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

[John Campbell]

Knee strikes aren't ok, but throat strikes are? Ouch! :smalltongue:

Yeah, and despite that, I've been hit in the throat only twice in the sixteen years I've been fighting, and have been hit in the knee (or below the knee, where, for a significant period of time, I had, as mentioned, no armor at all) more often than that in single fights on occasion.

The first time I got hit in the throat, I wasn't wearing a gorget. It was early in my fighting career, when we were still scrounging up bits and pieces of loaner stuff to get me on the field, and we'd overlooked that bit, until I got nailed with a thrust on the neck muscle just to the left of my larynx. An inch farther to the right, and we'd have been practicing tracheotomies.

I went home and built my gorget that night. It was another ten years before I found out that it really worked.

The knee, on the other hand, tends to get abused by people who don't know how to get under a shield properly.

[J.Gellert]

The knee, on the other hand, tends to get abused by people who don't know how to get under a shield properly.

But that says something about knee strikes in actual combat :smalltongue:

What was that place again, where archaelogists found a whole bunch of skeletons with their femurs slashed off?

That aside, SCA sounds fun... I don't think we have anything like that here.

[Mike_G]

I think it was Visby, where many of the corpses had leg wounds.

The leg from the knee down is hard to defend, and if you fake at his head to get his shield up, then strike at the knee, it's pretty effective.

Except when fighting with rules that don't allow a leg strike, then the guy never has to worry about that, which makes a shield much better than it should be.

[Knaight]

The leg from the knee down is hard to defend, and if you fake at his head to get his shield up, then strike at the knee, it's pretty effective.

Well, yes and no. If you have practice, moving your leg out of the way is pretty routine, working wonderfully against shorter weapons, such as one handed swords, axes, maces, and such. Moreover, you can probably try to get in a quick stab or slash while dodging. Similarly, when looking at two handed swords being wielded by both combatants it is pretty easy to just get out of the way.

Two handed polearms are where life gets difficult. Because one can slide their hands around on the shaft, there is a much wider area which can be slashed at effectively, and moving out is much more difficult. However, if you yourself have a polearm or two handed sword, interposing it is entirely possible. If you have a large shield, you can get it in the way, but its a slow enough process that you don't really accomplish anything with it. A target shield that is 1/2 a meter or less in diameter up against polearms is near worthless, and getting hit in the legs is to be expected.

[Galloglaich]

A few comments to add to the fray

Re: Pavise shield

They did in fact use a form of the Pavise in personal combat, starting in the 14th Century, it apparently spread from Lithuania. Sometimes referred to as the 'mini-pavise' or the 'small pavise', it became very common in the Holy Roman Empire in the 15th and 16th Century. It's principle characteristic was a layered composite construction designed to absorb high energy missile impacts (bullets, recurve bow arrows and crossbow bolts). You can identify them by the characteristic 'square' indentation on the front..

Examples, like this modern interpretation of a 14th C. Lithuanian Knight

http://www.mokykla.lt/upl/Image/katalogas/stendas.jpg
Or these messer men from the Triumph of Maximilian

http://mailmaker.tripod.com/armor/max-triumph-pavices.jpg


Similarly, that "three foot target" you showed some images of was also called a "Rotela", it became a popular type of shield in the 16th Century in Italy and Spain, and spread from there. It may have actually been a copy of an Ottoman infantry shield. These were steel and bullet-proof. These are quite common in a lot of 16th century fechtbucher, notably Marozzo displays quite a few of them.

http://www.nova-assalto.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/SpadaERotella.jpg

Here is a replica sold by Therion arms.

http://therionarms.com/reenact/therionarms_c773.html

Both types of shields were used by swordsmen who had to fight against polearms; I suspect neither weapon had a precise advantage since both troop types (rotolero and billmen etc.) were used in the same period, although Spanish rotolero won some notably victories over pikemen. As a little trivia, most of the original 500 troops who landed with Cortez in Mexico were actually Rotolero, including Bernal Diaz who wrote the famous memoir.

I pretty much agree with what others have said, a polearm in formation can be particularly dangerous, the ones with hooks can also be used to hook shield rims and then stab in the face. One on one I'd give a slight edge to the shield guy if they are up to moderate experience level, for experienced fighters it's pretty even.

SCA heavy-combat rules kind of negate a lot of the effectiveness of polearms, so if you are doing well with them against shields in the SCA my hat is off to you. The idea that aiming at someones knee is 'cheating' seems bizarre to me but then again so do a lot of things.

Also typically, shields used historically do not weigh anywhere near what they typically do in the SCA. They were made of different types of wood deisgned to hold together rather than split (such as linden) in preference to harder but more brittle woods which would split (like Oak). Most Viking shields for example were in the range of 3/8" thick.


Re: George Silver, Silver stands out among Fencing Masters as having an axe to grind and an agenda, both within martial arts context and beyond it. Just FYI.

G.

[Knaight]

Also typically, shields used historically do not weigh anywhere near what they typically do in the SCA. They were made of different types of wood deisgned to hold together rather than split (such as linden) in preference to harder but more brittle woods which would split (like Oak). Most Viking shields for example were in the range of 3/8" thick.

True, though using aluminum to bring weight down is still ridiculous.

[Galloglaich]

Following this logic, the reason helmets were worn during WW1 and WW2 is because they could stop rifle bullets? Otherwise nobody would have worn them.

No they were re-introduced (remember, armor of any kind including helmets was basically dropped for infantry during much of the 18th and 19th Century) because weapons appeared on the battlefield, namely high explosive shells, for whcih the helmet played a useful role in protecting. Consider the following facts:

1) Starting in the 19th Century, explosive shells became increasingly common on the battlefield. By the dawn of the 20th high-explosive shells were the norm.

2) By World War I, the highest number of casualties (other than disease) were caused by 'shell fragments', i.e. shrapnel from high explosives. Not rifle bullets.

3) For a man standing in a slit-trench, a 'tin hat', i.e. flat steel helmet with a wide brim, offered substantial protection from shell fragments.

This is why they were re-introduced. They offered substantial protection from the most likely way to die. Nobody would have worn them otherwise. And this is just a helmet, substantially less of a hassle than wearing hard body armor.

Since you are the firearms expert, I'll ask you, in the 16th and 17th Century, what was the breakdown of firearm types? My understanding is that the arquebus, the pistol and the caliver were still the most common types of firerams in the 30 years war. Is that true or not?

G.

[Incanur]

These were steel and bullet-proof.

They could be, but by the late sixteenth century you get various authors - Sir Roger Williams, for one - complaining about the extreme weight of targets of proof. It had apparently gotten to the point that soldiers refused to bear them. He and others suggested lighter shield were more useful. Of course, earlier in the century shield wouldn't have had to have been as thick to effective stop firearms.


Both types of shields were used by swordsmen who had to fight against polearms; I suspect neither weapon had a precise advantage since both troop types (rotolero and billmen etc.) were used in the same period, although Spanish rotolero won some notably victories over pikemen.

There's a big difference between combat in formation on the battlefield and duels in the open. Various writers did comment on the relative utility of targetiers and halberdiers as troop types. The majority though targetiers could butcher pikemen under the right circumstances, such as rough terrain or after an initial clash with friendly pikemen. In the melee, having a shield and sword beats having just a sword. You can't use a pike in the press. Military writers disagreed on whether targetiers or halberdiers were more valuable in such melees. Fourquevaux wanted every pikeman to have a target on his back for the press and also recommended sending targetiers with grenades in front of the first rank of pikes. At the time he valued the halberd and suggested few dedicated targetiers. Sir John Smythe adored the halberd and barely mentioned shields. A couple of other English authors favored targetiers. George Silver respected both halberds and targets on the field though he preferred the buckler and staff for single open combat.


Re: George Silver, Silver stands out among Fencing Masters as having an axe to grind and an agenda, both within martial arts context and beyond it.

Again, he's not meaningfully different from others in this respect and certainly not from his contemporary Swetnam. Masters tended to tell you exactly what they thought. Most critically, which historical martial writer gives the odds to the shield against polearm? As far as I know, only Silver assigned advantage in that fight. Swetnam contradicts Silver on the rapier versus sword; according to Tom Leoni, at least one Italian master considered the two weapons evenly matched.

[Galloglaich]

Again, he's not meaningfully different from others in this respect and certainly not from his contemporary Swetnam. Masters tended to tell you exactly what they thought. Most critically, which historical martial writer gives the odds to the shield against polearm? As far as I know, only Silver assigned advantage in that fight. Swetnam contradicts Silver on the rapier versus sword; according to Tom Leoni, at least one Italian master considered the two weapons evenly matched.

Actually Swetnam and Silver are the only two I'm aware of who have that jingoistic tone toward other actual Masters. Silver had a problem with rapiers in general and Italian rapier Masters in particular, he was something of an English nationalist. Swetnam was of the same vein though with some different speicifc opinions, and seemed to have a problem with women that he went on and on about.

Most Masters rail a bit about amateurs, Fiore famously mentions having to fight some other Masters in his introduction to Flos Dueletorum, in a rather humble fashion. Most were not openly antagonistic against Masters from other parts of Europe, at least none of the fechtbucer I'm familiar with.

I think this is an issue with context here again, Silvers reputation in this regard is well known.

G.

[Galloglaich]

Fourquevaux wanted every pikeman to have a target on his back for the press and also recommended sending targetiers with grenades in front of the first rank of pikes. At the time he valued the halberd and suggested few dedicated targetiers. Sir John Smythe adored the halberd and barely mentioned shields.

During their period of dominance of European warfare, (from circa 1450 - 1520) the Swiss used to arm a high percentage of their pikemen and even halberdiers with longswords, schwiesersabels or bastard swords as sidearms, which was very unusual for the time (and a pain in the ass to lug around). Notbaly, they almost always never lost engagements during this period which proceeded into the 'broken up' close-combat stage.

By the time they started losing they had dropped these sidearms and even drastically reduced the number of Halberdiers in their ranks, placing an over-reliance on pikes which the Spanish rotolero were able to take advantage of.

G.

[Incanur]

Actually Swetnam and Silver are the only two I'm aware of who have that jingoistic tone toward other actual Masters.

What do you mean by "actual Masters?" Silver, as a gentleman, wasn't as a paid fencing instructor and formal Master of Defense like Swetnam.


Swetnam was of the same vein though with some different speicifc opinions, and seemed to have a problem with women that he went on and on about.

I don't see any connection between Swetnam's extreme misogyny and his fencing practice.


Most were not openly antagonistic against Masters from other parts of Europe, at least none of the fechtbucer I'm familiar with.

Leckuchner wrote harshly against a style of messer fencing intriguing similar to Silver's sword practice, though over a hundred years earlier. Musashi criticized popular martial arts instructors in the same way Silver did. Sixteenth-century English military writers argued bitterly on various points. The Italian masters do seem more polite from what I've seen, but Silver's passion wasn't usual in the English context.


I think this is an issue with context here again, Silvers reputation in this regard is well known.

It's well-known but mostly undeserved. Disdain for Silver comes as result of Victorian scholarship and the view of nineteenth-century fencing as the highest form of the art.

[Galloglaich]

I don't see any connection between Swetnam's extreme misogyny and his fencing practice.

It's just relevant to the idea that both of these guys injected a lot of politics into heir fencing manuals.




Leckuchner wrote harshly against a style of messer fencing intriguing similar to Silver's sword practice, though over a hundred years earlier. Musashi criticized popular martial arts instructors in the same way Silver did. Sixteenth-century English military writers argued bitterly on various points. The Italian masters do seem more polite from what I've seen, but Silver's passion wasn't usual in the English context.

I think that is a bit of a stretch. First, I'm referring to European Martial Arts here, so Musashi is a seperate subject (and relatiely unique in Japan anyway). Second, we are talking about fencing Masters not military writers. Third, the fact is, if you are talking about the era where individual combat and hand weapons are still relevant in warfare (say before 1700), there are scores of fencing manuals from Italy and Central Europe (Germany, Poland, Austria, Bohemia etc.) and only maybe 5 or 6 from England. English Masters are a bit of an outlier.



It's well-known but mostly undeserved. Disdain for Silver comes as result of Victorian scholarship and the view of nineteenth-century fencing as the highest form of the art.

I don't think there actually is any disdain for Silver, or even Swetnam for that matter in terms of fencing. To the contrary, they are well respected. It's just known that they were political and opinionated so not everything they wrote on such general topics (what weapons are better than others) is taken precisely at face value.

G.

[Incanur]

It's just relevant to the idea that both of these guys injected a lot of politics into heir fencing manuals.

The relevant politics - if you want to call them that - center on new versus old styles of fighting. You see the same in Machiavelli and so much military writing during the sixteenth century.


First, I'm referring to European Martial Arts here, so Musashi is a seperate subject (and relatiely unique in Japan anyway).

I suggest you read Paul Wagner's piece comparing Silver and Musashi. They were almost contemporaries.


It's just known that they were political and opinionated so not everything they wrote on such general topics (what weapons are better than others) is taken precisely at face value.

Neither you nor anyone else has provided any reason to believe Silver's opinion on the target against polearms should be dismissed aside from modern experience. Again, what historical evidence gives the target odds against long weapons in single combat? As far as I know, only Silver addresses the point.

[ArlEammon]

Ok. I understand Bronze is better than Iron for weapons such as swords and armor. What I don't know is, is Steel better than Bronze? And how much more so?

[Shademan]

isnt bronze a bit too soft...?

[Spiryt]

Ok. I understand Bronze is better than Iron for weapons such as swords and armor. What I don't know is, is Steel better than Bronze? And how much more so?

That's quite a bit vague question about stuff you could write books about.

There are different Bronzes, depending on proportions of copper and thin, other additions, way of making, and thousands of other things.

And with Steel even more so, thousands of really quite different materials you can achieve by different proportions of carbon and iron, other elements, characteristics of local iron, heat treat as quenching or tempering, and so on.

Many combinations of hardness, brittleness, resiliency, ductility etc. So you can have spoon, train rail and a sword out of steel.

But very shortly, steel indeed did prove more desirable for most weapons and armors. As time went by, bronze become almost completely extinct for such applications, from various reasons.

Plenty of medieval swords had bronze pommels, yet blades were obviously steel.

[Caustic Soda]

@bronze versus iron: I was under the impression that early iron weapons and tools were not made from steel, and indeed that it took at least a few centuries between the change-over from bronze to iron before steel began to appear. Is this a misunderstanding on my part?

[Galloglaich]

As Spiryt said, there are many types of Copper alloys which tend to get lumped together as Bronze (some including Brass, Latten, and various Arsenic / Copper alloys were also used for weapons or armor) and there were as many ways of treating, differentially hardening etc. as there were with steel. They got particularly sophisticated with this in China.

Bronze did continue to be used for weapons and armor after iron and even steel. The Romans were still using Bronze helmets pretty late, as well as some Bronze scale and mail armor. Bronze mace-heads continued to remain in use through the Medieval period, particularly in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Latten (Bronze alloy) was still being used as a component of body armor in the West into the 14th Century. And of course then Bronze returned as a popular material for firearm and cannon barrels (particularly for pistol, Blunderbuss and Musketoon barrels).

Generally speaking, softer bronze alloys were very malleable (such as those used for mace-heads) which made them ideal for certain applications since they would bend rather than break; certain hard alloys of bronze used in sword blades and the like were nearly as hard as steel, and equally strong by certain means of measuring, but those same alloys did not have the same flexibility which meant thy were still more likely to snap. Steel is hard and flexible simultaneously, and has other properties (spriniginess) which make it ideal for swords and many other types of weapons. The main other difference is that bronze (depending on the alloy) is about 10% - 15% heavier, which is the main reason why iron or steel are better for armor.

As for the arrival of iron, yes it's correct that early iron weapons were basically wrought iron and not steel, and tended to be small blades as a result because wrought iron will not hold it's shape under duress. You went from up to almost 3 foot long Bronze Swords to short iron daggers and spear-heads almost "overnight" in historical terms (over a generation or two). The main value of iron over Bronze is that Iron only required one ingredient (iron ore, which could be found almost anywhere) whereas bronze required both copper and tin (or calamide to make zinc for brass).

Gradually the complimentary technologies of heat treatment and carbon infusion were developed (along with introducton of certain other elments such as phosphorous), alongside other 'work arounds' such as pattern-welding and forge welding. By the 3rd Century BC you had some regular production of what we could reasonably call steel, notably in some centers in Spain and Celto-Illyria (in Southeastern Europe). Another highly successful type of crucible steel was developed around this same time in Sri Lanka and India.

By around 50 AD there were several significant centers of steel production including the aforementioned as well as in Tanzania in Africa and several other sites in Northern Europe.

Steel only gradually got better though and you can sort of see this with longer and / or more graceful swords. The next major step was around the 11th Century when the spread of automation (mostly overshot water wheels established by the Cistercian monks) made the production of iron much cheaper and more efficient in Europe. More iron meant more steel, and steel became more and more common. The price of swords dropped dramatically from the 11th century through the 14th. Steel armor started to be produced in Italy in the 14th century, and spread to much of Central Europe by the 15th... only to be largely abandoned after the mid-16th as armies got larger.

G.

[Spiryt]

Sources I can find suggest that bronze objects generally resist metal fatigue well.

So, repeating stresses that are not violent enough to snap/rupture object instantly, but cause loosing of integrity over time.

So, of all applications, usefulness for cannons is rather obvious.

For more "conventional" weapons, not so much, there's small chance that metal fatigue will have that much meaning here, since there's low chance of material stresses appearing in the exact same place and way frequently.

[Thiel]

Bronze's main advantage over iron when it comes to gun making is that it's easier to cast

[fusilier]

Since you are the firearms expert, I'll ask you, in the 16th and 17th Century, what was the breakdown of firearm types? My understanding is that the arquebus, the pistol and the caliver were still the most common types of firerams in the 30 years war. Is that true or not?

G.

Terminology of early firearms is awkward and frustrating. Is there really a difference between a caliver and an arquebus? What's the distinction between a musket and caliver or arquebus? What's a petronel? etc.

By the Thirty Years War the "arquebus" would have been superseded by the "caliver" -- to the point that I consider a caliver to be an updated arquebus, but others will have different definitions. The musket was very popular then too, but probably a bit lighter than a 16th century musket. Where the dividing line between musket and caliver is isn't clear. Muskets were increasingly used without the rest (this aided in volley fire), which would imply they were also somewhat lighter. The caliver was longer than the old arquebus, but not as heavy as a musket.

The ratio of muskets to calivers (or arquebuses) in the infantry could vary. The Spanish Tercios in Flanders in 1632 had a 5:1 ratio of Musketeers to Arquebusiers (another example of the problems with terminology -- the Spanish never adopted the term "caliver"). Although by regulations, it should have been a 2:1 ratio of arquebusiers to musketeers.

Pistols were indeed fairly common among cavalry, but so were other firearms -- mounted "arquebusiers" (there's that term again) being frequently mentioned. The "arquebus" they carried was often called a petronel.

I'll have to do more research to answer your question. With most things it probably varied quite a bit. Even the proportion of shot to pike could vary a lot depending upon local conditions (pikes were cheaper to obtain).

G. I made your point for you about helmets in WW1 -- they were intended to stop shell fragments -- some of them were designed to take "extra" armor to stop rifle bullets (the M1916 stalhelm for example). So stopping rifle bullets wasn't necessarily out of the minds of the designers of armor, it was just that the primary purpose of the armor was to reduce head injuries due to shell fragments. (reduce, not eliminate)

[fusilier]

I checked another source, and an Imperial regiment was supposed to have 1500 muskets (and rests), but only 300 rifles and calivers.

However, a regiment, or a tercio, is a mixed formation of pike and shot. Formations of only shot were used, especially as skirmishers, these formation may have been completely separate from the Regiment or Tercio, and would be more likely to be equipped with a lighter firearm. On the other hand, they may have simply been "spun off" from the larger unit when needed.

Nonetheless, the evidence seems to indicate that the musket was the predominate firearm of the infantry. But there seems to have been considerable variation in musket design. My source for the Imperial regiment, even states that musket could weigh between 4kg and 7 kg -- the first number being easily light enough to dispense with a rest. (Osprey Men-At-Arms 457, Imperial Armies of the Thirty Years' War 1).

[Incanur]

Going back to the matter of shields, I just check into Achille Marozzo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achille_Marozzo)'s manual. Marozzo gave specific instruction for fighting a polearm with sword and shield but no definite assessment of advantage in either direction. With regards to the partisan and target, he suggested that dropping the shield and wielding the partisan with both hands yields great advantage. That's an awkward weapon to pair with the shield - partisans weigh around six pounds - but his statement still shows how the target doesn't automatically negate a polearm. Late sixteenth-century Portuguese master Domingo Luis Godinho gave montante (greatsword) instructions for facing one, two, or more than two (!) opponents with sword and target. His advice in the latter case involved cuts to the legs.

