas as to a peusdo-realistic set-up for a future battlefield, have a peek at the Dirtside rules. they are pretty light on the fluff, but it is their and does give ideas.

Dirtside you say?!

[Zen Master]

Also:



Don't let me stop you of course but I'd suggest that this thread might not be the best place for such a conversation.

Um - you are quite right. Maybe it isn't. However, except for the travel to other solar systems at speeds in excess of the speed of light, I'm not so sure I agree that it's entirely theoretical. The US has successfully test-fired a mass driver, and many of the weapons discussed here aren't hard to build - there's just no point in building them at this point.

Or - well .... if I had an asteroid mounted with rocket engines I could hold the world ransom for wealth, chicks and fame, but ... Ok, so there is a point in building one, I just don't have the means to do it :(

[Awetugiw]

Um ... no, I kinda know that. What I mean is, as you go blazing along at the speed of light, you enter a planets gravitational field, and (pardon me if I get some terms of details wrong here) since gravity affects space, your course changes. Now, this in itself is no problem - the problem comes if you decide to counter that. Apply force: Apply paste.

Um ... see?

It might still be wrong, but at least I'm trying, right? =D
It's not quite as easy as "Apply force: Apply paste". In fact, it is not even quite as easy as the "acceleration gives trouble" I mentioned earlier. It is all in how one accelerates. If you use a method of acceleration that affects the whole body in the same way, there isn't really any problem.

Gravity will work on every part of the body in the same way. As such, gravity isn't a problem. If there is nothing to stop you, you do accelerate, but you won't feel it: free fall. What we feel in gravity is not the gravity as such, but the force that keeps us from accelerating downward. Gravity pulls you down, the floor pushes you up so you don't move. The floor however, doesn't exert its force evenly on every part of the body. It pushes against your feet. Your feet then press against your legs, your legs press against your torso, and so on. (Of course with much more steps in between, but it's the idea that counts.)

The same thing happens when a spaceship accelerates. You don't accelerate yourself, the ship accelerates, and pushes you with it. This pushing can be a problem. Your feet will probably keep their shape, but at some point, you'll find a part of your body pushing against a weak organ. Instead of accelerating as a result of the force, this organ ruptures, and you have a problem.

The same thing happens when gravity works on your ship. You don't feel the gravity itself. As long as it is unopposed the ship will change course, but nobody inside will feel it. However, if the ship uses its engines to keep the old course, it does the same thing the floor is doing now: it pushes you so you don't accelerate due to gravity. This pushing force has to be as strong as the gravity, but in the other direction.

Now, since this force is as strong as gravity, it will normally not be a problem. After all, you can easily withstand gravity, and the further you are from the center of mass of the attracting object the weaker the gravity will be. So a planet the size of earth will, if you pass very close to it, give less than 1 g of required acceleration. No problem at all. The only time you'll really be in trouble is if you pass very close to a very heavy object. Then, if you want to keep the same course you might have to use a force large enough to 'pastify' ship and crew.

Regardless, this will almost never be a problem. The movement of objects large enough to give a significant gravity force is very predictable. You know long in advance how they'll affect the course of your spaceship. Instead of accelerating to keep the same course, one should simply 'go with the flow', and use gravity to get where you want. You know how the currents are, and you can use them to get where you want.

Inside a solar system, you won't be using straight lines to fly everywhere you want. Way too ineffective. slingshot maneuvers and the like work much, much better.

[Storm Bringer]

That's not quite how I see it. Space should still be a very substantial obstacle, with travel times measured in years. Only you know - fewer years than if traveling below the speed of light. The main point here is - if there are to be say 5 civilizations that have some sort of contact, it will have to be a very large bit of space to be believable. That means A) that travel is measured at least in decades, or B) that it is possible to somehow beat the speed of light.
right....that doesn't help as much. the longest supply chain I know of that worked was the 150-odd day trip to India, via the Cape of Good Hope. That relied mainly on the british army being able to call on local rescources to supply much of the basic consumables.