[Mathis]

First time poster in this thread, but I've spent a long time reading and I have to let you guys know how impressed I am by all the time and work you put into this. It's a great educational tool for people like me who are interested in learning about the historical usage of armor and weapons.

Ok, to my question; when wearing a breastplate (let's say along these lines (http://www.aceros-de-hispania.com/image/marto/breastplate-18e.jpg)), what was it normally used with? I was under the impression that it was common to use chain mail or hard leather underneath. Is this true? If not, what else was it combined with? I'm not after information about a particular era, just a general idea.

[Spiryt]

Ok, to my question; when wearing a breastplate (let's say along these lines (http://www.aceros-de-hispania.com/image/marto/breastplate-18e.jpg)), what was it normally used with? I was under the impression that it was common to use chain mail or hard leather underneath. Is this true? If not, what else was it combined with? I'm not after information about a particular era, just a general idea.


"General idea" is hard to do, because place and time, matters pretty much all as far as such things are concerned. :smallwink:

But generally, breastplates were worn on aketon/gambeson and similar quilted defenses and mail.

As plate armor was getting more prevalent, varied and advanced, pourpoints, aketons and similar stuff was becoming less bulky and protective, as while it's needed for proper functioning of mail, it's not so with plate armor - it was needed mostly to strap and mount armor on it, the amortization function was more secondary.

In the beginning of 15th century, plates were still often being worn over large shirts etc. of mail.

Later voiders, short sleeves etc. of mail, that were covering only joints and other places impossible to cover with plate were becoming standard.



http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p296/Forntid/armingdoublet.jpg

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p296/Forntid/14892.jpg

Leather wasn't really used under armors in medieval, although it was quite often in later times.

[Mathis]

Thank you Spiryt, you managed to answer my question exactly as I had hoped! Your first picture there though, when did it become the standard, and what type of social status did you usually have if you could afford to wear that with plates? Does anyone have any good books or sites to reccommend if I wanted to make something like that myself?

[Galloglaich]

I checked another source, and an Imperial regiment was supposed to have 1500 muskets (and rests), but only 300 rifles and calivers.

However, a regiment, or a tercio, is a mixed formation of pike and shot. Formations of only shot were used, especially as skirmishers, these formation may have been completely separate from the Regiment or Tercio, and would be more likely to be equipped with a lighter firearm. On the other hand, they may have simply been "spun off" from the larger unit when needed.

Nonetheless, the evidence seems to indicate that the musket was the predominate firearm of the infantry. But there seems to have been considerable variation in musket design. My source for the Imperial regiment, even states that musket could weigh between 4kg and 7 kg -- the first number being easily light enough to dispense with a rest. (Osprey Men-At-Arms 457, Imperial Armies of the Thirty Years' War 1).

Fusilier, your interpretation of what constitutes a musket, an arquebus, a caliver, and a petronel are widely different from my own understanding, though I gather these terms like most referring to weapons were often used rather loosely in period. Maybe we should try to narrow down definitions of terms if we want to further the discussion a bit.

This is my understanding:

http://blindkat.hegewisch.net/pirates/frml1690.jpg
Musket

http://yeomenoftheguard.com/arquebus.jpg
Arquebus

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~dispater/peterson_1499.JPG
Caliver

http://www.viacassa.eu/wp/wp-content/themes/vc2/zbrojnica/petronel01.jpg
http://www.ambroseantiques.com/images/guns/wlongarms/petronel1.jpg
http://media.vam.ac.uk/media/thira/collection_images/2008BT/2008BT3110_jpg_ds.jpg
Petronel

G.

[Galloglaich]

Thank you Spiryt, you managed to answer my question exactly as I had hoped! Your first picture there though, when did it become the standard, and what type of social status did you usually have if you could afford to wear that with plates? Does anyone have any good books or sites to reccommend if I wanted to make something like that myself?

Social status is basically irrelevant to armor, all classes wore all kinds of armor if they could get it. Textile armor like the gambeson et al were probably the most ubiquitous forms of armor. There were both 'stand-alone', 'under-armour*' and 'over-armour*' versions which tended to be somewhat interchangeable, of varying thicknesses ranging from as few as 3 or 4 layers of linen to as much as 20 or 30 layers.

* i.e. worn with mail, plate, or brigandine.

It depends what specific type (aketon, gambeson, pourpoint etc.) you want to make, but there are many resources.

http://www.whitemountainarmoury.com/pdfs/armingCoat.pdf

http://www.aemma.org/misc/gambeson_instructions.pdf

http://www.armourarchive.org/essays/simple_gambeson/

You can also buy them ready-made from a variety of places though if you or someone you know have skill at sewing it's probably better to make your own custom-fit one.

G.

[randomhero00]

Not exactly a weapon or armor question, but similar, a question of the old days. Did people know how to swim (not just dog paddle)? Since there weren't swimming pools and everyone was busy surviving/doing their trade, I can't imagine many would have learned to swim.

[Galloglaich]

Not exactly a weapon or armor question, but similar, a question of the old days. Did people know how to swim (not just dog paddle)? Since there weren't swimming pools and everyone was busy surviving/doing their trade, I can't imagine many would have learned to swim.

They still had plenty of lakes and rivers around ;) in fact most towns and villages were built on a major water source. Towns also had public baths and quite a few (for example most of the 200 or so towns you'll find in Switzerland, Austria and Germany with 'Bad' or 'Baden' in their name) were built on natural cool or hot springs. People actually tended to spend a lot of time in the water.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/media/cms/images/null/2003/07/sriimg20030722_4056440_0.jpg

This changed gradually in the 16th and 17th Century with the advent of the Protestant reformation and Catholic counter-reformation, people became much more prudish and didn't like to be naked in public any more, bathing became much less popular during the "Enlightenment" period than it was in the Middle Ages.

G.

[Knaight]

They still had plenty of lakes and rivers around ;) in fact most towns and villages were built on a major water source. Towns also had public baths and quite a few (for example most of the 200 or so towns you'll find in Switzerland, Austria and Germany with 'Bad' or 'Baden' in their name) were built on natural cool or hot springs. People actually tended to spend a lot of time in the water.

Note that this is specifically mainland Europe in the medieval era, and that time in water that needed swimming skills varied highly. That hardly encompasses "the old times".

[Galloglaich]

Note that this is specifically mainland Europe in the medieval era, and that time in water that needed swimming skills varied highly. That hardly encompasses "the old times".

True, I'm just assuming the period usually roughly adopted by fantasy RPGs, i.e. the Dark Ages through the Renaissance. Let me amend my statement. Basically any time before 1600 AD, bathing was fairly common. After that, increasingly less so.

G.

[fusilier]

Fusilier, your interpretation of what constitutes a musket, an arquebus, a caliver, and a petronel are widely different from my own understanding, though I gather these terms like most referring to weapons were often used rather loosely in period. Maybe we should try to narrow down definitions of terms if we want to further the discussion a bit.

This is my understanding:
. . .


Right, we do have something of a misunderstanding.

Ok, what you have listed as a musket, may actually be a caliver.

What you have listed as an arquebus, is a wheellock, probably a hunting rifle. While arquebus would be an acceptable term for such a weapon it's not a typical arquebus.

Finally, what you call a caliver, is clearly too early to be one, and far too short, it's an arquebus.

As for the petronel, we are mostly in agreement. The defining characteristic of a petronel seems to be it's very hooked butt. However, the period sources state that it was intended for use on horseback. It tends to have a shorter, lighter barrel than the musket, making it a cousin of the arquebus, or a precursor to the carbine.

One of the problems is that at some point, almost everything was called an arquebus. The terms musket and caliver didn't simply spring forth, as the weapons were developments of earlier designs. We have references from the early 1500s of muskets -- they are called arquebuses, but they are used with rests, and are therefore assumed to be early muskets. The term caliver apparently comes from arquebuse du calibre de M. le Prince. An arquebus of a particular caliber. (see: http://www.angelfire.com/ga4/guilmartin.com/Appendix1.html -- I don't agree with everything said there, but it seems to be generally good overview).


These two plates are from De Gheyn's Exercise of Armes. The first shows a soldier armed with a caliver, the second a musket. (Beginning of the 1600s)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Jacob_de_Gheyn_-_Wapenhandelinge_4.jpg/429px-Jacob_de_Gheyn_-_Wapenhandelinge_4.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Aanwijzing_11_voor_het_hanteren_van_het_musket_-_V_musquet_om_hooch_hout_ende_aenlegt_%28Jacob_de_ Gheyn%2C_1607%29.jpg/458px-Aanwijzing_11_voor_het_hanteren_van_het_musket_-_V_musquet_om_hooch_hout_ende_aenlegt_%28Jacob_de_ Gheyn%2C_1607%29.jpg

The caliver is a little bit shorter, and lighter than the musket, but has the same style.

Here are two reproduction "arquebuses", the first looks like a late 16th/early 17th century model:

http://www.musketmart.com/images/Arqubus-1.jpg

This one is based upon an original Spanish arquebus, dating to around 1580
http://www.musketmart.com/images/caliver001.jpg

(if you look at the image name, the poster has called it a caliver).

This webpage supplies a simple explanation of the general trends, albeit in somewhat rough translation:
http://www.oocities.org/ao1617/weapon.html
The pictures are useful in providing some sort of visual reference for the relative differences.


The Harquebus: The harquebus was a handgun which weight was around 5 to 7 kg for a dimension of 0.9 - 1 meter. To ignite the powder and shot, the main method was the matchlock system. This weapon had a maximum range of 100 meter but the effective range was closer to 15 - 25 m. A study made in Austria in 19888 had shown that after 30 m the weapon was useless. Another limitation of the weapon was the rate of fire, normally a good gunman would fire 3 bullets/min. Also due to poor metal casting the tube had the tendency to overheat after 4 shots. By the end of the XVI century an advanced and longuer ( up to 1,3 meter) harquebus was introduced, called caliver with a standarized bore size, in the dutch and spanish armies.


Note: From 1685 the harquebus is still in use in the Tercio but it will be more normal to call them light musket.

Matchlock harquebus of XVI century
http://www.oocities.org/ao1617/F8b.jpg

Matchlock Caliver of the begin of the XVII century
http://www.oocities.org/ao1617/F8bb.jpg


The musket : The musket is bigger and heavier than the harquebus. Typically a musket of the XVI century had a lenght of 1.4 - 1.5 m and a weight of around 10 kg. To fire, a musketeer had to use a rest called the forks. The firing rate was slow, 1 shot/min and 44 mouvements were needed to load the weapon. The main advantage of the weapon was the effective range of 50 to 75 meter and a maximum range of 300 meter. Also, the heavier bullets of the musket could penetrate the full armour of the heavy horsemen. In 1610 a mousquet in Spanish service, had a lenght of 1.3 - 1.4 m and a weight of 8 - 9 kg firing a bullet of 42.5 g, with an initial speed of some 300 m/s.

During the XVII century the muskets have been lightened (6 - 6.5 kg for a a lenght of 1.2 m), improving the casting techniques and by the second half of the XVII century muskets without the forks were common. Also the techniques to ignite the powder were improved with the wheellock system (in swedish service) to arrive to the flintlock system by the end of the century.

Matchlock musket of the XVII century
http://www.oocities.org/ao1617/F8c.jpg



The tests done in Austria in 19888(?) were probably with early short barreled arquebuses -- the barrels got longer over time, and as I said, simple dividing lines are tricky to place. As muskets got shorter and lighter, and calivers got longer, the difference between a caliver and musket is also obscured. By the Thirty Years War, the term caliver and musket are very common, with a caliver typically being around .60 caliber up to maybe .75, and a musket being from around .75 upward.

I hope this helps clarify things a bit, please ask more questions. :-)

[Karoht]

Not exactly a weapon or armor question, but similar, a question of the old days. Did people know how to swim (not just dog paddle)? Since there weren't swimming pools and everyone was busy surviving/doing their trade, I can't imagine many would have learned to swim.

How do animals learn to swim in the wild?
They jump into some body of water, and it either works out, or it doesn't.
People mostly work the same way. Remember that bathing was done in ponds, lakes, streams, and rivers long before bathtubs. Playing in water is a natural extention of that, and eventually people would figure it out.

For the record, large cats are actually decent swimmers.

[randomhero00]

They still had plenty of lakes and rivers around ;) in fact most towns and villages were built on a major water source. Towns also had public baths and quite a few (for example most of the 200 or so towns you'll find in Switzerland, Austria and Germany with 'Bad' or 'Baden' in their name) were built on natural cool or hot springs. People actually tended to spend a lot of time in the water.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/media/cms/images/null/2003/07/sriimg20030722_4056440_0.jpg

This changed gradually in the 16th and 17th Century with the advent of the Protestant reformation and Catholic counter-reformation, people became much more prudish and didn't like to be naked in public any more, bathing became much less popular during the "Enlightenment" period than it was in the Middle Ages.

G.
Sigh, this just further proves I was born in the wrong century ;) I need to either head far into the future or back in time.

anyways, ty for answering. Although a lot of towns were built around wells and not above ground water sources.

[Galloglaich]

The tests done in Austria in 19888(?) were probably with early short barreled arquebuses -- the barrels got longer over time, and as I said, simple dividing lines are tricky to place. As muskets got shorter and lighter, and calivers got longer, the difference between a caliver and musket is also obscured. By the Thirty Years War, the term caliver and musket are very common, with a caliver typically being around .60 caliber up to maybe .75, and a musket being from around .75 upward.

That is useful in that from the text you quoted, it sounds (again) like most of the other sources only the heavy musket could pierce heavy armor, and then only out to about 50 to 75 meters. Not very long range. So really the heavy horseman is effectively protected against most firearms, just not the specifically armor-piercing ones. The heavy musket was reallly almost a light cannon I think it had a niche rather like anti-tank rifles used in World War II that could penetrate the armor on light tanks.


I hope this helps clarify things a bit, please ask more questions. :-)

Well it is helpful and the links are good, I'm always interested to learn more, though I'm not completely ignorant of early firearms, I wrote a book about armor, bows and guns a while back. I just wanted to understand your use of terminology because the challenge is that, as you acknowledged, period terms tended to be somewhat interchangable, so for gamers or modern enthusiasts there is a certain amount of arbitrary deisgnation of terms. It's the same for swords and other weapons too really.

As for the origins of the heavy musket, other overlapping types were the arquebus a croc, the 'large arquebus' and the 'spanish arquebus', most of which were really large hook-guns. The very word arquebus comes from hackenbusch (and similar terms) which mean hook-gun. This is because in the early days of firearms which were (in Europe) pioneered largely by the Czechs, they were used from the cover of war-wagons (tabor), boats, or from the walls of fortifications, and the hook was used to make the wall into a shooting -rest as you are aware I'm sure. This effectively increased the range by a substantial margin And the Turkish musket, which as far as I can tell was the first specifically long-barreled (as opposed to just larger caliber) handgun, allegedly made so that guns could be reloaded from horseback. Certainly the Janissaries were early adopters of long-barrelled firearms.

Shooting with a rest or a stake was not unique to heavy muskets by any means and was practiced regularly with early handgonnes and hand-culverins.

Here is a nice video of some 15th Century firearms and small cannon being fired, you'll notice a couple of interesting firearms on the left side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjsZkEeVTGM&feature=email&email=comment_reply_received

G.

[Galloglaich]

anyways, ty for answering. Although a lot of towns were built around wells and not above ground water sources.

True to an extent for villages, though less so for market towns. Wells are fine as a water source but lousy as a means to move cargo. That why most of the towns with household names from Europe are on major waterways, rivers or estuaries. Barcelona, Venice, Cologne, Prague, Bruges, Amsterdam, Danzig, Lubeck, Stockholm, Paris, Frankfurt, Hamburg etc. etc. Plus like I said most of the towns with the name Baden in them were built on the site of hot springs (though some recieved the designation during the 19th Century when they struck water in salt mines).

EDIT: but don't feel like you were born in the wrong century they are reviving this practice. Actually when I was in the army in the 80's the Germans already had a lot of co-ed public spas and baths.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Home/Archive/A_dip_into_the_history_of_bathing.html?cid=3448566

G.

[randomhero00]

Sorry again for such an unusual question :D

At what time did people (at large, maybe 20+%) start having exotic pets? Such as parrots, lizards, snakes, etc. (I know the dog and cat go way way back, but what about the rest of the pets?)

[fusilier]

As for the origins of the heavy musket, other overlapping types were the arquebus a croc, the 'large arquebus' and the 'spanish arquebus', most of which were really large hook-guns. The very word arquebus comes from hackenbusch (and similar terms) which mean hook-gun. This is because in the early days of firearms which were (in Europe) pioneered largely by the Czechs, they were used from the cover of war-wagons (tabor), boats, or from the walls of fortifications, and the hook was used to make the wall into a shooting -rest as you are aware I'm sure. This effectively increased the range by a substantial margin And the Turkish musket, which as far as I can tell was the first specifically long-barreled (as opposed to just larger caliber) handgun, allegedly made so that guns could be reloaded from horseback. Certainly the Janissaries were early adopters of long-barrelled firearms.

Shooting with a rest or a stake was not unique to heavy muskets by any means and was practiced regularly with early handgonnes and hand-culverins.

Here is a nice video of some 15th Century firearms and small cannon being fired, you'll notice a couple of interesting firearms on the left side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjsZkEeVTGM&feature=email&email=comment_reply_received

G.

Right, if you go back far enough, then you start to run into those sorts of things, with large "arquebuses" with hooks being rested on a kind tripod frame. Those very closely resemble later "wall guns" and the frames seem to have allowed the weapons to be used almost like light field artillery.

Hand Culverin is a term that would make no sense by the Thirty Years War -- another example of how terminology can be inconsistent (by the mid 1500s a culverin was definitely a large, long barreled cannon).

Likewise the Jannissaries used long barrelled weapons, typically referred to as "arquebuses" in contemporary sources, but starting to approach a musket (they had a separate development track). However, it would seem weird to me to make a gun barrel longer for loading on horseback -- generally the trend is in the opposite direction. Nonetheless, I think there is a correlation between corn-powder and gun barrel length -- with corned powder allowing longer gun barrels than serpentine powder. I will have to double check that.

However, by the Thirty Years War, a musket is bigger and heavier than a caliver. The term "caliver" is basically interchangeable with "arquebus", and a petronel is a mounted version of a caliver/arquebus. If you see the term "arquebus" used in relation to foot troops, you can assume a caliver, with relation to mounted troops assume a petronel (or perhaps early carbine). That's how I would break things down, in the simplest terms. Muskets appear to be the predominate firearm by this time too.

Saying that soldiers protected by heavy armor, are safe from firearms except the heavy armor piercing ones, is true, but doesn't mean much during the Thirty Years War, as most firearms appear to be muskets (i.e. the heavy armor piercing ones). Comparing muskets to anti-tank rifles is a very poor comparison. Muskets were issued en masse to entire units -- not parcelled out to serve a particular niche function. Those units may have been placed in key positions, designed to function as part of group -- but that shouldn't be surprising, or unexpected. This was the time of Pike and Shot formations, there wasn't a *single* infantry weapon, but several. The numbers of muskets used increased along with the proportion of musketeers to pikemen, and eventually the size of muskets started to decrease, eventually becoming light enough to dispense with the rest, and their armor piercing capability was basically the same as an old arquebus (but by that time, armor was effectively gone from the battlefield). This makes using the term "musket" a bit misleading, because it can mean something very different in the mid 16th century from a mid 18th century example.

By the time of the Thirty Years War, the transition has clearly started. Muskets are typically lighter and of smaller caliber than they had been 20 years before. But they are still heavier than what would come later.

[Galloglaich]

Well, at any rate we seem to be getting a little closer to a consensus gradually.



Comparing muskets to anti-tank rifles is a very poor comparison. Muskets were issued en masse to entire units -- not parcelled out to serve a particular niche function.

Well I guess that depends on the specific time and place then doesn't it? Because the initial use of Muskets seems to be exactly in small numbers as a 'niche function'. I'm not an expert on the 30 years war, my area of focus has been more on the 15th and early 16th Centuries, but some accounts that I have read of specific engagements during the 30 years war and battles during the 'Deluge' (the Swedish invasion of Poland by Gustavus Adolphus) in the 1650s do not quite jibe with your description of the ratio of musket to arquebus. I guess I'll have to do some more reading on that and try to be careful about the terminology.


G

[fusilier]

Well, at any rate we seem to be getting a little closer to a consensus gradually.



Well I guess that depends on the specific time and place then doesn't it? Because the initial use of Muskets seems to be exactly in small numbers as a 'niche function'. I'm not an expert on the 30 years war, my area of focus has been more on the 15th and early 16th Centuries, but some accounts that I have read of specific engagements during the 30 years war and battles during the 'Deluge' (the Swedish invasion of Poland by Gustavus Adolphus) in the 1650s do not quite jibe with your description of the ratio of musket to arquebus. I guess I'll have to do some more reading on that and try to be careful about the terminology.


G

To be honest the information is neither complete, and I doubt it is all in agreement. Like I pointed out earlier, there was supposed to be a 2:1 ratio of arquebuses to muskets in a Spanish Tercio in 1632, but the study of a Tercio in Flanders showed a 5:1 ratio of muskets to arquebuses! Interestingly, this agreed with the suggested ratio in an Imperial regiment (5:1 muskets to calivers/rifles). Also, in the case of Spain, there were a lot of different enemies to fight -- perhaps those in Flanders had better and more armor than those their opponents in North Africa, or the Eastern Mediterranean? Thus, in the field, the commanders made the decision to get muskets in lieu of arquebuses when they could. Also, I wonder if the contemporary sources themselves were starting to become sloppy with terminology -- not clearly distinguishing between calivers and muskets, and simply increasingly referring to all firearm infantry as "musketeers"?

I would, however, say that circa AD1500 the large armor piercing weapons were fielded more like light artillery, rather than an individual's weapon.

[fusilier]

Arquebus vs. Musket

I had missed something in the Men-At-Arms book about Imperial Infantry. I will quote it here:


Musketeers were armed with matchlock muskets . . ., this weapon was generally known as an "harquebus".

Doesn't that clear up everything? The Spanish references, which I'm more accustomed to, at least by the end of the 16th century make a very clear distinction between "musketeers" and "arquebusiers". But in Germany, if Osprey hasn't made a mistake, it looks like the two words were synonymous into the 17th century! So not only do we have different meanings in different times, but the same terms having different meanings in different places.

Good luck. :-)

[Galloglaich]

It's not as daunting of a task as it might seem, for one thing, period sources will be a little more precise than Osprey, if experience is a guide, and many period sources are available online right now. Second, all we really have to do is differentiate based on functional characteristics, in this case caliber and length of the gunbarrel. If we define a 17th Century musket as say, having a .75 caliber bore and a barrel length of 36" or more, then we can narrow down how many were in use in a given period. I'll see what I can come up with.

G.

[fusilier]

Good luck G.

Muskets with calibers around .70 were fairly common during the Thirty Years War period, whereas calivers at that time tended to be closer to .60 caliber. (Although there can be overlap in caliber) 36" barrels would be short for a musket, but probably not a bad demarcation line.

[Beta]

Question: In the real world, what would be the maximum number of people that can surround and attack a single enemy without obstructing each other?

We're talking unarmed or improvised weapons here, like you would expect in a bar brawl. And for the sake of argument nothing is being thrown or fired.

From a geometrical view you could say that a circle can be surrounded by no more than 6 circles of the same size, but I'm not sure if in the real world you could give your neighbor more space when he needs to or cross his space when you need to. I also suspect it would matter if your right or left handed, or rather if you're the same handed as your neighbors?

Also, is fighting in close combat in the real world like a constant stream of kicks and/or punches, or is it more irregular than that?

[Spiryt]

Most importantly, the best tactics for a lot of men is to grab the singleguy however they can, drag him to the ground and stomp him. Not much chance for obstruction here.


Also, is fighting in close combat in the real world like a constant stream of kicks and/or punches, or is it more irregular than that?

And this is somehow connected, you seem to assume that throwing some strikes from some place is natural way in which human fights resolve.

For some good idea you can just watch some MMA, that's basically from definition about close combat. :smallwink:

[Talakeal]

Question: In the real world, what would be the maximum number of people that can surround and attack a single enemy without obstructing each other?

We're talking unarmed or improvised weapons here, like you would expect in a bar brawl. And for the sake of argument nothing is being thrown or fired.

From a geometrical view you could say that a circle can be surrounded by no more than 6 circles of the same size, but I'm not sure if in the real world you could give your neighbor more space when he needs to or cross his space when you need to. I also suspect it would matter if your right or left handed, or rather if you're the same handed as your neighbors?

Also, is fighting in close combat in the real world like a constant stream of kicks and/or punches, or is it more irregular than that?

I have been wondering this for quite some time. In my homebrew system I have it set up on a grid like d20, and 4 people can attack a foe without penalty, one in each adjacent square. A further 4 people can attack diagonally, but suffer a penalty for doing so.
One of my players complained this was horribly unrealistic and that far greater numbers of attackers should be able to attack a single opponent without penalty, and claims that he fenced when he was a child so he knows from experience. But I am hesitant to take his word for it.

[Mike_G]

It depends on how the crowd is attacking.

A whole lot of pikemen could attack the same person. Not that many guys could swing Danish axes at the same foe without impeding one another.

[J.Gellert]

Question: In the real world, what would be the maximum number of people that can surround and attack a single enemy without obstructing each other?

We're talking unarmed or improvised weapons here, like you would expect in a bar brawl. And for the sake of argument nothing is being thrown or fired.

Maximum, with knives, punches and kicks? I'd say 6 is about right. Perhaps the hex grid is where it's at?

Wouldn't be comfortable though. 4 is better. Even 2 is enough to overwhelm someone, and they won't obstruct each other.

[deuxhero]

What kind of weapons were used by the military of the Tsardom of Russia?

[Galloglaich]

What kind of weapons were used by the military of the Tsardom of Russia?

Depends when you mean.

During the reign of Ivan Grozny (Ivan the Terrible), Streltzy, basically armed with muskets and very very big axes, used in concert (the axes were used as a gun-rest and then afterword for hacking people and horses to pieces)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Russian_Strieltsy.JPG/270px-Russian_Strieltsy.JPG

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

http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/Costume/Cossack/RusA1011.jpg
Druhzina, medium armored cavalry who carried both lance and recurve bow. Cossacks light cavalry armed with lances and sabers. Cossacks with lots of Guns on boats.

http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/thumbnail/137758/1/Yermak$27s-Conquest-Of-Siberia-In-1582,-1895.jpg

http://www.snaphappyross.co.uk/europe/russia/moscow/cannon.jpg
And really big cannon.

During the reign of Peter the Great... different, somebody else should chime in on that.

By World War 1 of course, relatively modern, like most other European armies. Rifles, machine guns, artillery. Some lance armed cavalry of course, but it was the same with every side.

G.

[deuxhero]

You covered what I wanted to know. Thanks.

[Thiel]

What kind of weapons were used by the military of the Tsardom of Russia?

They even managed to get an assault rifle into (very) limited service before the revolution.

[fusilier]

They even managed to get an assault rifle into (very) limited service before the revolution.

You mean the Fedorov Automat. :-)

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

An interesting design, it used a weak rifle round (the 6.5mm Japanese Arisaka). Calling it an assault rifle is a bit difficult for me (it didn't use an intermediate round -- but neither do a lot of things that we call assault rifles). It's more of a light machine gun. I would place it in a similar category as a BAR, or Chauchat. However, it is more compact and lighter than those weapons, and as such, it is understandable that some want to call it an assault rifle. Very few of them were produced, but the Russians felt a need for a light machine gun and made a few thousand. I'm not aware of any other Russian made light machine gun used in WW1.

[HenryHankovitch]

Also, is fighting in close combat in the real world like a constant stream of kicks and/or punches, or is it more irregular than that?
From my own sparring experience, from anecdotes and from watching a lot of drunk people fighting on Youtube, I will offer the following:

Typical sequence of events for a non-fatal, "we gonna fight now" type situation is (a) feinting and posturing at just beyond striking range, for anywhere from minutes to a few seconds, (b) an initial blow followed by a very short flurry of strikes, then (c) some sort of collision or clinch which results in the pair either being dragged apart, falling to the ground and wrestling, or pushing away from each other and going back to (b).

Fights can end at (b) if one person basically gets a lucky tag on the other guy, or if one person is much more skilled than the other person. Fights that go to (c) don't necessarily end so much as peter out; the person who gets exhausted first will get pummeled by the other guy until the other guy gets bored/disgusted with it, or his friends drag him off.

For a fight in which the people involved are trying to kill each other, it's really just a race to see who pulls out a knife or other weapon first.

The real takeaway from this is that the theatrical trading-of-punches fight you see a lot in movies is really rare. People will tend to want to either retreat out of range or move into a clinch, instinctively wanting to avoid getting punched. A solid hit in the face can be extremely disorienting to a non-headgear-wearing, non-experienced person; people simply don't take a blow to the face, then put up their dukes and wait for more of the same. (Unless formal or informal rules are compelling them to do so, naturally.)

[Dienekes]

Also, is fighting in close combat in the real world like a constant stream of kicks and/or punches, or is it more irregular than that?

I've been in a few fights, most friendly, some not friendly, but none actually bloodthirsty which I'd assume would be very different and Henry states knives would probably be pulled out.

From what I've known is that people fall back on what they've been trained in even if it doesn't make sense in the situation, if they notice they're losing and what they've been trained in isn't working they will do something weird or stupid that I often think they see on tv or something, if they have no training they will just fling punches and maybe some kicks wildly.

I fought a guy who trained in taekwondo and he fought me with a bunch of kicks a few punches and a stance that didn't protect his head. I fought a guy who trained in boxing and he was mostly using punches. I fought a guy who was a wrestler and he closed in quick to try and grapple with me and so on.

Of the untrained, yes mostly they posture and punch with a few imprecise kicks and oddly placed grabs. Most fights I've been in tend to end up on the floor though where it really gets irregular with some gauging and grabbing and whatnot. Hope that helps.

[Necro_EX]

I have a couple of questions related to real world pre-gunpowder warfare. I'm working on a homebrew game and I've hit a bit of a snag in developing the setting for it. The setting is fairly small and the cultures are very broadly painted, there's a Germany/France/Britain proxy, a Russia proxy, a Norse proxy, some elves, and the lowlands which I haven't really figured out entirely yet.

See the problem I've hit is that I don't really know what sort of weapons/armor the people in the lowlands would use. The area has a lot of flat grassland area, but also has a large moor, several swamps, and it is all generally very wet land and its boarders are hilly. They do have access to plenty enough metal for armor and weapons, but the problem is that I can't think of what sort of weapons would be most advantageous in that sort of terrain.

As it is now I have them in light armor (chain hauberks, maybe a breastplate) and their main forces are equipped with a light spear and a targe, with a sword as a side arm. Any suggestions on this? If there are any countries with that sort of terrain and a history of warfare I'd be interested in reading up on that.

Also, and this one is certainly more abstract, the norse folk ride large wolves into combat. Would a large wolf have the speed necessary to make a lance a viable option for them?

[Yora]

Open lands usually work very well for horses, but if it's all wet and swampy not so much. Which in turn, can be made into an advantage. If there's enough wet and soggy ground, you can use tactics that emphasize speed and mobility. Knights on horses with heavy armor would have a really hard time moving around and lightly armed skirmishers and archers could make quite safe hit and run attacks. The battle of Agincourt is a great example and the french knights had really good armor that protected them against arrows. They still lost with six times as many casualties than the english. If armor is not that sophisticated and effective, the effects could even be worse (though movement would also be easier with metal to carry around).
You might also want to look at Russia. Invasions of Russia also always had to struggle with the armies sinking into the wet ground, but I think the famous examples are the French and the Germans, who both brought heavy guns with them that would fare much worse than horses with lightly loaded wagons.

In any way, I'd make use of range and speed. Archers work very well as would soldiers with sling, but the slings in D&D have awful stats for damage and range.
Attacking food supplies might also work. In wide open marsh land, restocking food supplies should be very difficult if you're not a native of the region and have access to local farms.

[HenryHankovitch]

See the problem I've hit is that I don't really know what sort of weapons/armor the people in the lowlands would use. The area has a lot of flat grassland area, but also has a large moor, several swamps, and it is all generally very wet land and its boarders are hilly. They do have access to plenty enough metal for armor and weapons, but the problem is that I can't think of what sort of weapons would be most advantageous in that sort of terrain.


Don't look at it from the standpoint of terrain; look at it from the standpoint of their lifestyle. Broadly:

1) What technology do they have available, and how 'rich' are they? Is a chain hauberk something that most warriors can get their hands on, or is it something only the richest chieftain will own? People will wear the best protection they can make/buy/steal, all else being equal.

2) How are they organized? Don't worry about formations or that sort of thing, just figure out who in the society is expected to fight, how professionally they train, etc. Are they nomad/warriors where every male has a cultural expectation of being a hunter? Do they have a semi-professional militia who train every so often and keep their helmet and spear at home the rest of the time? Do they have a couple of warrior-princes who get the best armor and weapons, and don't have to do anything else but practice fighting?

3) How mobile are they? Are they defensive--like the garrison of a walled town--are they permanently nomadic, or do they have professional companies of troops that are expected to march where the trouble is? This basically affects how much armor/weapons they can carry around. A professional soldier with mount and retainers is likely to go into combat armored to the hilt; a horse-nomad will probably wear much less armor, since everything he owns has to be carried around on his horses, and he's going to be wearing his equipment day after day, exposed to the elements. And without a fortified camp to return to, he has to rely on mobility and endurance to campaign safely.

[Necro_EX]

Thanks for the feedback, you two.

Yora - I think I'll do just that, lightly armored skirmishers certainly does seem to fit well, and I could see it working well with archers and slings and such. Slings being weak in dnd isn't a concern since I'm brewing up a system for it. Sort of a rules-lite wargame like Heroscape, but without everything that was so wrong with that game. I'm also thinking of maybe a dice-pool based game (like Shadowrun) for the pnp rpg side of it.

HenryHankovitch - Looking at it that way...

1) The nation has a decent level of wealth, plenty of overseas trading, but I was thinking of making one of the central themes for that nation the divide between the wealthy nobles and the common folk. So I suppose their common units would likely not have chain but rather be more like peasant-warriors and armed with something cheaper like leather or hardened cloth.

2) They're mostly stationary, a lot of agricultural land and the one major mine that hey have being their largest forms of industry. I suppose the common man could be expected to be a hunter, then? Also, I dig the idea of them having some warrior-princes so I suppose chain would be more something they would be expected to have.

3) They have some walled cities, but most of their population is in farmsteads and hamlets. So I suppose they fit with that first example a little more?

[J.Gellert]

Swamps, wet land, plenty of trade, a divide between aristocracy and peasantry, and priests?

They are Maya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization)!

Though depending on their neighboring civilizations they may be quite different from the "originals"...

...for example, what you mention about walled cities and other stuff I ignored (by choice) earlier on in this post :smalltongue:

[Spiryt]

Open lands usually work very well for horses, but if it's all wet and swampy not so much. Which in turn, can be made into an advantage. If there's enough wet and soggy ground, you can use tactics that emphasize speed and mobility. Knights on horses with heavy armor would have a really hard time moving around and lightly armed skirmishers and archers could make quite safe hit and run attacks. The battle of Agincourt is a great example and the french knights had really good armor that protected them against arrows. They still lost with six times as many casualties than the english. If armor is not that sophisticated and effective, the effects could even be worse (though movement would also be easier with metal to carry around).



The battle of Agincourt is not great example of "speed and mobility", as English were standing still in well organized defensive positions, not moving much at all....

Making use of brash and brainless French attacks, which, after walking trough terrible mud, peppered with arrows, were easily stopped and routed by english infantry.

Anyway, as far as question goes, major question is what should those troops be for?

Skirmishers, would look different - well, like skirmishers with hit and run guerrilla indeed, compared to forces that actually want to stand and stop others in battle.

Light spears and targes would fit well for javelin throwing skirmishers, biggers shields and longer pole weapons would obviously be suitable to form shield wall or similar formation for open battle.


Also, and this one is certainly more abstract, the norse folk ride large wolves into combat. Would a large wolf have the speed necessary to make a lance a viable option for them?

Speed is the last problem here, simply even largest dogs have enough problems as a mounts for the children. Canine are really not build for it.

Even assuming enormous wolves size of large ponies, ponies still are not the best mounts for battle.... And they've actually can carry stuff on their backs, while dogs usually pull stuff on sled.

[SilverLeaf167]

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakkapeliitta) article says that the common charging procedure consists of firing a pistol at 20 paces (about 30 meters), then again at 5 paces (about 7,5 meters) before drawing their swords. From what I have heard, pistols in that era were very inaccurate and slow to load. Would it really have been possible to fire it accurately from 30 meters on a galloping horse, then load it in a few seconds and fire again?
I doubt it, but it would be nice if someone who has more knowledge on the topic could clarify. If it's not possible, would they have been using pistols with multiple shots or perhaps two separate pistols? Also, would it be practical to fire the second shot at such a close range before drawing your sword?

[Spiryt]

Yes, they were having two, sometimes more pistols. It's even stated in the text in that Wiki page.

Hussars, and many other horse forces were doing similar stuff.


Also, would it be practical to fire the second shot at such a close range before drawing your sword?

Why shouldn't it be. Basically the closer, the better, of course with enough time to draw the sword, if one wanted to really make attack rapid. Exact tempo would obviously depend on personal prowess.

[SilverLeaf167]

Stupid me, my head sometimes messes around with the order of words when I read English. Instead of reading "fire the first pistol", I read "fire the pistol first", which means a different thing. :smalltongue:

Yes, the point of the question whether there would be enough time to draw the sword.

[Yukitsu]

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakkapeliitta) article says that the common charging procedure consists of firing a pistol at 20 paces (about 30 meters), then again at 5 paces (about 7,5 meters) before drawing their swords. From what I have heard, pistols in that era were very inaccurate and slow to load. Would it really have been possible to fire it accurately from 30 meters on a galloping horse, then load it in a few seconds and fire again?
I doubt it, but it would be nice if someone who has more knowledge on the topic could clarify. If it's not possible, would they have been using pistols with multiple shots or perhaps two separate pistols? Also, would it be practical to fire the second shot at such a close range before drawing your sword?

Can't speak for all types, but a reiter, and pretty much every kind of Dutch pistol wielding cavalry would simply carry a half dozen pistols. You fire one pistol as you turn to one side, then turn the horse to present the other pistol. I don't recall it being a particularly effective manuever however. Called a caracole from your description, and it didn't last long.

[Spiryt]

Yes, the point of the question whether there would be enough time to draw the sword.

Going at "full gallop", probably not, but I doubt anyone ever tried it, no matter what Wiki has to say. :smallwink:

I would imagine that most sensible thing would be to have sword already drawn after first shot. Then fire the next and start swording stuff with warm pistol still in the hand.

That's assuming that it would have to necessarily be done at mentioned " full gallop".

[J.Gellert]

Yes, the point of the question whether there would be enough time to draw the sword.

If you are good at shooting the first enemy in line, you are also given extra distance until you reach the second enemy :smalltongue:

[Necro_EX]

Speed is the last problem here, simply even largest dogs have enough problems as a mounts for the children. Canine are really not build for it.

Even assuming enormous wolves size of large ponies, ponies still are not the best mounts for battle.... And they've actually can carry stuff on their backs, while dogs usually pull stuff on sled.

What if the wolves were truly monstrous, the size of war horses? The aesthetic is the bigger concern there for me, honestly.

Perhaps war-sleds? Still probably not very fast I'd imagine.

[Spiryt]

What if the wolves were truly monstrous, the size of war horses? The aesthetic is the bigger concern there for me, honestly.



Dunno, I'm not dog mount expert. :smalltongue:

I suppose, that even though wolf built looks less suitable for sitting on it's back than in horse case, and canines are definitely more built towards endurance, not strength, it could work. Probably wouldn't be best mount, but why not, people were trying to mount weirder things, like elks.

Real problem would be keeping and feeding wolf of such enormous size. It would have to devour tremendous amount of meat.

[Mr White]

Thanks for the feedback, you two.

Yora - I think I'll do just that, lightly armored skirmishers certainly does seem to fit well, and I could see it working well with archers and slings and such. Slings being weak in dnd isn't a concern since I'm brewing up a system for it. Sort of a rules-lite wargame like Heroscape, but without everything that was so wrong with that game. I'm also thinking of maybe a dice-pool based game (like Shadowrun) for the pnp rpg side of it.

HenryHankovitch - Looking at it that way...

1) The nation has a decent level of wealth, plenty of overseas trading, but I was thinking of making one of the central themes for that nation the divide between the wealthy nobles and the common folk. So I suppose their common units would likely not have chain but rather be more like peasant-warriors and armed with something cheaper like leather or hardened cloth.

2) They're mostly stationary, a lot of agricultural land and the one major mine that hey have being their largest forms of industry. I suppose the common man could be expected to be a hunter, then? Also, I dig the idea of them having some warrior-princes so I suppose chain would be more something they would be expected to have.

3) They have some walled cities, but most of their population is in farmsteads and hamlets. So I suppose they fit with that first example a little more?

I'm a bit late to the party it seems but here I go:

1) Why not look at the Dutch and/or Flanders. There are lots of battles throughout history at this place that were heavily influenced by brooks and dykes and the sorts. They may be a bit to European for your taste if you already have a French and a German faction.
In order to make better use of their knowledge of the terrain they may use more ambushes. Perhaps you could look at the Welsh.