In that sort of set up, you'd be forced to take over the defenders Off-world rescouce gathering ops and bring a foundry ship with them to supply the troops with new weapons. Manpower wise, the attacker are screwed unless they can recruit significant numbers of locals (this could be a plot point. several armies have attack on the expectation that the locals would rise up to support them...and found the locals supported the other side)



Oh I don't know - to me, the main component in Dune space travel was the Guild members folding space by the power of their minds. And psionics has no part in this (or DOES IT?)
True. It was just the 'massive interstellar ship that never lands and transports smaller ships form system to system' bit i was on about.



Dirtside you say?!

yes, Dirtside. It's a free PDF form Ground Zero Games.
(http://www.groundzerogames.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=39&Itemid=50)It's built for reinforced company-level actions, and is deliberatly Generic in that the fluff is entirely removed from the crunch.

[Subotei]

The simple fact is that in the period '41-'45 the state socialist USSR decisively out-produced everyone save the USA. This is despite losing a huge chuck of its industrial regions and many millions of its citizens. This is a feat without parallel in modern history and a great deal of the credit must go to the Soviet state for its ability to mobilise and direct its national resources with startling efficiency. To my mind this achievement stands for itself.

Yeah, they mass produced simple efficient weapons very well, but they went to war in American trucks and half-tracks, eating American food. Without that help there was a real risk of USSR losing the war. I'm not denying their efforts wern't astounding - no western nation wouldve taken so much punishment and still come back fighting - just that they didn't do it all on their own.

[Zen Master]

True. It was just the 'massive interstellar ship that never lands and transports smaller ships form system to system' bit i was on about..

My idea for the FTL transport is ... something akin to this:

Picture if you will a ships of truly monstrous proportions - we're talking the size of a medium sized city or more. It is built somewhat along the lines of a tank trap, or ... picture welding two giant x-es together. Each point of each x contains the generator focus for at part of the relativity bubble (pardon the techno mumbo-jumbo). When powered up, the bubble is effectively relative only to itself - the speed of light can thus be broken, but the limits of fuel supply for acceleration and deceleration still apply.

Inside the bubble, the arms of the x are lined with coupling points, onto which smaller craft may latch, and hitch a ride across the galaxy.

With this I'm straying very fra from any 'real world weapon or armor' - sorry about that. I just wanted to add a bit of back ground to what I'm thinking here.

Basic economics - since transporting goods across space is expensive, the ships have been built to staggering size, in order to make each transport profitable. Also, they are rare, very expensive - and delightfully massive.

Now - in science terms all that is complete hogwash. But thematically it's suits the whole 'massive scale undertaking' that I'm aiming for. I hope :)

[Storm Bringer]

Basic economics - since transporting goods across space is expensive, the ships have been built to staggering size, in order to make each transport profitable. Also, they are rare, very expensive - and delightfully massive

Is a 'massive' starship like 170m, 1,700m or 17,000m here? every step up presents problems, and indeed every step down presents it's own.

and.....are we using artifical gravity? it makes things Soooooooooooooooooo much easier, even if it's just the ship spinning.

[Om]

Yeah, they mass produced simple efficient weapons very well, but they went to war in American trucks and half-tracks, eating American food. Without that help there was a real risk of USSR losing the war.Losing the war? No. The US logistical aid was critical in facilitating those rapid Soviet advances in the last years of the war but was never a matter of life and death for the USSR.

[Subotei]

Losing the war? No. The US logistical aid was critical in facilitating those rapid Soviet advances in the last years of the war but was never a matter of life and death for the USSR.

Not really trying to get into an arguement about whether it was war-winning or not - I was just trying to make the point that their war economy was propped up by Allied aid, which let them concentrate on churning out low tech/high reliability weapons to win the war with. They out produced these because they were getting a lot of the basics (which they would otherwise have to divert resources from war production to secure) from the west - foodstuffs, metals, rubber, and finished goods like aeroplane engines, lorries, jeeps, etc etc.