2) Having lot's of hunters could have a huge influence on their army. There may be lot's of skirmishers, people who are skilled bowmen, slingmen, ... Which would be in line with ambushes and fast moving battles. People relying on the mine would be the orthodox infantry.

[Necro_EX]

I was already thinking of using Dutch for their names, so that might just be a good place to start.
Same with the Welsh, for some reason I had that in the back of my mind, with your suggestion I suppose I will look into that.

[fusilier]

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakkapeliitta) article says that the common charging procedure consists of firing a pistol at 20 paces (about 30 meters), then again at 5 paces (about 7,5 meters) before drawing their swords. From what I have heard, pistols in that era were very inaccurate and slow to load. Would it really have been possible to fire it accurately from 30 meters on a galloping horse, then load it in a few seconds and fire again?
I doubt it, but it would be nice if someone who has more knowledge on the topic could clarify. If it's not possible, would they have been using pistols with multiple shots or perhaps two separate pistols? Also, would it be practical to fire the second shot at such a close range before drawing your sword?

A pace is usually considered to be a human pace (step). As a rough guide you can convert paces to yards, but really something closer to 30 inches or less is typical. So 20 paces is more like 15 meters, and 5 paces is about 4 meters. It's possible, but very unlikely, that they were referring to a roman pace, which is distance a single foot travels in a "step" (instead of the distance between the feet) -- that would be at right about 5 feet, and would give you the numbers that you generated. I don't think the Roman pace was in use at that time, and I'm only aware of the Romans ever using it.

At any rate, yes they would fire at very close ranges. The pistols themselves aren't that inaccurate, but using them from a charging horse makes them very inaccurate. Even during the American Civil War cavalrymen were told not to fire unless they could touch their opponent with the muzzle of the pistol (this was for fighting in melee).

Typically, at least two pistols were carried on holsters on the saddle -- horse (or holster) pistols are very big. I've heard of horse pistols being offered in sets of three, and I'm sure if the cavalryman could afford it he would carry as many as practical.

Remember that a pistol is a single-handed weapon, and I suspect at this time Reiters were still taught how to control the horse with just the legs (I'm sure somebody else here can address that). So you may not need to draw a sword within 5 paces of the enemy -- the sword can already be drawn in one hand, and the pistol in the other.

Also, with any luck, firing on your opponents at such close range has caused them to break -- so hopefully you're running them down at that point, and not crashing into them head-to-head.

[Galloglaich]

I have a couple of questions related to real world pre-gunpowder warfare. I'm working on a homebrew game and I've hit a bit of a snag in developing the setting for it. The setting is fairly small and the cultures are very broadly painted, there's a Germany/France/Britain proxy, a Russia proxy, a Norse proxy, some elves, and the lowlands which I haven't really figured out entirely yet.

See the problem I've hit is that I don't really know what sort of weapons/armor the people in the lowlands would use. The area has a lot of flat grassland area, but also has a large moor, several swamps, and it is all generally very wet land and its boarders are hilly. They do have access to plenty enough metal for armor and weapons, but the problem is that I can't think of what sort of weapons would be most advantageous in that sort of terrain.

As it is now I have them in light armor (chain hauberks, maybe a breastplate) and their main forces are equipped with a light spear and a targe, with a sword as a side arm. Any suggestions on this? If there are any countries with that sort of terrain and a history of warfare I'd be interested in reading up on that.

Also, and this one is certainly more abstract, the norse folk ride large wolves into combat. Would a large wolf have the speed necessary to make a lance a viable option for them?

For something like this you really can't do better than the Dithmarschen. This was a district in Saxony where the local peasants created a Republic and fought off invaders from Germany and Denmark for nearly 500 years. In one famous battle they used poles to pole-vault over canals to confound a knightly army that had invaded, and then broke the dyke to flood the field on them.

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

Another very good example in a more wooded area is the Grauden, a sort of haunted forest with a lot of swamps in the district of Samogitia in Lithuania. The Samogitians fought off something like 300 incursions over the course of 200 years from the Teutonic Knights, the Sword Brothers and the Livonian Order, and they also tangled with the Mongols a few times. Nobody could conquer them, they destroyed the Sword Brothers and defeated the Teutonic Knights and the Livonian Order several times. They didn't convert to Christianity until 1414 AD

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

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

G.

[fusilier]

Musket/Caliver/Arquebus disscussion

So there's another term that starting showing up around 1600: "Bastard Musket" -- the best definition I've found for this seems to be something with a larger bore than a caliver, but a shorter barrel than a musket.

In the early 17th century the English attempted to specify the guns as such:
A musket would have 12 gauge bore
A caliver . . . 20 gauge
A bastard musket . . . 16 gauge

But those standards don't seem to have actually been adopted, and a note said that during the 1630s a lighter 12 gauge musket started to be issued. The lightening of muskets during the 1600s seems to have mainly been accomplished by shortening the barrel.

A note on gauge/bore sizes:

Gauge refers to the number of lead shot, of that size, that will weigh a pound. So 12 gauge means 12 lead balls of the same diameter will weigh one pound. However, muskets tended to be defined by the weight of the shot they fired and not by the bore. The reason for this is that they typically allowed extra room for windage (this windage could be taken up by a good patch, but it would slow loading). As a result, a "12 gauge" musket, would typically have a 10 gauge bore. However, the example cited above, specifically mentioned "bore".

Muskets of the 16th century were often 10 gauge (with an 8 gauge bore), but by the 17th century they were getting lighter: the Spanish are reported to have favored 12 gauge (10 bore), and the Dutch 14 gauge (12 bore) muskets. (I think that's right, I'm going off memory now)

[Galloglaich]

That is really interesting, putting it in terms of 20 gauge, 12 guage 8 guage etc. makes it a useful point of reference to modern shotguns. In fact I wonder how much different the performance is from a modern shotgun shooting a slug.

How far back did they use shot (as opposed to a ball / bullet) in arquebus and muskets? Do you know?

The wikis on all these weapons, on all early firearms really, are really crappy for anything before the 19th Century.

G.

[Mike_G]

A modern shotgun slug fits fairly tight, and the uniformity of load and projectile probably makes for better perofrmance

[HenryHankovitch]

A modern shotgun slug fits fairly tight, and the uniformity of load and projectile probably makes for better perofrmance

Shotgun slugs, especially modern ones, tend to either be self-rifled for smoothbore barrels, or fired from rifled slug barrels. They'll also have a rudimentary aerodynamic design as opposed to a rough sphere. So all in all I would expect much greater performance from the modern slug, especially when comparing to similar bore diameters.

[fusilier]

That is really interesting, putting it in terms of 20 gauge, 12 guage 8 guage etc. makes it a useful point of reference to modern shotguns. In fact I wonder how much different the performance is from a modern shotgun shooting a slug.

How far back did they use shot (as opposed to a ball / bullet) in arquebus and muskets? Do you know?

The wikis on all these weapons, on all early firearms really, are really crappy for anything before the 19th Century.

G.

I don't know when they started using shot, and it's something that I've wondered myself. I remember reading something about the origins of the wheellock, and it remarked on an Italian in the early 1500s (possibly the 1510s) who survived a siege by hunting song birds with what appeared to be a wheellock. I would imagine that for hunting such small birds, shot would be useful. Although even buck-shot could have been useful.

Modern shotgun slugs, as I understand them, are actually more like a "minie-ball" -- during the 1850s there was a kind of "minie-ball" for smoothbore muskets, called the Nessler ball (?). It's almost impossible to find any information on them, but the one I've seen was described as being similar to a shotgun slug. By ensuring a tight fit, they significantly increased the accuracy and range of smoothbore weapons. In fact most European armies adopted them in the 1850s, leaving the rifled guns to elite units. It wasn't until around 1860 that most nations had enough rifled-muskets to begin transitioning all units to them. The US never adopted it, although there were apparently experiments early in the Civil War with similar designs. It is very, very overlooked, although if you read reports from the Crimean War, it will be mentioned.

This actually raises another question, about the accuracy of smoothbore firearms. Many of the issues with accuracy seem to stem from the military practice of using an undersized ball with no effective patch (the paper from a cartridge being a very poor patch). Whereas, careful loading with a proper patch will slow down the loading, but seems to create a much more accurate weapon, eliminating the "bouncing down the barrel" effect. A fellow CW reenactor competes every year in a "civil war" shooting contest, and, with a smoothbore M1842 .69 caliber musket with no rear-sight, typically takes 2nd or 1st, versus rifles!!

An alternative theory is that the ball will bounce the same way every time (assuming it is loaded consistently). I don't know how much truth there is to that, but the artillerymen I've spoken to say that's the case with their cannon. Once you learn how the ball bounces down the barrel, it's possible to fire it very accurately.

At any rate, there actually seems to be some credible stories about effective long range fire from careful shots in the 16th and 17th centuries. I suspect, given that loading was less standardized, that musketeers and arqubusiers took their time loading, with patches, etc., when the enemy was far off, and only loaded without proper patches, or paying too much attention to the load of powder they were using, when the enemy was close and they were trying for a higher rate of fire. While the fastest loading speed would be slower, the systems employed (i.e. not paper cartridges) seem to have allowed for more control and precision in the load, when it was desired.

[bansidhe]

Ok,sudden thought struck me today,you know the old chestnut"Guy sits there sharpening his blade with a stone".

What stone is he using?I should know my stepfathers a chippie and his whetstone was a sacred ,do not ever,ever touch thing.

But what type of stone was it? sedimentary,igneous or metamorphic?..and would you use different ones on the same weapon or maybe for different metals,bronze,iron and such?

I dimly remember watching a documentary once about some brothers on a remote Scottish island ,who,s family had been mining and shaping scythe sharpening stones for just about forever and they were quite prized in ye olde days.

So anyway ,any info on this overlooked resource?

[Yukitsu]

I don't think wet stones are any one type of stone. I think you just need any stone with a homogenous particle size of silicone crystals distributed through the stone. IIRC, there are different types of stones that would fit that criteria.

[Norsesmithy]

Most of them are sedimentary through, and the abrasive particles don't have to be silica, even if most are.

They just have to be homogeneous in size and distribution, and not have any fillers that are larger grained or harder than the evenly distributed stuff.

[Galloglaich]

At any rate, there actually seems to be some credible stories about effective long range fire from careful shots in the 16th and 17th centuries. I suspect, given that loading was less standardized, that musketeers and arqubusiers took their time loading, with patches, etc., when the enemy was far off, and only loaded without proper patches, or paying too much attention to the load of powder they were using, when the enemy was close and they were trying for a higher rate of fire. While the fastest loading speed would be slower, the systems employed (i.e. not paper cartridges) seem to have allowed for more control and precision in the load, when it was desired.

I just got the Osprey book on the siege of Malta in 1565, it has some interesting things to say about muskets and armor. I don't think you are going to like it :)

I'll get into details in a day or two.

G.

[Galloglaich]

Most of them are sedimentary through, and the abrasive particles don't have to be silica, even if most are.

They just have to be homogeneous in size and distribution, and not have any fillers that are larger grained or harder than the evenly distributed stuff.

Whetstones were a major export product from the Migration era through the late Middle Ages.

G.

[Fhaolan]

Whetstones were a major export product from the Migration era through the late Middle Ages.

G.

And there are very, very few natural whetstone quarries left. Most of them have been exhausted, or no longer produce stones that can match artificial stones. Right now I'm only aware of two; one in Arkansas, and another in Belgium.

[Yukitsu]

Nicely timed though, since we don't actually need them anymore. Despite the nay-sayers, natural wet stones aren't better than artificially produced ones IMO, though I just sharpen chef knives. The old stone one my grandma had doesn't seem superior to a modern artificial one to me, but then again I may just be forgetting, since I haven't used that thing in ages.

[fusilier]

I just got the Osprey book on the siege of Malta in 1565, it has some interesting things to say about muskets and armor. I don't think you are going to like it :)

I'll get into details in a day or two.

G.

I'll be interested to see what you have to say . . . although I may already have a response, as I have studied the Siege of Malta. ;-)

I actually just picked up Francisco Balbi's account of the siege, haven't read it yet though.

[J.Gellert]

Nicely timed though, since we don't actually need them anymore. Despite the nay-sayers, natural wet stones aren't better than artificially produced ones IMO, though I just sharpen chef knives. The old stone one my grandma had doesn't seem superior to a modern artificial one to me, but then again I may just be forgetting, since I haven't used that thing in ages.

Real men sharpen their steel with diamonds, anyway :smallbiggrin:

[Fhaolan]

Nicely timed though, since we don't actually need them anymore. Despite the nay-sayers, natural wet stones aren't better than artificially produced ones IMO, though I just sharpen chef knives. The old stone one my grandma had doesn't seem superior to a modern artificial one to me, but then again I may just be forgetting, since I haven't used that thing in ages.

There's a lot of variation in natural stones. It is technically possible to get some that have a grit level of 50,000+ (for a *lot* of money), where the best artificial whetstone currently sold has a grit level of 30,000.

However, if you're in a situation you need a whetstone of that grit, I'm not entirely sure what the heck you're sharpening...

[Yukitsu]

There's a lot of variation in natural stones. It is technically possible to get some that have a grit level of 50,000+ (for a *lot* of money), where the best artificial whetstone currently sold has a grit level of 30,000.

However, if you're in a situation you need a whetstone of that grit, I'm not entirely sure what the heck you're sharpening...

My wit, mostly.


Real men sharpen their steel with diamonds, anyway :smallbiggrin:

No, real men use their 5 o'clock shadow. Real manly men don't need swords because they can cut through their opponent's swords with their man beards.

[Galloglaich]

I'll be interested to see what you have to say . . . although I may already have a response, as I have studied the Siege of Malta. ;-)

I actually just picked up Francisco Balbi's account of the siege, haven't read it yet though.

Well, in a nutshell, the author says the same thing I've read from accounts of the 30 years war, only more so. He specifically pointed out that the Knights of St. John had an advantage in their armor, especially those who were equipped with Maximillian Harness (which is the early 16th Century type, thinner tempered steel harness), in that they had a high degree of protection from musket fire, and could expose themselves in situations which would lead other troops to quickly be killed. He also pointed out that several of the Ottoman leaders were killed by musket fire from the Europeans during key battles because they were not protected by armor.

The author mentioned that the Ottoman muskets were more accurate and harder-hitting than the European muskets (which also corroborates with other sources I've read from Poland, Hungary and Russia from the same period in the second half of the 16th Century) so having the armored troops was of high importance for the out-gunned Europeans since they were vulnerable to snipers while doing sapping operations etc.

The Knights of St. John and their Spanish allies also pulled off several heavy-cavalry sorties successfully in spite of being under musket fire, and were able to disable cannons and disrupt Ottoman movements.

The gist of it to me was that it supports what I've been saying all along: while by this period (late 16th Century) heavy armor-piercing muskets could individually pierce armor at very close range (inside 50 meters), the good quality harness was effective protection at ranges where unarmored people could still easily be killed by accurate Ottoman musket fire.

He also mentioned that the armor protected against stone fragments from cannon shells which is what killed the Ottoman commander Turgut Reis.


There were also several other interesting but unrelated facts, that the European galleys appeared to be faster for example. Some of the ingenious feats of siegecraft on both sides were pretty amazing as well, I love the incident where the Knights of St. John poked the cannon through the wall and blew apart the base of that siege tower.

G.

[fusilier]

I admit that I don't have the book, but I used google books to check up some relevant information -- although you may have more to add. The main page about armor and muskets seems to be page 25:


Well, in a nutshell, the author says the same thing I've read from accounts of the 30 years war, only more so. He specifically pointed out that the Knights of St. John had an advantage in their armor, especially those who were equipped with Maximillian Harness (which is the early 16th Century type, thinner tempered steel harness), in that they had a high degree of protection from musket fire, and could expose themselves in situations which would lead other troops to quickly be killed. He also pointed out that several of the Ottoman leaders were killed by musket fire from the Europeans during key battles because they were not protected by armor.

I think the relevant quote may be:
"Even at this time, as the musket was beginning to gain ascendancy on the field, armour enabled these men to expose themselves to action that would otherwise have been fatal."

When I first read that, I interpreted it as: Even though the musket could puncture armor, armor still afforded these men protection against other deadly weapons which were common on the battlefield.

However, I quickly realized that it could be interpreted the other way, and perception bias would influence how one interprets it. I will only say that the author never explicitly states that their armor protected them from the more powerful muskets (although I will keep trying to search the book). At the same time the author seems to have settled on the term "musket" to describe all firearms.

As for Maximilian Harness:
"It was much lighter than the usual harness, being made of plates that gained their strength from being heavily fluted, so that any blow was directed away from the body of the wearer."

I can certainly see fluted armor helping to deflect cuts, but isn't there a potential to create "traps" that prevent bullets from deflected (or any piercing weapon)? That's a serious question, I don't actually know if it would work out that way. I know some tank designs suffered with that problem.


The author mentioned that the Ottoman muskets were more accurate and harder-hitting than the European muskets (which also corroborates with other sources I've read from Poland, Hungary and Russia from the same period in the second half of the 16th Century) so having the armored troops was of high importance for the out-gunned Europeans since they were vulnerable to snipers while doing sapping operations etc.

The Christians were still mostly using "Arquebuses", although there may have been some number of muskets among them. As pointed out the Turkish troops tended to be very lightly armored, so muskets wouldn't have been necessary for armor penetration (although they may have had superior range).

The Turks had developed a "longer arquebus" or musket. However, there are references to 7-palm and 9-palm muskets, indicating that they also employed "muskets" of varying length. I'm not sure who applied the term "palm" (Christians or Turks), but it's another one of those frustratingly inconsistent units of length, that varies from 3-9 inches. According to some internet searches a 9-palm musket was a specialist "trench musket" with an effective range of 500-600 paces -- a claim I find dubious, unless referring to the ability to hit a mass target.

I think Balbi may actually be a source for 9-palm muskets, so I will have to see what he says. Nevertheless, the Turks did have a reputation for accurate sniping.

I do not know if specialized siege armor existed at this time -- siege armor was typically built very heavy to resist as much as possible, to allow sappers a good degree of protection. However, sappers weren't expected to move quickly, or really doing much moving at all (just digging), so they could be afforded heavier armor. Siege armor lasts all the way through the 19th century, although it wasn't always employed.


The Knights of St. John and their Spanish allies also pulled off several heavy-cavalry sorties successfully in spite of being under musket fire, and were able to disable cannons and disrupt Ottoman movements.

This doesn't surprise me. How well armored were their horses? If they weren't taking casualties from musket fire, it was probably due to a lack of hits. As long as you're not running straight at musketeers, the ability to track a target with a match-lock musket is probably infuriatingly difficult. Even in a straight charge, the slow rate of fire and inaccuracy of the weapon (inaccuracy is probably enhanced under such stressful conditions), means that fire has to be reserved until very close, which could require high discipline.


The gist of it to me was that it supports what I've been saying all along: while by this period (late 16th Century) heavy armor-piercing muskets could individually pierce armor at very close range (inside 50 meters), the good quality harness was effective protection at ranges where unarmored people could still easily be killed by accurate Ottoman musket fire.

However, we are still dealing with a period when the majority of weapons probably weren't the heavier armor piercing muskets. The standard Janissary musket was probably more akin to a "caliver" and we do not know how prevalent the "9-palm" muskets were. On the other hand, Guilmartin in Gunpowder and Galleys states: "The Spanish used the musket extensively and Ottoman shoulder arms, whose effectiveness at sieges was particularly noted, approached musket proportions." Note, he doesn't say they have the same proportion as Spanish muskets, but that they "approached it" -- so maybe something not quite as powerful as a heavy musket, but certainly more powerful than a typical arquebus.

Also, a significant part of the force were bow armed Spahis, correct? I do not remember if they participated much in the actual siege operations, however, as bows have significant disadvantages in such conditions.

On the other hand, I'm not entirely opposed to your claim that quality harness was relatively immune to gunfire outside of 50 meters. But there's a certain "so what?" -- most well armored troops are going to be set up for close combat, and their going to have to get inside of 50 meters. But, I'd also like to reiterate, that at this time, I do not think the predominant firearm was a heavy armor piercing musket, even among the Janissaries, although their muskets were more powerful than a typical arquebus.


He also mentioned that the armor protected against stone fragments from cannon shells which is what killed the Ottoman commander Turgut Reis.

I don't remember the death of Turgut Reis very well, but I seem to recall that it's not entirely clear. Was he hit by a fragment from a stone cannonball (something I actually consider unlikely)? Or was he hit by a fragment from a piece of the defensive works he was in? At any rate, I think the consensus is that armor would have helped him survive his injury. As an aside, I've heard that Ottoman cavalry was fairly well armored, with helmet, chain mail, and breastplate.


There were also several other interesting but unrelated facts, that the European galleys appeared to be faster for example. Some of the ingenious feats of siegecraft on both sides were pretty amazing as well, I love the incident where the Knights of St. John poked the cannon through the wall and blew apart the base of that siege tower.

G.

I would actually like to hear more about the European galleys appearing to be faster? Typically the Ottoman and North African vessels are considered to be faster than Europeans, with the exception of the Venetians. It's possible that the crews were not in good shape, or that the specific "galleys" being used were lighter and faster. There are several different classes of "galleys" and authors/observers are often not clear about which type they are referring to.

The Knights of St. John were well armored, and most Christian naval forces (marines is probably the best word to use), tended to be well armored too. I contend that part of the reason they wore more armor is because they did a lot of hand-to-hand fighting. Also, I do not deny that armor helped the defenders of Malta during the great siege. But, there were still many other variables on a battlefield. The heavy, armor-piercing muskets were still comparatively rare, although the Janissary musket was closer to one than an arquebus.

The Siege of Malta is really a fascinating event and possibly one of the largest and most well documented sieges of the period.

I will try to dig up some more information on Janissary muskets of the period, the problem is they continued to use similar terminology for about two centuries after this period. I think we are in closer agreement than we may realize -- just arguing over some of the details.

:-)

[Mike_G]

The Christians were still mostly using "Arquebuses", although there may have been some number of muskets among them. As pointed out the Turkish troops tended to be very lightly armored, so muskets wouldn't have been necessary for armor penetration (although they may have had superior range).

The Turks had developed a "longer arquebus" or musket. However, there are references to 7-palm and 9-palm muskets, indicating that they also employed "muskets" of varying length. I'm not sure who applied the term "palm" (Christians or Turks), but it's another one of those frustratingly inconsistent units of length, that varies from 3-9 inches. According to some internet searches a 9-palm musket was a specialist "trench musket" with an effective range of 500-600 paces -- a claim I find dubious, unless referring to the ability to hit a mass target.


But a lot of warfare in that era was firing at mass formations. If the ball flew that far and still hit hard enough to kill, and hit in a reasonably predictable area, it had that as an effective range.



I think Balbi may actually be a source for 9-palm muskets, so I will have to see what he says. Nevertheless, the Turks did have a reputation for accurate sniping.


On the other hand, I'm not entirely opposed to your claim that quality harness was relatively immune to gunfire outside of 50 meters. But there's a certain "so what?" -- most well armored troops are going to be set up for close combat, and their going to have to get inside of 50 meters.


But you can close 50 meters far faster than a musketeer can reload. If I'm safe beyond 50 meters, he has one shot that I actually have to worry about, and if he has to wait until I'm that close, pounding toward him on a huge warhorse, clad all in steel, ready to impale or trample or hack him to death, there's a reasonable chance he'll fire early, or miss that held shot, or even hit me a glancing shot which won't get through my armor.

"So what" is a very glib dismissal of a serious issue.

[Mike_G]

The Christians were still mostly using "Arquebuses", although there may have been some number of muskets among them. As pointed out the Turkish troops tended to be very lightly armored, so muskets wouldn't have been necessary for armor penetration (although they may have had superior range).

The Turks had developed a "longer arquebus" or musket. However, there are references to 7-palm and 9-palm muskets, indicating that they also employed "muskets" of varying length. I'm not sure who applied the term "palm" (Christians or Turks), but it's another one of those frustratingly inconsistent units of length, that varies from 3-9 inches. According to some internet searches a 9-palm musket was a specialist "trench musket" with an effective range of 500-600 paces -- a claim I find dubious, unless referring to the ability to hit a mass target.


But a lot of warfare in that era was firing at mass formations. If the ball flew that far and still hit hard enough to kill, and hit in a reasonably predictable area, it had that as an effective range.



I think Balbi may actually be a source for 9-palm muskets, so I will have to see what he says. Nevertheless, the Turks did have a reputation for accurate sniping.


On the other hand, I'm not entirely opposed to your claim that quality harness was relatively immune to gunfire outside of 50 meters. But there's a certain "so what?" -- most well armored troops are going to be set up for close combat, and their going to have to get inside of 50 meters.


But you can close that 50 meters far faster than a musketeer can reload. If I'm safe beyond 50 meters, he has one shot that I actually have to worry about, and if he has to wait until I'm that close, pounding toward him on a huge warhorse, clad all in steel, ready to impale or trample or hack him to death, there's a reasonable chance he'll fire early, or miss that held shot, or even hit me a glancing shot which won't get through my armor.

"So what" is a very glib dismissal of a serious issue. As a former grunt, I'm very deeply concerned if I have to get within 50 yards to score a reliable kill. I'm sure volley fire at formations could produce casualties far beyond 50 yards normally, so that armor is a huge deal.

[fusilier]

But a lot of warfare in that era was firing at mass formations. If the ball flew that far and still hit hard enough to kill, and hit in a reasonably predictable area, it had that as an effective range.

Exactly, but not so much true in a siege.




But you can close 50 meters far faster than a musketeer can reload. If I'm safe beyond 50 meters, he has one shot that I actually have to worry about, and if he has to wait until I'm that close, pounding toward him on a huge warhorse, clad all in steel, ready to impale or trample or hack him to death, there's a reasonable chance he'll fire early, or miss that held shot, or even hit me a glancing shot which won't get through my armor.

"So what" is a very glib dismissal of a serious issue.

Yes this is true too, but that's why they were typically trained to reserve fire in volleys at very close ranges, or, what was more typical at the time, by using deep formations rotating ranks of musketeers through to keep up a continuous fire. Tactics were in development, but they generally seemed to stress short range fire. See the discussion above about the range at which pistoliers would discharge their weapons.

Rate of fire and the ability to quickly close was an issue with muzzle-loading muskets until the introduction of rifled weapons. 18th and 19th century cavalry tactics typically involved hovering at around 100 yards outside the effective range of muskets, then charging in once their opponents had volleyed. So the ability of armor to resist bullets at range, may be conflated with the inability of smoothbore weapons to hit anything at range.

[Mike_G]

Yes this is true too, but that's why they were typically trained to reserve fire in volleys at very close ranges, or, what was more typical at the time, by using deep formations rotating ranks of musketeers through to keep up a continuous fire. Tactics were in development, but they generally seemed to stress short range fire. See the discussion above about the range at which pistoliers would discharge their weapons.

Rate of fire and the ability to quickly close was an issue with muzzle-loading muskets until the introduction of rifled weapons. 18th and 19th century cavalry tactics typically involved hovering at around 100 yards outside the effective range of muskets, then charging in once their opponents had volleyed. So the ability of armor to resist bullets at range, may be conflated with the inability of smoothbore weapons to hit anything at range.

More or less agreeing with all that, I think Bunker Hill or New Orleans or Pickett's Charge would have allowed the attackers to come to grips with far more intact units if they didn't need to fear musketry past 50 yards, or glancing strikes within that range.

Individual smoothbore muskets weren't very good at hitting individuals beyond 50 yards, but a regiment of musketeers firing at an enemy regiment at 100 yards should expect to get some hits. And a few hits at range, before the charge has really achieved it's final momentum, may break up and repel the charge.

[Fortinbras]

Basic sword vs armor questions:

How would one employ a long sword against a soldier wearing a leather jack. It seems like a morte strike wouldn't be particularly effective and I doubt a sword could cut through it reliably. I think I read on ARMA someplace that limbs moved to fast to be effective targets so what's a swordsman to do?

Same question only facing a soldier with a cuirass and helmet.

[Knaight]

How would one employ a long sword against a soldier wearing a leather jack. It seems like a morte strike wouldn't be particularly effective and I doubt a sword could cut through it reliably. I think I read on ARMA someplace that limbs moved to fast to be effective targets so what's a swordsman to do?

By no means do limbs move too fast to be effective targets. Unprotected legs, for instance, are a wonderful target, as is the upper arm.

[Galloglaich]

A sword will cut through leather fairly easily, even hardened leather. That's why it wasn't used for armor much at least in Europe.

Limbs move to fast to be hit? Tell that to the bruises on my arms!!!

Watch the video on my sigline if you want to get an idea what fencing was really like with medieval weapons.


G.

[fusilier]

More or less agreeing with all that, I think Bunker Hill or New Orleans or Pickett's Charge would have allowed the attackers to come to grips with far more intact units if they didn't need to fear musketry past 50 yards, or glancing strikes within that range.

Individual smoothbore muskets weren't very good at hitting individuals beyond 50 yards, but a regiment of musketeers firing at an enemy regiment at 100 yards should expect to get some hits. And a few hits at range, before the charge has really achieved it's final momentum, may break up and repel the charge.

So now we get into something of a strange area. Basic logic would dictate that you are correct, the more time the enemy can be under effective fire, the more casualties they will take. So start firing as soon as it's practical, and try to keep up a steady rate of fire as the enemy closes.

However, there's evidence to the contrary. There was a general belief that the first volley was the best. The rationales to explain this include that the soldiers took their time loading, and weren't "rushed" into firing a volley, etc. As a result, holding on to the first volley until it could do a maximum amount of damage was something of a standard goal.

It has been claimed that Prussian doctrine (sometime in the 18th century, not sure when exactly), extolled it's officers to not fire a volley until their bayonets were close enough to touch the bayonets of the enemy!!! (maybe 3 yards!)

There's also some statistical evidence from the American Civil War, that infantry units that fired at a slower rate of about one shot a minute, tended to inflict more casualties on the enemy than those that fired faster 2 or 3 shots. Although, a lot of volley exchanges were conducted at around 100 yards during the ACW (interestingly, the use of rifles didn't seem to extend the ranges at which the infantry typically engaged each other, it just made them more deadly at those ranges). At any rate, careful, well timed volleys seem to have been better than firing as many as you can . . .

[Fortinbras]

A sword will cut through leather fairly easily, even hardened leather. That's why it wasn't used for armor much at least in Europe.

Limbs move to fast to be hit? Tell that to the bruises on my arms!!!

Watch the video on my sigline if you want to get an idea what fencing was really like with medieval weapons.


G.

A leather jack has steel sequins sewn into the lining.

[endoperez]

Basic sword vs armor questions:

How would one employ a long sword against a soldier wearing a leather jack. It seems like a morte strike wouldn't be particularly effective and I doubt a sword could cut through it reliably. I think I read on ARMA someplace that limbs moved to fast to be effective targets so what's a swordsman to do?

Same question only facing a soldier with a cuirass and helmet.

With a long sword, do you mean a two-handed sword (D&D bastard sword or greatsword), that's often called a longsword in this thread, or a one-handed sword (D&D long sword)?

[Yora]

If cutting is a problem, half-swording and impaling the enemy on the tip of the sword is the way to go. Piercing through lether is much easier than slicing it.
However, even if a sword does not cut, it's still a heavy blow to a small area. Even if it doesn't draw blood, a strong blow can still cause quite some damage. Maybe not leathal but being hit at a joint with a large bar of stell should still make it difficult to fight.

[Karoht]

Skip the sword, use an axe or mace?
(Not a serious suggestion)

And knees are almost always viable targets, they don't move very fast, unless the person is in a full blown sprint running away from you, and has about a 5 second head start.

Armpit is almost always a softspot on just about any armor out there. Neck is usually poorly armored.

(Note-I am not encouraging you or anyone else to go hit anyone in these locations in real life. Just don't. It's not cool.)

[Fortinbras]

I was referring to a two handed sword.

As for half-swording, I've always been curious about how one would do it in sword fight. I'm mean, would you spend a whole fight with one hand on the blade of your sword? Also, if your trying to punch through the armor, what is the advantage of half-swording, i thought that it was used for sliding the blade into chinks in armor. Finally, how easy would it be to punch through leather armor with metal sequins sewed into the lining.

[Yukitsu]

Doubt sequins would do much. It's thin metal with no deflection anchored only on a single point with no proper overlap. Even scale mail, which had irregular metal pieces that provided deflection, had overlapping layers and were considerably thicker didn't provide any sort of imperviousness against a sword blow. You could probably emulate such a cut by hitting a tab from a soda can with a sword. Honestly, you should be able to cut right through it. Checking, I can chop it right in half and through a chicken thigh (bone included) with a cheap garbage butchers knife one handed (aluminum, but it's twice as thick as a sequin.)

[Toastkart]

I've got a couple armor questions, mostly in regard to brigandine.

D&D describes brigandine as small metal plates riveted between two layers of fabric or leather. However, I've also seen a couple pictures showing these metal plates without a backing. I guess what I'm asking is which is more accurate and is there a particular reason why brigandine would or wouldn't have a second layer?

Also, the wiki article on it makes a brief mention of brigandine being worn over a mail shirt. How common was this in say the late 1500s? Other than being an extra layer of protection over the chest and vital organs in such a setup, did brigandine have any other advantages over just mail during the same period?

Thanks.

[Incanur]

D&D describes brigandine as small metal plates riveted between two layers of fabric or leather. However, I've also seen a couple pictures showing these metal plates without a backing. I guess what I'm asking is which is more accurate and is there a particular reason why brigandine would or wouldn't have a second layer?

The latter, as usual. :smallamused: No back layer (http://www.reliquary.co.uk/brig/brig1.htm). Supposedly the action of the plate would tear up such a layer rather quickly.


Also, the wiki article on it makes a brief mention of brigandine being worn over a mail shirt.

People argue about this. Some claim it was much more common to wear a brigandine with mail bits - such as sleeves and a skirt - than over a shirt or hauberk.


How common was this in say the late 1500s?

In the late 1500s? Basically nonexistent. Brigandine armor had its heyday in the fifteenth century. At the end of the sixteenth, Humphrey Barwick considered brigandines thoroughly antiquated. He mocked Sir John Smythe for suggesting brigandines and other light armor. They trend at this point was toward mass-produced plate armor.


Other than being an extra layer of protection over the chest and vital organs in such a setup, did brigandine have any other advantages over just mail during the same period?

It's my understanding that a quality brigandine offers better protection than mail, though with less flexibility and coverage.

[iyaerP]

Doubt sequins would do much. It's thin metal with no deflection anchored only on a single point with no proper overlap. Even scale mail, which had irregular metal pieces that provided deflection, had overlapping layers and were considerably thicker didn't provide any sort of imperviousness against a sword blow. You could probably emulate such a cut by hitting a tab from a soda can with a sword. Honestly, you should be able to cut right through it. Checking, I can chop it right in half and through a chicken thigh (bone included) with a cheap garbage butchers knife one handed (aluminum, but it's twice as thick as a sequin.)

If you want to see this in action, go watch the Samurai vs Vikings Deadliest Warrior episode. Specifically the part where they test katana vs chainmail.

Scale mail works on the same principles of chainmail(dispersal of the force of impact over an area and allowing small and easily repairable individual componants of the armour to be sacraficed to maintain the integrity of the whole), but has the added benefit of thicker and stronger individual links for improved durability coupled with the fact that the scales work to deflect the force of a blow downward and away from the body, reducing its penetration and the effectiveness of the trauma delivered.

[Galloglaich]

Doubt sequins would do much. It's thin metal with no deflection anchored only on a single point with no proper overlap. Even scale mail, which had irregular metal pieces that provided deflection, had overlapping layers and were considerably thicker didn't provide any sort of imperviousness against a sword blow. You could probably emulate such a cut by hitting a tab from a soda can with a sword. Honestly, you should be able to cut right through it. Checking, I can chop it right in half and through a chicken thigh (bone included) with a cheap garbage butchers knife one handed (aluminum, but it's twice as thick as a sequin.)

You can't cut through scale armor. Paper thin aluminum has about as much to do with iron or steel armor as tin foil has to do with your car door.

G.

[Galloglaich]

I was referring to a two handed sword.

As for half-swording, I've always been curious about how one would do it in sword fight. I'm mean, would you spend a whole fight with one hand on the blade of your sword? Also, if your trying to punch through the armor, what is the advantage of half-swording, i thought that it was used for sliding the blade into chinks in armor. Finally, how easy would it be to punch through leather armor with metal sequins sewed into the lining.

Fortinbras, if your opponent was wearing armor on their torso and head, you would just go around the armor.

Half-swording for armor piercing involves choking up on the weapon and using it like a spike, which allows you to make thrusting attacks with far greater force. I know it's a bit counter-intuitive but you can indeed do this quite safely and it does work. So for armor with "sequins" or small metal plates, the point on say an Oakshott XVa type sword would probably find it's way between them and go right through the leather.

No you do not always hold your weapon in a half-sword guard unless perhaps in fully armored combat, more commonly you would transition from a regular guard to a half-sword guard right before doing a technique, after which you might transition back again depending on what happens next.

G.

[Yukitsu]

You can't cut through scale armor. Paper thin aluminum has about as much to do with iron or steel armor as tin foil has to do with your car door.

G.

Aluminum is more in tune with a sequins, an iron sequins being about half the thickness of an aluminum tab or less, and offers about the same resistance. Which is to say yes, absolutely no protection, but neither would a metal sequins provide any.

Insofar as I can tell, an aspect of scale was that it could be cut through. Not in a single blow, but that strikes would damage scales reducing the protection it could offer, and they'd simply be replaced after battles. Reducing the thickness of the scales to the size of a sequins would likely allow a weapon to break it in a single strike.

[Mike_G]

So now we get into something of a strange area. Basic logic would dictate that you are correct, the more time the enemy can be under effective fire, the more casualties they will take. So start firing as soon as it's practical, and try to keep up a steady rate of fire as the enemy closes.

However, there's evidence to the contrary. There was a general belief that the first volley was the best. The rationales to explain this include that the soldiers took their time loading, and weren't "rushed" into firing a volley, etc. As a result, holding on to the first volley until it could do a maximum amount of damage was something of a standard goal.


I will agree that the first volley would be the most effective, and holding it until close range would be a good tactic. To repel a charge. there are plenty of times you want to fire on an enemy who is not closing, and being able to hurt them beyond 50 yards would be nice. Like enemy units firing at you, or if terrain or obstacles keeps the units from closing, or if you don't want to leave the overall battle line to send one regiment froward to close.



It has been claimed that Prussian doctrine (sometime in the 18th century, not sure when exactly), extolled it's officers to not fire a volley until their bayonets were close enough to touch the bayonets of the enemy!!! (maybe 3 yards!)


That cannot possibly be practical. If that were official doctrine, then the Austrians would have been able to halt at 20 yards and deliver devastating volleys by rank until the Prussians were shot flat, then rush in and bayonet the survivors. "Don't fire unit you see the whites of their eyes" or until you can hit him with the pistol or touch bayonets and so on are not real orders, but the kind of thing sergeants say in training to keep nervous recruits from blazing away at ineffective ranges.

Sergeants do that kind of thing.



There's also some statistical evidence from the American Civil War, that infantry units that fired at a slower rate of about one shot a minute, tended to inflict more casualties on the enemy than those that fired faster 2 or 3 shots. Although, a lot of volley exchanges were conducted at around 100 yards during the ACW (interestingly, the use of rifles didn't seem to extend the ranges at which the infantry typically engaged each other, it just made them more deadly at those ranges). At any rate, careful, well timed volleys seem to have been better than firing as many as you can . . .

Conceded. Slow, aimed fire is generally better than rapid, poorly aimed fire.

That said, I would love the protection of armor that let me safely maneuver within a hundred yards of the enemy. The source talks about troops exposing themselves confidently because of armor in situations that would have been fatal without it. Just having that flexibility might let you win a battle.

There are lots of things you can do that aren't charge. And if I have a musket and armor, and my enemy has a musket and poor armor, I can engage in a shootout at 75 yards and do a lot of damage.

I'm not saying close range musketry wasn't the most effective, or that units would hold for a volley at point blank, but armor was hardly "so what."

[Maclav]

Also, the wiki article on it makes a brief mention of brigandine being worn over a mail shirt. How common was this in say the late 1500s? Other than being an extra layer of protection over the chest and vital organs in such a setup, did brigandine have any other advantages over just mail during the same period?

Thanks.

I wear mine over mail. Manny effigies seem to show full mail, hauberk and chausses under the brig/splint armour. Voiders and such seem to be worn more with white harness than splint. Speaking from experience, I have half-sworded though the leather and managed to fine a joint in the plates of one of my friends coat of plates. That was with a blunt Albion trainer. So the mail under there is important.

[Karoht]

That was with a blunt Albion trainer.You own an Albion. Awesome.

I use Paul Chen Practicals for most of my work. Do you have experience with this weapon? Could you compare it to an Albion?

I ask because I've got an Albion or 3 on my wish list, but I haven't actually spoke with anyone who owns one.

EDIT-Yes, I am aware that Paul Chen stuff isn't all that and a bag of chips. Feel free to be as... critical... as you wish in your comparison. Words such as Garbage are perfectly fine for example.