[Zen Master]

Is a 'massive' starship like 170m, 1,700m or 17,000m here? every step up presents problems, and indeed every step down presents it's own.

and.....are we using artifical gravity? it makes things Soooooooooooooooooo much easier, even if it's just the ship spinning.

Closer to the 17000 than to 170, certainly. I did say 'a small city'. But - spaceship design in general and hyper-hauler design specifically is secondary. It's a part of the foundations of the story, sure - but I'd rather spend my ammo on strategy.

I know though - logistics is a major part of strategy.

[Dervag]

Do realize that FTL travel will obviously defy causality just as much as FTL weapons. I don't remember who originally said it, but "Relativity, Causality, FTL. Pick any two." does unfortunately hold. Personally, I'd say that if you really want to make that choice (instead of just ignoring the problems) the best bet is to ditch relativity. The other two are necessary for interstellar SF. Of course, when writing a story or roleplay setting it is best just to ignore those things. Like you should ignore a lot of other things.Embarrassingly, I still don't understand how you get 'true' causality violations with FTL. You can get effects that precede causes from certain frames of reference (an FTL ship will reach me before I see it launched). But you can't get effects that precede causes in all frames of reference (an FTL ship will clearly seem to leave the launch pad before reaching its destination from the point of view of the spectators on the launch pad). So as far as I can tell, all you can get is a rousing argument about who shot first, much like the one triggered by Lucas's redaction of the original Star Wars movie.

Is that really the same as throwing causality out the window? I don't know. I'm not denying it, but I don't know.


Well that's the crux of the matter. In both theory and practice the command economy is the more capable of reconfiguring itself towards military production. The theoretical aspect is simple - the government simply decides how many tanks it wants and the entire economic structures shift to accomplish this - but for practice its best to look at WWII. This was the last time that both free market and state socialist economies were on a war footing.Ah, but if the command economy orders the production of too many tanks, it will starve. And if it orders production of tanks in excess of what infrastructure allows, things start to fall apart. The fundamental weakness of command economies remains even when those economies are on a war footing. In the case of the USSR, the Soviets imported a number of valuable goods from other nations, which allowed them to build as many tanks as they wanted. Without those imports, they would not have been able to produce so much, forcing them to work with less material superiority over the Germans.



You're joking, right? The increases in production during the early Five Year Plans were so large as to make percentages meaningless. In both relative and absolute terms it was the most intensive period of economic growth ever seen. As much as I hate to say this, Stalin* was the reason the Germans invaded an industrial superpower and not an agrarian backwater.That's his story, and he stuck to it.

The baseline for the expansion of the Soviet economy during this period was the extremely low level left behind by World War One and the Russian Civil War. It would have been a minor miracle (or anti-miracle) if Russia had failed to enjoy a large economic comeback and expansion in the 1920s and 1930s, even if the Bolsheviks had never existed. Russian industrial growth had been effectively halted since 1914, and they had almost nowhere to go but up.


Um ... no, I kinda know that. What I mean is, as you go blazing along at the speed of light, you enter a planets gravitational field, and (pardon me if I get some terms of details wrong here) since gravity affects space, your course changes. Now, this in itself is no problem - the problem comes if you decide to counter that. Apply force: Apply paste.Well, I'd think that you'd still be able to maneuver, albeit not as effectively, due to the relativistic effect on your mass (or rather, on your momentum). It's not as if any attempt to alter the course of a relativistic particle destroys it automatically.

You might need a long time and an extremely long distance to effect a course change because you're going fast (just as you need a long distance to stop or to make a 180° turn in a fast-moving car). But you can still do that if you have enough time, room, and fuel.


The same thing happens when a spaceship accelerates. You don't accelerate yourself, the ship accelerates, and pushes you with it. This pushing can be a problem. Your feet will probably keep their shape, but at some point, you'll find a part of your body pushing against a weak organ. Instead of accelerating as a result of the force, this organ ruptures, and you have a problem.Only if the acceleration is larger than your body can withstand do you have a problem, and it doesn't have to be.