[TrappedDoor]

First off, magnificent job with this thread, I love military history and this has been a goldmine of facts and information.

Now my question is rather broad so I apologise in advance. But it is a topic that interests me and you folk seem to be the people to ask.

Anyway, axes. I've seen a lot of information on Swords and various polearms, but axes have always had a soft spot for me and I was hoping to find out more about them. Mainly, who used them (Both nations and specific kind of troops) and what caused them to drop out of favour compared to other close combat weapons.

Largely just a conversation starter. Keep up the good work!

[Incanur]

I wear mine over mail. Manny effigies seem to show full mail, hauberk and chausses under the brig/splint armour. Voiders and such seem to be worn more with white harness than splint. Speaking from experience, I have half-sworded though the leather and managed to fine a joint in the plates of one of my friends coat of plates. That was with a blunt Albion trainer. So the mail under there is important.

Coat of plates and brigandine (http://www.swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?9805-Coat-of-plates-and-brigandine) aren't quite the same thing. Points shouldn't be slipping through a good brigandine. As you can see in the linked thread, Bod Reed insists brigandines weren't worn over mail. That's surely overstating the case, but mail sleeves and such designed to be worn with brigandines exist.

[fusilier]

That cannot possibly be practical. . . .

I agree that it's not practical, and I find it unlikely that any officer waited until being that close, but it illuminates their thinking. (I wish I could find the source for that, it's been so many years since I read it)



There are lots of things you can do that aren't charge. And if I have a musket and armor, and my enemy has a musket and poor armor, I can engage in a shootout at 75 yards and do a lot of damage.

I'm not saying close range musketry wasn't the most effective, or that units would hold for a volley at point blank, but armor was hardly "so what."

So that's part of the debate were having -- 1. What ranges were battles typically fought at in the 16th and early 17th centuries? 2. How effective was the armor of the time, compared to certain weapons?

The "Turkish" or Janissary "musket" was more like a long arquebus, than a large caliber, long barreled "Spanish" musket.

Guilmartin (Gunpowder and Galleys) claims that a Turkish bow could puncture almost any armor at 100 yards assuming it hit at a good angle. A musket was slightly better at range and penetration, only because of its massive shot and raw power. Note, that Guilmartin does say "almost" any armor. And (at least in the case of the bow, but probably true for a musket as well) a good angle. At the same time Guilmartin makes an argument that the maximum effective range for any smoothbore weapon is about 75-80 yards, in terms of accuracy. Nevertheless, he contends that the introduction of muskets gave the Spanish a reputation for effective "long range" fire -- which couldn't be more than 75-80 yards, by his logic. Or, if dealing with massed formations, *maybe* twice that distance (about 150 yards), although that would mean a bit more accuracy than a Napoleonic musket. However, I don't think it actually reads that way.

So this begs the question, is the lack of wounds at range due to a lack of penetrative power, or a lack of accuracy? Or a combination of both?

This is predicated upon the assumption that there was a lack of wounds among armored troops past about 50 meters (or yards?). Is that an accurate assumption? Does it also hold true for unarmored soldiers?

[fusilier]

Balbi:

". . . the Turkish muskets are about nine palms long, and certainly not less than seven. The result is that they were not easy to aim, and took a long time to load"

The translator has a note at this point, that indicates that Balbi later states that they were very accurate.

Balbi does seem to be the source for "nine-palm" (or seven) muskets, and it's clear he was just giving a rough indication of their length. The question now becomes what did he mean by "palm" as it can have several different meanings.

The best bet is the Spanish Palmo which is about 20.9 cm (9 "spanish" inches).
http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictP.html

(I checked up the same passage in the original Spanish, and the translation seems to be accurate. The term "palmos" is used, as is "escopeta", which is being translated as "musket")

This would make a "nine-palm" musket 74 inches (188 cm), which is quite long indeed, but 6 feet is not entirely unreasonable. I think it's also safe to assume he is referring to the overall length of the weapon, and not the barrel. Seven palms would be 57 inches (146 cm) - or about 5 feet, which seems a bit more reasonable. Balbi isn't defining different kinds of weapons, he's merely describing their general qualities. I know that the Ottoman army of the period could be more standardized, but there's no indication that there were standard musket sizes at the time, so one could expect some variation. At any rate, you have something of "musket proportions" in terms of length, but, so far, I've discovered no indication that these weapons were used with a rest. Therefore they were lighter, and probably of smaller caliber.

Also, at this point (the Turks have just landed), there have been at least two knights killed by "arcubuzeros" (arquebusiers) although there is no mention of the range.

[Incanur]

Anyway, axes. I've seen a lot of information on Swords and various polearms, but axes have always had a soft spot for me and I was hoping to find out more about them. Mainly, who used them (Both nations and specific kind of troops) and what caused them to drop out of favour compared to other close combat weapons.

Depends how you define an axe. Single-handed axes saw occasional use from classical times into the Middle Ages; the francisca throwing axe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisca) would be one example. Then you get into two-handed axes such as those used by the Saxons at the Battle of Hastings. These weapons became progressively more popular as armor improved. By the fourteen century, the axe had became standard for nobles fighting on foot. Pollaxes remained popular through the fifteen century, though these often lost cutting blades in favor of the hammer and spike. During the same two centuries, the halberd - a combination axe, spear, and hook - gained prominence. Halberds were critically important in the fifteenth and sixteenth century. As described by Sir John Smythe at the end of this period, halberdiers with weapons no longer than six feet never hindered each other when fighting in formation. Smythe instructed them to give blows at the head and thrusts at the face. He greatly respected such troops for their power in the press, but gunpowder weapons had made grand melees an anachronism. Halberds and kin mostly faded away in the seventeenth century.

If you exclude other polearms and stick to axes proper, that limits things considerably. The Irish (http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_armies_irish.html), however, used simple axes into the sixteenth century. Wagoners (http://faganarms.com/germandolorie15th-16thcenturyalsoknownasawagonersaxe.aspx) across Western Europe also tended to carry axes for utility and self-defense.

[Karoht]

Axes-They chop down trees, they chop down people. What's not to love? They have remarkable utility and famed lethality. I don't know if Axes ever went out of style during time periods where martial combat took place.

My only question is, why didn't the Romans use them? I've never found reference to them using Axes. Or did they?

[Matthew]

My only question is, why didn't the Romans use them? I've never found reference to them using Axes. Or did they?

Essential bit of kit carried by Roman soldiers to fortify their camps and such, might have seen some battlefield use when a sword was not to hand I suppose. Their enemies (and therefore their auxiliaries and allies at some point) definitely used them, as can be seen on the war gear trophies on Trajan's Column (http://schnucks0.free.fr/trajan.htm).

1) Legionaries chopping down trees

http://schnucks0.free.fr/Trajan/40.gif

2) What appear to be Barbarians of some sort.

http://schnucks0.free.fr/Trajan/41.gif

3) War Gear Trophy

http://schnucks0.free.fr/Trajan/62.gif

4) Romans apparently defending a wall with axes (probably tools)

http://schnucks0.free.fr/Trajan/76.gif
http://schnucks0.free.fr/Trajan/77.gif

[Karoht]

Essential bit of kit carried by Roman soldiers to fortify their camps and such, might have seen some battlefield use when a sword was not to hand I suppose. Their enemies (and therefore their auxiliaries and allies at some point) definitely used them, as can be seen on the war gear trophies on Trajan's Column (http://schnucks0.free.fr/trajan.htm).

But not necessarily common use by the Romans yes?

[Matthew]

But not necessarily common use by the Romans yes?

Probably about as common as in medieval Japan, which is to say not unknown, but not favoured. I think the bipennis (two headed axe) is recommended by Vegetius for boarding actions, but I would have to look it up to confirm. Also, do not forget that the rod and axe were the traditional symbols (and tools) of punishment carried around by the aediles behind the consul (think I have remembered that right).

[GraaEminense]

If you exclude other polearms and stick to axes proper, that limits things considerably. The Irish (http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_armies_irish.html), however, used simple axes into the sixteenth century. Wagoners (http://faganarms.com/germandolorie15th-16thcenturyalsoknownasawagonersaxe.aspx) across Western Europe also tended to carry axes for utility and self-defense.
The war axe was in military use in Norway until the 17th Century at least, in the bondebevæpning -"armed farmers", the last version of the leidang before it was decided that using untrained farmers against increasingly professional armies was a waste. The National Defense statutes in the 1604 Book of Norwegian Law stated that all farmers with 'full farms' (not sure what it means, probably a tax category) must own a long wheellock rifle, a saber and an axe, while those with smaller farms could get away with less -the poorest with an axe only, if I recall correctly

That axe would most likely be one of these two-handed beauties:
http://europeanastatic.eu/api/image?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fdigitaltmuseum.no%2Fmediumn ail.do%3Fowner%3DNF%26identifier%3DNF.1907-0138%26type%3DThing%26imageIndex%3D0%26size%3D400&size=FULL_DOC&type=IMAGE
That's the peak of European axe-technology, a Norwegian war axe from around 1600. The very curved shaft is pretty universal in this period, and I admit to not knowing why that was considered superior -I would theorise that it was to achieve a cutting blow similar to a saber against the unarmoured, shieldless enemies of the time and to be better able to slice when in the press of a close melee. That's speculation on my part, though.

By the way, hi all -I've been lurking these threads for ages (edit: since May 2009, it seems) and would just like to say that I'm impressed by the debates and the knowledge shown. I've learned a lot from you guys. Myself, I'm yet another amateur military historian/weapons fetishist with a background in reenactment fighting and a touch of WMA.

[Matthew]

Welcome! Never seen that sort of axe before. You learn something new everyday. :smallbiggrin:

[Galloglaich]

Aluminum is more in tune with a sequins, an iron sequins being about half the thickness of an aluminum tab or less, and offers about the same resistance. Which is to say yes, absolutely no protection, but neither would a metal sequins provide any.

Insofar as I can tell, an aspect of scale was that it could be cut through. Not in a single blow, but that strikes would damage scales reducing the protection it could offer, and they'd simply be replaced after battles. Reducing the thickness of the scales to the size of a sequins would likely allow a weapon to break it in a single strike.

I think you are vastly underetimating the strength of iron compared to aluminum, but it's not that big of a deal, I don't even really know what the guy means by 'sequins'.

I think scale armor could eventually be cut through because the scales would fall off after a lot of abuse, but not that you could cut through the scales, from what I've seen that is unrealistic, even for bronze scales let alone iron or steel.

G.

[Galloglaich]

I will agree that the first volley would be the most effective, and holding it until close range would be a good tactic. To repel a charge. there are plenty of times you want to fire on an enemy who is not closing, and being able to hurt them beyond 50 yards would be nice. Like enemy units firing at you, or if terrain or obstacles keeps the units from closing, or if you don't want to leave the overall battle line to send one regiment froward to close.


Yeah I agree with Mike, armor was obviously still very useful well into the second half of the 16th Century and into the 17th, I mean it's no secret it was still in wide use especially for cavalry in the 30 Years War.

I also think the mythology of armor vs. guns greatly distorts the value of armor, people think guns made plate armor go away, plate armor arose after guns had already been around for over a century and kept evolving right alongside firearms.

The Osprey book on Rhodes and some other reading I've done also reinforces my belief that the late 15th / early 16th Century armor was also vastly better (more bullet proof and half or even a quarter as heavy) than the armor being made in the 17th Century.

It's abundantly clear to me that the decline of armor and it's disappearance from the battlefield had to do with the increasing size of armies which itself was due to the musket (the relative ease and speed of training musket armed troops especially with the advent of the flint-lock) but it was not because firearms were easily blowing away anyone in armor like they weren't even wearing any. Most firearms on the battlefields in the 16th Century could not pierce top quality armor, but the armor was simply to expensive to equip armies in the range of 40,000 troops instead of 4,000. And as a result the armor -making industries of Southern Germany and Milan and Brescia where the best armor was made, collapsed, leaving the armies of the world with heavier, inferior iron armor which was kind of a spiral into oblivion.

I also think armor-piercing muskets put a dent in the hegemony of armored troops, but the cannon is what unbalanced the equation, quite early on too, as in 1420 AD.

G.

[Galloglaich]

Guilmartin (Gunpowder and Galleys) claims that a Turkish bow could puncture almost any armor at 100 yards assuming it hit at a good angle.

That has been thoroughly debunked, there isn't a bow in the world that can pierce real armor at 100 yards. Nothing above munitions grade anyway.




So this begs the question, is the lack of wounds at range due to a lack of penetrative power, or a lack of accuracy? Or a combination of both?

With regard to the siege at Rhodes, the lack of wounds occurred among armored troops, whereas the unarmored troops were being quickly wounded. So I don't think it's a matter of accuracy. As you noted upthread, while the average musket seems to have had very short range, there seem to have also been very skilled marksmen who by whatever trick or means, seem to have been able to achieve much longer effective range, 150 meters or more.



This is predicated upon the assumption that there was a lack of wounds among armored troops past about 50 meters (or yards?). Is that an accurate assumption? Does it also hold true for unarmored soldiers?

Not always, but yes in aggregate this seems to be the consensus in articles I've read about the 30 years war and the battle of Molodi in the Russo-Turkish wars.

Also in the East bohemian style tabors (war wagons) were being used with wooden or thin steel gun-shields which seemed to provide excellent protection against both Turkish Muskets (and yes, they were definitely Muskets in fact the Turks had the first Muskets).

G.

[Galloglaich]

That axe would most likely be one of these two-handed beauties:
http://europeanastatic.eu/api/image?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fdigitaltmuseum.no%2Fmediumn ail.do%3Fowner%3DNF%26identifier%3DNF.1907-0138%26type%3DThing%26imageIndex%3D0%26size%3D400&size=FULL_DOC&type=IMAGE
That's the peak of European axe-technology, a Norwegian war axe from around 1600. The very curved shaft is pretty universal in this period, and I admit to not knowing why that was considered superior -I would theorise that it was to achieve a cutting blow similar to a saber against the unarmoured, shieldless enemies of the time and to be better able to slice when in the press of a close melee. That's speculation on my part, though.

By the way, hi all -I've been lurking these threads for ages (edit: since May 2009, it seems) and would just like to say that I'm impressed by the debates and the knowledge shown. I've learned a lot from you guys. Myself, I'm yet another amateur military historian/weapons fetishist with a background in reenactment fighting and a touch of WMA.

Welcome, and thanks for posting that. I have seen axes with that kind of shape before but never knew what the hell to make of them so I always kind of 'glossed over them' before. Thanks for the explanation.

G.

[Galloglaich]

Balbi:
Also, at this point (the Turks have just landed), there have been at least two knights killed by "arcubuzeros" (arquebusiers) although there is no mention of the range.

Sounds like that is going to be a good read, please continue to report on it, I'd like to read it myself.

G.

[fusilier]

With regard to the siege at Rhodes, the lack of wounds occurred among armored troops, whereas the unarmored troops were being quickly wounded.

Wait Rhodes or Malta? Assuming you're referring to the Siege of Rhodes in 1522, then I'm not surprised. I'll have to double check, but I'm pretty sure the Turkish "muskets" would be short barreled at that time.

Interesting La Riviere (one of the Knights killed by a scouting party of Turks), had his horse shot out from him. He was wounded and was captured alive, but either his wounds were too great or the torture was too much for him. The other knight was also mortally wounded, but hid behind a wall and removed his armor before dying.

I'm very busy, and I've always been a slow reader, but I'll try to keep you informed of any other interesting parts.

[Yukitsu]

I think you are vastly underetimating the strength of iron compared to aluminum, but it's not that big of a deal, I don't even really know what the guy means by 'sequins'.

I think scale armor could eventually be cut through because the scales would fall off after a lot of abuse, but not that you could cut through the scales, from what I've seen that is unrealistic, even for bronze scales let alone iron or steel.

G.

A sequins is a flat, circular metal bead, about a half millimeter in thickness used by fashionistas to get sparkle on your clothes that can be sewn on.

The overall toughness of aluminum shouldn't be under-estimated. Pound for pound it provides superior durability up to a certain scale for non-repetetive stresses than iron does. Of course, to get the same weight the scales would be 2.5 times thicker or thereabouts.

[fusilier]

That has been thoroughly debunked, there isn't a bow in the world that can pierce real armor at 100 yards. Nothing above munitions grade anyway.

So Guilmartin's research suffers from not only being from the 1970s, but that his work was very ambitious. It describes the entire system of galley warfare in the Mediterranean during the 16th century in considerable detail. I like to use it as a basis (because of its completeness), but I don't necessarily consider it an unassailable authority. In fact I have questions about his claims that muskets have a max effective range against individual targets of 75-80 yards.

Anyway, for the sake of fairness, I will provide the direct quote and the footnote, so you can critique his sources:
Concerning the Turkish War bow:

Such a bow could have driven its arrow to an extreme range of about 500 yards and, given a square hit, through almost any armor at 100 yards.(31) Because of its superior aerodynamic characteristics an arrow did not lose its velocity and destructive energy as rapidly as a crossbow bolt or an arquebus ball. Only the size and brute power of the musket gave it a slight advantage in maximum effective range.

footnote:

This estimate of penetrative ability is from Paterson, ‘The Archers of Islam’, p. 86, and is based on modern experimentation. The estimate of extreme range is my own, based upon extrapolation of data given by Payne-Gallwey on pp. 18-20 Of his Appendix on the Turkish bow in The Crossbow,. I consider Payne-Gallwey’s data to be somewhat conservative since it is based upon the skill and strength of an archer who would have been at best a dilettante by sixteenth-century Ottoman standards, and upon bows which were preserved by a random process of selection and are unlikely to have been representative of the best and most powerful even when new.



Also in the East bohemian style tabors (war wagons) were being used with wooden or thin steel gun-shields which seemed to provide excellent protection against both Turkish Muskets (and yes, they were definitely Muskets in fact the Turks had the first Muskets).

G.

I must disagree with the last part. Balbi didn't recognize the Turkish weapons as muskets. A search through the 1568 edition showed that he usually used the term "escopeta", or "arcabuz" to describe their weapons. Only once does he mention "mosquetes" (although I had to search for "mofquetes" as google books' OCR confuses a long-s for an f), and I'm pretty sure they are being used by the Christians (my Spanish isn't that great). Balbi appears to be familiar with Spanish military practices, and writing in Spanish, would probably have remarked upon any such similarity between muskets and the Janissary arquebus. (I am still reading, and will report on any other developments).

I've had to do some digging, but it looks like the Janissary called their firearms Tufek or Tufang. Most authorities seem to agree that "the musket" was a Spanish invention (maybe Italian, but most of Italy was under the influence of Spain one way or the other during the 16th century). The problem is that terminology isn't consistent, and in English, the default is to call any muzzleloading (especially smoothbore) weapon a "musket." As that term has now taken on a more generic meaning.

I think I've found some very good period information, and I will bring it up in my next post.

[fusilier]

Arquebus, Caliver, and Musket

While attempting to track down the period Ottoman term they used for their firearms (the best reference I saw was the notes section of a google book -- and surprise, they seem to have used several!), I stumbled across a forum with a very acrimonious debate about the effectiveness of 16th century firearms. There was mention of several different writers from the late 16th century and their opinions on firearms. One of them was Humfrey Barwick, and that led me to this excellent webpage:

http://www.alderneywreck.com/index.php/artefacts/firearms/terminology-and-ballistic-capability

It describes the differences between Arquebuses, Calivers, and Muskets using period sources (which are not all in agreement). And the effectiveness of the weapons.

Concerning Arquebuses:

Humphrey Barwick noted that harquebuses, fired in volley, would be effective at 160, 200 even 240 yards from target and claimed that he personally could hit a standing man at 120 yards. Smythe, by contrast, felt that a harquebusier, to be sure of dropping his man when firing individually, should wait for him to come within 8, 10 or 12 paces.

So basically the debate we are having now, was exactly the debate they were having 400 years ago!!! :-)

Concerning the difference between calivers and arquebuses, there was also some disagreement:

Humfrey Barwick, and old soldier who was also writing at the time of the Alderney ship, observed in his Breefe Discourse Concerning the Force and Effect of all Manuall of Weapons of Fire, that ‘it is supposed by many that the weapon called commonly a caliver is another thing than a harquebuse, whereas in truth it is not, but only a harquebuse, saving that it is of a greater circuit or bullet …’

(Similar to my impression of the differences -- or really lack thereof)

Now to muskets. These three quotes are back-to-back on the webpage, but I have broken them up:

Sir Roger Williams (who, in the mid 1580s, had served under Sir John Norreys and later became his bitter rival), ‘one musket shot does more hurt than two caliver shot far or near …’.


Humfrey Barwick believed that a musket with good shot and powder, would kill the best armoured man at ten score yards, an ordinary armoured man at twenty score, and an unarmoured man at thirty score.

Writing in the late 16th century, someone with reasonable credentials, claimed that a musket would kill the "best armoured man" at 200 yards!


Williams was in broad agreement with this, ‘the musket’, he wrote, ‘spoils horse and man thirty score off. If the powder be anything good and the bearer of any judgement, and in the face of a charge, few if any, would be able to withstand a musket fusillade within ten or twelve score’.

Williams agrees with this range.

Now it's possible that they were exaggerating -- after all most of them seemed to be writing with the intention to encourage the English to use more muskets. Also, something which seems to be common, is the caveat of "with good shot and powder" -- I don't know how consistent gunpowder was, or how available good powder was at that time. I do read of troubles with gunpowder quality, but I can't think of any examples off the top of my head.

However, I think it would be safe to assume that even if they were exaggerating, a distance of 100 yards would seem to be well within the killing range of a heavy, armor-piercing, late 16th century, European(!) musket. Although others may disagree, it would be nice if we could find a period commentator on the subject that held an opposing view point. Smythe's book is available, and can be viewed on google-books in preview mode. So maybe some digging in there will find an opposing view?

Although I cannot access the other sources directly, that webpage looks pretty good (except that it lacks paragraphs).

Oh, and concerning buckshot:

It is also of interest that, because of its greater bore, the musket was known to have fired small doses of hailshot.

So at least by the late-16th century it looks like buckshot of some sort was being used in muskets, and supposedly in a military context.

[Conners]

I'm wondering about realistic weapon prices... I've heard of really good swords and heavy armour having the price equivalent to a whole village (a small one, maybe?).

What are the prices likely to be for arming swords, one you tend to get in the thousands for infantry? As well as that, any guidelines to what pricing was like for other weapons in comparison (spears tend to be cheap, by my understanding) would be very welcome.


As a bonus question... what is the cheapest material swords/knives/weapons are known to have been made from? Tin (always wondered if they had tin knives or swords...)?

[J.Gellert]

I'm wondering about realistic weapon prices... I've heard of really good swords and heavy armour having the price equivalent to a whole village (a small one, maybe?).

What are the prices likely to be for arming swords, one you tend to get in the thousands for infantry? As well as that, any guidelines to what pricing was like for other weapons in comparison (spears tend to be cheap, by my understanding) would be very welcome.

Time period?

[Yora]

I think a real problem is that until rather recently, it was quite difficult to put price tags on things like land and buildings. It would have been possible to ask a weaponsmith what he would charge to make a custom ordered sword of high quality and then see how many farmers you could get to hand over their land and property for that money, or ask laborers how much you would have to pay them to build houses for you. But for most of history, lots of things were built at home without any coins getting involved, which makes estimating prices very difficult.

Then it also depends on the size of the village. 3 tiny mud huts with two goats and a pig would be a lot cheaper than a few hundred houses with thatched roofs and glass windows, as well as several hundred heads of lifestock and huge fields.

But just from an economical point of view, that claim seems very unlikely. While a good sword is indeed a fine weapon, a decent spear is not much worse in efficiency and would be indefinately cheaper than even the tiniest village. When you don't have any ideas left how to waste your tonnes of gold, I'm sure there's a weaponsmith who would make you a jewel encrusted platinum sword. And in times where lots of knights lived in poverty, I just really can't imagine they carry around a piece of metal worth more than their whole land.

[Conners]

@Firkraag: Hmm... Let's say Late Iron Age Medieval Period...?


@Yora: Just something I heard, about the prices of the est swords and armour. Point is, it was said to have costed a fortune.

[Spiryt]

No matter what time period infantry usually weren't bearing swords in "thousands" at east if we're not taking about 'high end' professional infantry.

And high quality full pate armor cud ave cost as much as villages swords not so much.

[Knaight]

And high quality full pate armor cud ave cost as much as villages swords not so much.

And the difference between high end armor and low end armor is a bit bigger than that between a sword and a spear or axe. Armor is what keeps you alive, and that makes it very, very valuable, and while you need to be armed, and what you are armed with makes a difference, its somewhat less huge.

[Matthew]

Plenty of evidence for individual prices exists, the problem is that they tend to be extremely variable, not least because the currency being referenced is not always clear. Worst of all, there are mistakes in secondary source material, the most WTF? one I have encountered was when somebody accidentally cited the price of a mail shirt in grams of gold, instead of grams of silver, increasing the price tenfold! The relative prices tend to shift around a lot as well, especially when you are talking hundreds of years, and swords (for instance) with decorative embellishments will simply not give a good idea of price.

[Raum]

But just from an economical point of view, that claim seems very unlikely. While a good sword is indeed a fine weapon, a decent spear is not much worse in efficiency and would be indefinately cheaper than even the tiniest village. When you don't have any ideas left how to waste your tonnes of gold, I'm sure there's a weaponsmith who would make you a jewel encrusted platinum sword. And in times where lots of knights lived in poverty, I just really can't imagine they carry around a piece of metal worth more than their whole land.While I agree it's unlikely, there is another variable to consider. The land was often owned by a noble and worked by serfs or tenants. The noble almost certainly valued that small group of mud huts far less than those who lived there...particularly if rent was consistently late or simply minimal. Transfer of title from one noble to another as part of an arms deal seems far more possible to me.

[J.Gellert]

I'm thinking late roman & early byzantine infantry, as the late iron age armies with swords in the thousands.

The price for these swords is probably "less than you'd think". A standard issue spatha wouldn't cost more than a few weeks' pay, but I can't seem to find any good sources on what the pay was.

But considering how prices can fluctuate on a monthly basis, assigning a value to an entire historical period seems pointless anyway.

[Matthew]

I'm thinking late roman & early byzantine infantry, as the late iron age armies with swords in the thousands.

The price for these swords is probably "less than you'd think". A standard issue spatha wouldn't cost more than a few weeks' pay, but I can't seem to find any good sources on what the pay was.

But considering how prices can fluctuate on a monthly basis, assigning a value to an entire historical period seems pointless anyway.

Apparently, one gold solidus per month, so about 4.5 grams of gold, was the standard pay of Byzantine soldiers. Higher ranks got a lot more, but I am not sure how that breaks down in terms of expenses. According to Oman...



Sixth and Seventh Centuries (Lombards)

100 Solidi ~ Fully Equipped War Horse [Oman, p. 49]
50 Solidi ~ Household Slave
150 Solidi ~ Lombard of Low Degree

Sixth and Seventh Centuries (Franks of the Merovingian Era)

12 Solidi ~ Mail Shirt
6 Solidi ~ Helmet
6 Solidi ~ Greaves
7 Solidi ~ Sword
[Oman, p. 56]

6 Solidi ~ Horse
1 Solidi ~ Cow
[Oman, p.59]

60 Solidi ~ Fine for failing to perform military service levied against a Frank
30 Solidi ~ Fine for failing to perform military service levied against a Roman
200 Solidi ~ Killing a Free Frank
600 Solidi ~ Killing Free Frank in the King’s Trust

In the eleventh century, according to The Knight in History:



10 Shillings = Cow, 50 Shillings = War Horse, 100 Shillings = Mail Armour

But that is France, so we're talking debased currency (a sterling silver shilling is about 30 grams). Interestingly, the ratio of horse to armour is the same as several centuries earlier. The daily pay of a foot soldier was 1 silver penny, which translates to about 45 grams of silver per month [i.e. equivalent to 1 gold solidus].

[Conners]

So a Byzantine soldier would need to save up for seven months to buy their own sword?

Later in history, would you say the expensiveness and difficulty to procure went up, or down?

[Matthew]

So a Byzantine soldier would need to save up for seven months to buy their own sword?

Probably not, but it is just not clear what kind of sword we are talking about.



Later in history, would you say the expensiveness and difficulty to procure went up, or down?

The cost goes down, especially for swords with developments in metallurgy that make pattern forging unnecessary, but as the period goes on war gear changes so that it becomes more expensive to be "fully" equipped. Some fourteenth century prices might be of interest:



Fourteenth Century (English)

"An inventory of goods stolen in 1324 from John de Swynnerton shows that a haubergeon with mail fittings (aventail, pisan and collaret), was worth ten marks. Bacinets were valued at ten shillings each, and, surprisingly, war swords at a mere 3s. 4d., half the price of longbows. A set of leg armour (jainbers, cuissans and poleyns) came to 15s. Two tents, necessary for campaigning, were valued at six marks."

Haubergeon with mail fittings: 1,600d
Bacinet: 120d
War Sword: 40d
Long Bow: 80d
Leg Armour: 180d
[Miles in Armis Strenuus: The Knight at War, p. 209]

I am not at all sure what a "pisan" is, but £6⅔ does not sound too unlikely for some sort of augmented mail armour. Still, that sword looks mighty cheap comparatively!

Pay rates are higher by this time as well. A mail hauberk in twelfth century England was valued at about £2 or 480d, according to Bartlett I should add.

[J.Gellert]

So a Byzantine soldier would need to save up for seven months to buy their own sword?

Definitely not. Even if the "1 solidus/month" and "6 solidii for a sword" come from the same year, it's very different places. 6th century is the Dark Ages, so I expect a stark contrast between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Franks.

Swords should be a lot more common/cheaper if every professional infantryman is supposed to have one. What happens if your sword breaks? Do you sell your children to keep your job? :smalltongue:

[Galloglaich]

What Matthew said. Swords went from incredibly expensive circa 7th century, to expensive but ubiquitous by the 10th century, to basically mass-produced and quite cheap compared to the salary of a mercenary by the 15th

Armor was always comparatively expensive but basic armor had also become affordable for a typical soldier or mercenary by the 15th Century, though that changed as soldiers and common people in general got poorer toward the end of the 16th Century. By the 1800s people were so poor that anything metal was valuable again.

G.

[Spiryt]

Swords should be a lot more common/cheaper if every professional infantryman is supposed to have one. What happens if your sword breaks? Do you sell your children to keep your job? :smalltongue:

You fight with different weapon. Or with really crappy/crude sword. Or with something improvised - I've heard abut 80 cm spear from Jutland -seems like improvised sword.

Not to mention that aside of how common/cheap swrd should compared to some marsh in Gemany, professional infantryman would also be more welthy in general, his pay wouldn't be his only income, especially during war, and sword breakage would have to be calculated in risks for him.

Finally, he would most certainly try to repair sword if possible before searching a new one. :smallwink:

[fusilier]

Finally, he would most certainly try to repair sword if possible before searching a new one. :smallwink:

Biringuccio in his Pirotechnia, written sometime before 1540, describes a solder used to repair cracks in swords. While later than the time period we are dealing with, it shows that even at that date there was a desire to repair a damaged sword, rather than simply replace it.

[Galloglaich]

The main poor-mans alternative to a sword is an axe. In either case their primary weapon would be a spear anyway.

G.

[J.Gellert]

Not to mention that aside of how common/cheap swrd should compared to some marsh in Gemany, professional infantryman would also be more welthy in general, his pay wouldn't be his only income, especially during war, and sword breakage would have to be calculated in risks for him.

That's what I said! :smalltongue:

Archaelogists have found large caches of swords, scores at a time, in Roman ruins; they were clearly not as "rare" as sometimes depicted.

[Spiryt]

That's what I said! :smalltongue:

Archaelogists have found large caches of swords, scores at a time, in Roman ruins; they were clearly not as "rare" as sometimes depicted.

Because that's the part I agreed wit. :smalltongue:

Main point is that idea that "soldier would need to save up for seven months" is not improbable at all.

And large caches of swords in Romans case is obvious, as they were main weapons fr quite a time. But in overall special in early medieval they were relatively rare.


The main poor-mans alternative to a sword is an axe.

Well depends, obviously. For Roman soldier it wouldn't be very viable alternative most of the time.

[Galloglaich]

It's important to note that swords have a finite lifetime when being used, they will typically become ruined if used in battle. This is described numerous times in ancient texts. The Vikings tried to hold on to them and even dig them out of graves (depicted as heroic battles against grave-wights) but even in the Sagas famous heirloom swords frequently got chipped, dinged or broken.

In the later Medieval period a knight would often donate a sword to a church after a battle especially if he had played a major role in it. That is in fact how a lot of antique swords came down to us.

The ancient Celts and Germanic tribes used to "Sacrifice" swords of captured enemies precisely because they were so expensive and rare.

The Roman army was something of an exception in that they mass-produced huge amounts of weapons using slave labor, and certainly after the Marian reform (107 BC) every Legionaire was issued a sword (as well as mail body armor, a helmet, at least 3 pilum, and the Sctutum shield) though this was not always the case for foreign Auxliaries who made up more and more of the army during the Imperial era. Barbarians in Europe at this time typically had a spear, and an axe, and maybe a sax (long kinfe). Swords were rare. Some Germanic tribes were really "iron poor" and reportedly used wooden clubs, stone knives and fire-hardened wooden spears, at least according to the Romans.

G

[Spiryt]

The Roman army was something of an exception in that they mass-produced huge amounts of weapons using slave labor, and certainly after the Marian reform (107 BC) every Legionaire was issued a sword (as well as mail body armor, a helmet, at least 3 pilum, and the Sctutum shield) though this was not always the case for foreign Auxliaries who made up more and more of the army during the Imperial era.


Well, what you men by 'issued' though? Certainly not issued ass in modern army, that would be pretty impossible not to mention dangerous.

As mentioned few times, Romans did indeed try something ala mass production and distribution on the break of 3rd and 4h centuries AD, but that's exception not the rule.

Tacite described it nicely:

"denis in diem assibus animam et corpus aestimari: hinc vestem arma tenotoria, hinc saevitiam centurionum ex vacationes munerum redimi"

Body and soul are worth 10 as daily, from this we must cover our clothes, weapons and tens, as well as violent centurions to avoid additional duties."

Translation mine, can suck. :smalltongue:

[Galloglaich]

My understanding is that new recruits were given an advance on their pay upon joining their units and issued weapons and armor on this basis from Republic or Legion armories, and this goes back to the Marian reform 100 BC. We could always ask on Roman Army Talk I'm sure they could settle the dispute. or we could fight a judicial combat...

G.

[Spiryt]

My understanding is that new recruits were given an advance on their pay upon joining their units and issued weapons and armor on this basis from Republic or Legion armories, and this goes back to the Marian reform 100 BC. We could always ask on Roman Army Talk I'm sure they could settle the dispute. or we could fight a judicial combat...

G.

I don't really know well, but it doesn't sound very probable and I've always heard that recruits could obviously count on 'discounted' stuff from vets etc. but mass issued equipment is generally bout 1500 years later invention.

That's at least what I keep hearing, and science authorities seem to suggest it based on sources.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17289553/The-military-fabrica-and-the-production-of-arms-in-the-early-principate


Cheers.

[Matthew]

I don't really know well, but it doesn't sound very probable and I've always heard that recruits could obviously count on 'discounted' stuff from vets etc. but mass issued equipment is generally bout 1500 years later invention.

That's at least what I keep hearing, and science authorities seem to suggest it based on sources.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17289553/The-military-fabrica-and-the-production-of-arms-in-the-early-principate. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/17289553/The-military-fabrica-and-the-production-of-arms-in-the-early-principate)
Cheers.

Well, Bishop usually knows what he is talking about. No idea how his opinion might have changed in the last twenty five years off hand, though. I guess some of this may hinge on what constitutes "mass" production. The scale of the Roman army and Polybius' accounts of its disasters and re-equipping must have necessitated some sort of large scale production of arms and armour. During the late republic when legions were being raised in excessive numbers there must have been some recourse for arming them other than scraping around for available gear. The other possibility is that most troops were in effect under equipped, which is also possible.

[Spiryt]

Well, Bishop usually knows what he is talking about. No idea how his opinion might have changed in the last twenty five years off hand, though. I guess some of this may hinge on what constitutes "mass" production. The scale of the Roman army and Polybius' accounts of its disasters and re-equipping must have necessitated some sort of large scale production of arms and armour. During the late republic when legions were being raised in excessive numbers there must have been some recourse for arming them other than scraping around for available gear. The other possibility is that most troops were in effect under equipped, which is also possible.

I think that Bishop among others, suggest that there often a lot of equipment stored somewhere/in legions/legionnaires possession, either slighty worn out or captured.. Which makes quite a lot of sense. Still it's doubtful that anyone was getting stuff for free.

And with demand created by army, merchants and artists that were usually following legions would be more than willing to try and satisfy it. :smallwink:

[J.Gellert]

And large caches of swords in Romans case is obvious, as they were main weapons fr quite a time. But in overall special in early medieval they were relatively rare.

The spatha was "standard" with Byzantine infantry as well, which is well into early medieval.

From what I've read (been a while, so no source, sadly) for the Romans; weapons would be issued (and maybe withheld from later pay), and armors were bought (at a discount from sources within the legion).

And also, most Roman soldiers were never really paid their owed wage even years after retirement... Which is not surprising, even to this day! :smalltongue:

[Galloglaich]

Still it's doubtful that anyone was getting stuff for free.

How could that be doubtful when I already told you so? :P


And with demand created by army, merchants and artists that were usually following legions would be more than willing to try and satisfy it. :smallwink:

When you signed up for a 16 year enlistment and desertion is punishable by death, it is possible to give you an advance on your pay to buy your gear. I can promise you after the Marian reform they were not running around with half-equipped legions. Before the people, usually Consuls, who raised legions raised the money to buy all the equipment to meet the Republican standard.

The Romans in this time raised and equipped Legions for warfare sometimes in a matter of weeks.

Until the Marian Reform, Legionaires had to supply their own arms and own 3500 seterces in property and be of a certain level of citizenship status. After the reform, the State provided them. From the wiki:


Because these poor citizens could not afford to purchase their own weapons and armour, Marius arranged for the state to supply them with arms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_reforms#Marian_reforms

G

[Incanur]

Although others may disagree, it would be nice if we could find a period commentator on the subject that held an opposing view point. Smythe's book is available, and can be viewed on google-books in preview mode. So maybe some digging in there will find an opposing view?

Smythe wrote that no wearable armor could resist the musket. I don't know if he gave any ranges. His complaints center on accuracy rather than penetrative power.

[fusilier]

When you signed up for a 16 year enlistment and desertion is punishable by death, it is possible to give you an advance on your pay to buy your gear.

While, I don't know if this was the case during the Roman period, other armies would sometimes charge the men for their gear, and then dock their pay. I know this was done much later, especially when pay was in arrears. It seems that it was common to simply assign a certain amount of money per soldier, per month. After equipment and provisions were purchased, whatever was left over was given to the soldier as his pay. Again, I don't know if this is how the Roman Army operated.

[fusilier]

Smythe wrote that no wearable armor could resist the musket. I don't know if he gave any ranges. His complaints center on accuracy rather than penetrative power.

Was Smythe a proponent of the longbow for this reason? I seem to remember hearing something about that . . .

[Incanur]

Was Smythe a proponent of the longbow for this reason? I seem to remember hearing something about that . . .

Yeah, Smythe favored the longbow, though he still wanted a few guns around. Interestingly, he made no claim that arrows could pierce plate armor, only mail. When he wrote about bows spoiling a cavalry charge, he specifically mentioned arrows striking disarmed parts. Every sixteenth-century author I've read acknowledged guns penetrate much better than bows and rejected the idea of arrows piercing good harness. (Fourquevaux wrote that a close-range barrage of arrows and/or bolts might overwhelm lower-quality armor.)

[Yora]

I have a question very unlike those we usually have:

On a nuclear powered naval vessel, how much of the development, construction, and maintanance costs are roughly taken up by the power plant alone?

In science fiction, lots of writers seem to love those super-massive giant ships, but with the automatization of machines, computer-assitance for about everything, and a shift to preccision weapons instead of lots of huge guns, navies no longer use battleships or cruisers and instead focus on much smaller ships.
The only reason to build very large ships instead of several smaller ones would be the costs for the power plant. When limiting the number of reactors is crucial, it could be more efficent to put more ship on every unit. It's of course entirely speculative, but I think nuclear reactors for aircraft carrriers and submaries would be the best available compairison.

[J.Gellert]

I have a question very unlike those we usually have:

On a nuclear powered naval vessel, how much of the development, construction, and maintanance costs are roughly taken up by the power plant alone?

In science fiction, lots of writers seem to love those super-massive giant ships, but with the automatization of machines, computer-assitance for about everything, and a shift to preccision weapons instead of lots of huge guns, navies no longer use battleships or cruisers and instead focus on much smaller ships.
The only reason to build very large ships instead of several smaller ones would be the costs for the power plant. When limiting the number of reactors is crucial, it could be more efficent to put more ship on every unit. It's of course entirely speculative, but I think nuclear reactors for aircraft carrriers and submaries would be the best available compairison.

Wikipedia informed me earlier today (on an unrelated search, but since I have it fresh...) that smaller aircraft carriers are better tactically, but larger are more cost-efficient. No mention whether it's about the crew or the plant.

But even if you automate everything, doesn't that (the various systems) also require large maintenance costs? Besides, you are paying less commanders - I wouldn't underestimate that expense.