Now, if you're trying to reach relativistic speeds (or slow down from those speeds) using the kind of accelerations the human body can withstand, you have a problem, because you're going to be at it for months.

Incidentally, you have another problem, namely that you're going to consume a truly insane amount of energy in the process, on the order of the amount that would be released if the entire rest mass of your spacecraft were to be converted entirely into energy. However, you have that problem no matter what acceleration you use.

So maneuver is still possible at relativistic speeds, it just takes a long time because the acceleration you can produce comfortably will take days, weeks, or even months to make a noticeable difference in the course of an object moving at relativistic speeds (in which time the object will have moved billions or trillions of miles).

In other words, any kind of relativistic maneuver that does not use artificial gravity requires extremely careful planning; you have to hit the brakes light-months away from the place you plan to stop in. But you can do it if you plan.


Regardless, this will almost never be a problem. The movement of objects large enough to give a significant gravity force is very predictable. You know long in advance how they'll affect the course of your spaceship. Instead of accelerating to keep the same course, one should simply 'go with the flow', and use gravity to get where you want. You know how the currents are, and you can use them to get where you want.Well, at relativistic speeds, the deflection of your course due to gravity will be small because you're going so fast. You can blaze across the portion of a planet's gravity well that will have a noticeable effect on your course in seconds, so the change in your velocity caused by gravity will be something like one millionth or less of your total speed.

Stars can have at least a small effect on your course, but not much.


Inside a solar system, you won't be using straight lines to fly everywhere you want. Way too ineffective. slingshot maneuvers and the like work much, much better.Except that you can't use a slingshot maneuver to any good effect if you're travelling thousands of times faster than the escape velocity of the object you're using to slingshot yourself with. Which you are, if you're moving at speeds that make interstellar travel plausible.

And if you have continuous-boost spacecraft (so that you can turn the engine on and leave it on for days, instead of only having enough fuel for a few hours of thrust), you can use straight or near-straight courses Slingshot maneuvers and Hohmann transfer orbits and such are for spacecraft that have to be very careful about rationing their fuel because they can't carry enough to produce large changes in their velocity.

By analogy, if you have to reach a place 140 miles away on half a tank of gas, you might reasonably be worried. If your car is like mine, that's right at the limit of how far the car can go on that amount of gas. So you might plan your trip carefully, to minimize the total distance (take the straightest routes), and think about what speed to go at to get the most out of your gas (most cars have a get the best fuel economy in miles per gallon at some particular speed).

Interplanetary space probes of the sort we can construct today are like that. Every bit of fuel we put on board reduces the available room for scientific instruments, and even if the entire probe were nothing but fuel tank we still wouldn't really have all that much fuel on board.

So we have to get them up to speed using huge rocket boosters that have no purpose but giving small payloads a very high base speed. Then we use the small amount of onboard fuel to make small course changes to nudge the probe onto the most energy-efficient path to its destination.

If our ships were fusion-powered rockets with large, easily replenished fuel supplies instead of chemical-powered rockets with small, completely unrefillable fuel tanks, we could use much faster, much 'straighter' paths to get to the planets.


Have you ever read Atomic Rocket (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/index.html)?
It's not that accurate itself, but it does give a pretty good idea of some of the problems SF scenarios encounter. And it is specifically designed to help people who don't want physics to stand in the way of a good story.Yes, but it does so by providing a primer on the physics of space and space travel. The goal appears to be to teach SF writers not to casually break the laws of physics by mistake.


Its fairly obvious that in WWII the USSR was able to successfully cope with both the military and industrial challenge posed by the Axis. The only power that could match its industrial output was the US - which was untouched by the war. Both the total dedication of resources towards the war and the mass movement of workers and factories towards the Urals could clearly not have been carried out under any other economic model. And all this at a time when some huge percentage (10?) of the population was actively in military service.Could the Soviet mobilization have worked without friendly foreigners to feed resources into the Soviet war machine? Would there have been enough food to feed everyone, and enough trucks to transport everything?