But the reactors sound like they would be a biggie... Especially if said vessel has more than one (any many ships today do have a couple, so in the future they might have more).

Edit:

Also...

This process [decomissioning] will first take place on Nimitz and is estimated to cost from US$750 to $900 million. This compares with an estimate of US$53 million for a conventionally powered carrier. Most of the difference in costs is due to the deactivation of the nuclear power plants and safe removal of radioactive material and other contaminated equipment
:smalleek:

[Thiel]

Wikipedia informed me earlier today (on an unrelated search, but since I have it fresh...) that smaller aircraft carriers are better tactically, but larger are more cost-efficient. No mention whether it's about the crew or the plant.
Yes and no. Two small carriers will let you be in two places at once, but a larger carrier will allow you to do more in the one place you are.


But even if you automate everything, doesn't that (the various systems) also require large maintenance costs?
They do, but they'll require less maintenance than two ships half the size with an equal level of automatio.


Besides, you are paying less commanders - I wouldn't underestimate that expense.
But you're paying for a whole lot more crew.


But the reactors sound like they would be a biggie... Especially if said vessel has more than one (any many ships today do have a couple, so in the future they might have more).
Not really. Enterprise has 8 A2W reactors. The Gerald R. Ford has two A1Bs

[Yora]

I found a site that claimed that up to 1991, the US payed 46 billion dollar on nuclear submarine reactors, and 220 billion on the rest of the nuclear submarines, design, construction, maintenance, and decommission included. That would be about 20% of the total cost.
I think when I studied economics five years ago, I learned a formula to calculate optimum unit numbers. :smallbiggrin:

Also, I think decommision would not be a great factor for spaceship reactors. Just take them out and push them into the direction of the nearest star.

[Thiel]

I found a site that claimed that up to 1991, the US payed 46 billion dollar on nuclear submarine reactors, and 220 billion on the rest of the nuclear submarines, design, construction, maintenance, and decommission included. That would be about 20% of the total cost.
I think when I studied economics five years ago, I learned a formula to calculate optimum unit numbers. :smallbiggrin:

Also, I think decommision would not be a great factor for spaceship reactors. Just take them out and push them into the direction of the nearest star.

Which site is that?

[J.Gellert]

Yes and no. Two small carriers will let you be in two places at once, but a larger carrier will allow you to do more in the one place you are.
You can move your two ships on the same spot if you must, and you don't lose your entire force if something happens to one of them.


They do, but they'll require less maintenance than two ships half the size with an equal level of automatio.
Exactly why a larger ship should be more cost-effective.


But you're paying for a whole lot more crew.
Are you? If all your aircraft are on the same ship, how many extra technicians do you really need? How many people to handle supplies? Two smaller ships won't be exactly half the size of the big one, either, as a ship with 50% size will have greatly inferior firepower/cargo capacity.


Not really. Enterprise has 8 A2W reactors. The Gerald R. Ford has two A1Bs
The Enterprise is the only one to have more than two. Anything (American) newer than it has 2.

[Maclav]

Paul Chen Practicals are not bad, all considered. But compared to an Albion they feel like a poorly balanced hunk of sword shaped steel. My Albions are light, mobile, nimble and preform very much like I think a sword should.


You own an Albion. Awesome.

I use Paul Chen Practicals for most of my work. Do you have experience with this weapon? Could you compare it to an Albion?

I ask because I've got an Albion or 3 on my wish list, but I haven't actually spoke with anyone who owns one.

EDIT-Yes, I am aware that Paul Chen stuff isn't all that and a bag of chips. Feel free to be as... critical... as you wish in your comparison. Words such as Garbage are perfectly fine for example.

[Thiel]

You can move your two ships on the same spot if you must, and you don't lose your entire force if something happens to one of them.
A single large carrier will carry more fuel, stores and aircraft than two smaller ships of equal displacement



Exactly why a larger ship should be more cost-effective.
WHich is what I said.



Are you? If all your aircraft are on the same ship, how many extra technicians do you really need? How many people to handle supplies? Two smaller ships won't be exactly half the size of the big one, either, as a ship with 50% size will have greatly inferior firepower/cargo capacity.
I think we're taking past each other here, or maybe I misread before.
Anyway, I agree with you.



The Enterprise is the only one to have more than two. Anything (American) newer than it has 2.
That was sorta the point. Modern reactors uses fewer, but more powerful, reactors, so since the cost of decommissioning one is related to the amount of material and not its power output, decommissioning represents a smaller part of the overall cost than it used to.

[Karoht]

Paul Chen Practicals are not bad, all considered. But compared to an Albion they feel like a poorly balanced hunk of sword shaped steel. My Albions are light, mobile, nimble and preform very much like I think a sword should.That settles it. I'm purchasing an Albion at my nearest convenience.

[J.Gellert]

I think we're taking past each other here, or maybe I misread before.
Anyway, I agree with you.

We are just agreeing, yup :smallbiggrin:

[randomhero00]

Did swords (any kind any time) ever cleave/cut through metal armor? Not just dent but go through?

[endoperez]

Hi there fellow playgrounders! I come bearing a mixed bad of weird weapons. I'm not sure which of them are historical, if any. I suggest anyone interested in bladed weapons to look through the lists - if nothing else, they're worth a laugh!


I found a site (http://www.kenfuderyu.co.za/Chinese%20Martial%20Art%20Weapons.htm) listing lots of Chinese weapons, with some very weird ones thrown in. However, most weapons had a photo, and almost all had a transliteration on Latin alphabet next to the translated name. This allowed me to easily verify the existence of the weapon by searching for, e.g. "she jian". While doing this, I noticed some peculiar things. First, the site's images seem to be cropped images from the producer's (http://www.youliang.com.cn/product/class/?0.html&page=8&showtj=&showhot=&key=) (Dingzhou BO-AO wushu equipments mastery) page, and the Google results tended to be either from various shops, or if they weren't, like in this thread (http://www.dardunah.com/forum/thread.php?postid=557), the images were still from a shop's site. It seems somewhat shady, especially since some of these weapons are so ridiculous. And by ridiculous, I mean out of D&D's Exotic Weapons list ridiculous. Tonfas with sharp edge sticking out to every possible direction?

Mostly, I'm interested to know if anyone could dig up any info about the "double-weapons".
http://www.wle.com//products/w080a.html
http://www.wle.com//products/w080.html

There's also a so-called "water-parting shield" or "half-moon sword", which might be written in Chinese as 分水擋.
http://www.wle.com//products/W341.html
http://www.fslongsheng.com/data/2010/f/www.fs100303.com/db_pictures/201006/24/1277379472058450.jpg
http://www.youliang.com.cn/product/html/images/1205999156.jpg

So, all made up, or could some of these be actual weapons intended for battle?


P.S.
I hope no one even considers buying anything from these shops. Some of these weapons probably are made up, so who knows if any of them are fit for anything except decoration.

[Karoht]

Did swords (any kind any time) ever cleave/cut through metal armor? Not just dent but go through?
Military Pick, it went through decently well. Some axes, some warhammers, spears, they could puncture through from time to time.

Cut, as in cut a rend in the armor? My money is on an axe.
Sword 'slicing' the armor like in movies? Not metal it won't. I could see leather being cut, even some of the harder types of leather out there. But metal armor? Chain-No. Plate-Heck No.
Not unless that metal armor is made of the wrong kind of metal. IE-24 ct gold armor (heck, lead would be better than gold) VS Damascus Steel Sword. And even then...

[fusilier]

Firearms vs. Armor

So I ran across a very interesting paper on the subject, if you can find it, it might be worth a read:

Sylvia Leever, "For Show or Safety", Arms and Armour, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2006

It wasn't easy for me to find a copy of it (it was an electronic copy, and I couldn't resize the .pdf file, so some parts were hard to read). However, Leever, performed destructive testing on two original 17th century breastplates (I believe they dated to the 30 years war period).

The breastplates were tested by setting up a 16mm barrel (.62 caliber), and firing at close range. The amount of powder with each shot was varied, to produce different impact speeds. The shot was also fired at different locations as apparently the metal's thickness varied. In this manner Leever was able to gather information about how much energy was needed to pierce what thickness of armor.

From this data, she seemed to be developing a model to determine the effectiveness of period armor, without performing destructive testing. Now, at one point, she mentioned thickness and hardness as being the two main factors. But all of her graphs and data reports only mentioned a "critical thickness". The two breastplates had the same level of hardness, so perhaps she was able to omit hardness, leaving thickness as the only variable? Also the breastplates were nearly pure iron (actually, I was surprised by how pure they were). At any rate, if her model is applicable, then the hardness and thickness of a piece of armor can be measured, then it's resistance can be determined.

At this point she turns to the work of P. Krenn:

Krenn, P 1989 Von alien Handfeuerwaffen: Eniwicklung, Technik, Leistung; Sondemausstellung im Landeszeughaus. May-October. Austria, Graz Armoury

Krenn, P 1991 Test-firing selected 16th-18th century weapons. Military Illustrated 33 February

I have not been able to find a copy of his work.

Krenn apparently tested original weapons, furthermore he did something very useful: he measured not only the muzzle velocity, but also projectile velocity at 30 meters and 100 meters! However, he only tested about 14 weapons total, and Leever reported on only the 17th century ones. Only the ones from the very end of the 17th century (circa 1700) were muskets, the others were small caliber and shorter barreled weapons (most likely hunting weapons, or carbines of some sort). Anyway, this leads Leever to the conclusion that weapons became *more* powerful over the course of the 17th century -- which I believe is erroneous, and the result of using too small a sample.

Leever also claims that Krenn was using modern powder, and so his data is probably a bit better than was achieved historically. However, without having read Krenn, there's no way to know if he adjusted his powder loads for this fact, or if he avoided full loads, to prevent blowing up centuries old museum pieces!

Nonetheless Leever, is able to plot the data from each weapon, to show the "critical thickness" at different ranges.

The most powerful weapon is a circa 1700 musket, but it's only a 17.8mm weapon (.70 caliber), so it's probably more like a circa 1600 caliver, then a musket of that period. I think the critical armor thickness was calculated to be around 4mm at 100m -- please forgive me for not being more precise. It's very awkward for me to access the paper, so I don't have it in front of me, and it was difficult to read that plot.

If you can understand the equations, maybe some conclusions can be generated from known surviving examples of armor?

[Eldan]

Hi there fellow playgrounders! I come bearing a mixed bad of weird weapons. I'm not sure which of them are historical, if any. I suggest anyone interested in bladed weapons to look through the lists - if nothing else, they're worth a laugh!


I found a site (http://www.kenfuderyu.co.za/Chinese%20Martial%20Art%20Weapons.htm) listing lots of Chinese weapons, with some very weird ones thrown in. However, most weapons had a photo, and almost all had a transliteration on Latin alphabet next to the translated name. This allowed me to easily verify the existence of the weapon by searching for, e.g. "she jian". While doing this, I noticed some peculiar things. First, the site's images seem to be cropped images from the producer's (http://www.youliang.com.cn/product/class/?0.html&page=8&showtj=&showhot=&key=) (Dingzhou BO-AO wushu equipments mastery) page, and the Google results tended to be either from various shops, or if they weren't, like in this thread (http://www.dardunah.com/forum/thread.php?postid=557), the images were still from a shop's site. It seems somewhat shady, especially since some of these weapons are so ridiculous. And by ridiculous, I mean out of D&D's Exotic Weapons list ridiculous. Tonfas with sharp edge sticking out to every possible direction?

Mostly, I'm interested to know if anyone could dig up any info about the "double-weapons".
http://www.wle.com//products/w080a.html
http://www.wle.com//products/w080.html

There's also a so-called "water-parting shield" or "half-moon sword", which might be written in Chinese as 分水擋.
http://www.wle.com//products/W341.html
http://www.fslongsheng.com/data/2010/f/www.fs100303.com/db_pictures/201006/24/1277379472058450.jpg
http://www.youliang.com.cn/product/html/images/1205999156.jpg

So, all made up, or could some of these be actual weapons intended for battle?


P.S.
I hope no one even considers buying anything from these shops. Some of these weapons probably are made up, so who knows if any of them are fit for anything except decoration.

I think I've actually seen youtube videos involving some of those you linked there in Katas. Do a search for that, I'd say.

[Incanur]

A steel blade can cut steel under the right circumstances (http://www.shinkendo.com/kabuto.html). This sort of thing probably happened every once in a while on the battlefield, particularly with mounted swordsmen involved.

[GraaEminense]

I think I've actually seen youtube videos involving some of those you linked there in Katas. Do a search for that, I'd say.
So have I -actually I think I found the link in this or the previous thread? Perhaps the Fantasy weapons thread?- but I can't seem to find them. Some Great Master or other showing off katas with one of the two-swords-onna-stick. I think the video actually gave him credit for inventing he sun-moon-sword, though I may recall incorrectly.

That said, I know precious little about Eastern weaponry but enough to know that these things may very well be "real" and used in katas and the like. As weapons for war they are pretty useless, requiring too controlled grips and motions to be flexible in combat. A polearm you can't slide your hands down the shaft of or a longsword with a 50cm pole sticking out of the pommel -the two nearest analogies I can come up with- are not exactly ideal. The Water Parting Shield is a little better, but still inferior to a sword.

I have no trouble picturing seemingly-impressive katas and techniques with these things, but most things that seem exotic are so for a reason.

[J.Gellert]

A steel blade can cut steel under the right circumstances (http://www.shinkendo.com/kabuto.html). This sort of thing probably happened every once in a while on the battlefield, particularly with mounted swordsmen involved.

I imagine a broadsword (chopping) would fare even better, more similar to an axe. The main problem, in battle, would be hitting the plate at the correct angle and with enough force, at the same time.

But then there's steel, and there's steel...

[Eldan]

I have no trouble picturing seemingly-impressive katas and techniques with these things, but most things that seem exotic are so for a reason.

Good point. So, we can probably put these down to "real, but probably a bit silly".

[J.Gellert]

Quick Question: Is it true that curved swords/scimitars/sabers are more suitable for cavalry, and if yes, why is that?

And theoretically, would the khopesh, used before traditional cavalry ever existed, make a good horseman's sword?
*Cough* I'm asking because of Game of Thrones *cough*

[Matthew]

Quick Question: Is it true that curved swords/scimitars/sabers are more suitable for cavalry, and if yes, why is that?

And theoretically, would the khopesh, used before traditional cavalry ever existed, make a good horseman's sword?
*Cough* I'm asking because of Game of Thrones *cough*

It is an unresolved debate stretching back as far as Xenephon at least. A curve bladed sword is slightly more efficient at delivering chops and cuts than a straight bladed sword, which are blows more likely to be delivered from horseback against footmen, for instance. Generally speaking, though, the advantages and disadvantages between those blade forms are so marginal that it is almost irrelevant. There are many other structural considerations between different individual swords, and the curve of the blade is just one of them.

I have no idea whether the khopesh would make a good horseman's sword, but it is worth noting that a wide variety of weaponry was employed from the saddle, axes, maces, picks, etcetera.

[GraaEminense]

The khopesh was only about half a metre long, making it quite short for a cavalry sword -you'd have to get very close. The design could probably work if the weapon was lengthened with improved material availability and metallurgy, but it lacks the agility of a proper sword or impact of a mace or axe. Workable but suboptimal is my estimate.

It is a strange design for a weapon even for infantry, I have serious trouble understanding why it was considered as good as it obviously was, longevity and spread considered.

[randomhero00]

The khopesh was only about half a metre long, making it quite short for a cavalry sword -you'd have to get very close. The design could probably work if the weapon was lengthened with improved material availability and metallurgy, but it lacks the agility of a proper sword or impact of a mace or axe. Workable but suboptimal is my estimate.

It is a strange design for a weapon even for infantry, I have serious trouble understanding why it was considered as good as it obviously was, longevity and spread considered.

This one I think I can answer. First in melee you don't have enough room to be fancy/agile. With a shield you preferred to be close anyway. The shape made slashing much more effective. And using it backward could be used to pull down shields. They weren't facing heavily enough armored soldiers to require anything with more power. Hence why it was used for so long...it simply worked for their needs, why fix it? It didn't cost much in the way of resources and made heavy infantry lighter. Always a good thing when you need to run.

PS one other thing, it also made swinging around your own shield easier as the blade sort of "sticks out" more.

PPS No, the khopesh wouldn't be a great horsemen's weapon. Too light, and too short.

[Galloglaich]

Curved outward (by far the most common for cavalry swords) enhances a slicing type of cut which is the best type of attack against bare flesh, and also makes the sword much easier to hold onto when cutting. I.e. "weapon retention. Cutting from a horse at close to full-speed roughly doubles the speed of the sword which makes for a nice cut but is rather jarring on your hand.

The classic 'pure' example of this type of saber are the Chinese Dao and the Central-Asian /Ukranian Shashka

http://www.tsarsarsenal.com/long_w/shashka_w_strap/shashka_w_strap_gal.jpg

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

This is also why sabers typically have canted (curved) grips, to make it easier to hold on to from horseback, and also the reason for certain odd -looking types of pommels. Almost every single-handed outwardly curved sword in the world is a cavalry sword, as well as some two-handed types including the Katana. Most larger two-handed curved swords are infantry swords.

In-ward curving swords have almost the opposite purpose, they are much betteer for axe-like chopping and can hack off limbs and heads, but delver a more jarring impact. Most of these like the Kukri or the Falcata are infantry weapons and tended to be somewhat specialized, but there were some examples used from horseback, notably the Turkish Yataghan

http://www.arscives.com/vevans/images/4.7-Turkish-Yataghan.jpg

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

Notice the really wierd looking 'earred' pommel, that is to hold on to the beast when cutting from horseback.

This is also why cavalry usually used light rather than heavy maces and typically had a wrist-thong on them to help hold on after a ride-by strike.

G.

[bansidhe]

In the Medieval period,how many languages did your average grunt speak?,not fluently,just enough too get by with.[like me on a long holiday or working abroad again]

Say an English archer,english...bit of french...bit of spanish?...what if he had been on crusade and such though,or was an archer on a ship?

Im hoping too make a campaign for Ars Magica,using Mary Gentles ,"Ash"as inspiration[it will take years and probably never be played,but I love the game and the book,if you get a chance read it!(was in four parts in America I understand)Fascinating stuff]

And im really puzzled by how many languages a journey across europe too ,say ,Jerusalem would this entail,was there a "common" trade lang. would you just learn a little and hire translators?

[fusilier]

I would say that languages were far less homogeneous during the Medieval period. So French, isn't quite the same as Norman.

I know from a little bit of study of Italian languages, that several different languages *converged* towards Italian, rather than Italian breaking into several different dialects. Even classifying languages can be difficult -- Did a Roman in AD1000 speak Latin or Italian? I know a Sicilian would have spoken "Greek" but it was different from Byzantine Greek . . .

While this really isn't supposed to be about rules, GURPS world books typically do a good job at explaining languages. Also they point out similar languages and provide familiarity penalties. (For example Provencal may be at a -2 to Norman).

For a soldier, I would suspect it depends upon how well travelled he was, how many different languages he would have been exposed to, and his aptitude for learning new languages. However, just because you operated in foreign lands, wouldn't necessarily mean that you learned foreign languages.

People who live in borderlands, and/or conduct regular trade with foreigners may learn more languages. In the 18th century the Iroquois were known for their ability to understand several languages.

[Yora]

I can only make some not very highly educated gueses here. But I think the number of languages reasonably well known would vary all over the place for different people.
Getting any formal language lessons would be accesible only to a very tiny minority of nobles and rich merchants. For other people, it would likely have to be being constantly exposed to another language and frequently dealing with people who spoke that language. When you're actually forced to learn a language through conversation, it's a lot faster than what you usually get in language lessons these days. I've seen children learning languages in days by playing with other children to a point where they soon were on the same level as the native kids and from that point developed more complex speech just like them. But under ideal conditions, I'd say even an adult could become quite fluent in a new language within weeks, let's say two to four months.
However, you'd really have to practice almost every day. When you just keep talking to your fellow nationals and only one of your group does all the talking with the locals, you won't learn anything at all.

It would really depend a lot on how homogenous your community was. If you lived in a village and only got to town every few months to load off your grain at a local merchant, you'd most likely end up knowing only the local language and never anything else. Which I think for a very long time applied for most people in europe.
But there still was a great deal of migration, and unlike what happens today, quite often entire communities were relocated instead of individuals. So take something like the 30 years war, and I think there would be quite a lot of places where people speaking completely different languages were living very close together and had to learn to get along.

So I would say, and this is really just a guess, that most people would have been fluent in only one single language. However, people from very mixed reagions and especially people who would be able to afford formal education, would easily know three or four, if not even more. How much of the total population they would be? I don't know. Maybe 20% or so?
And then you have sailors and long distance traders, I'm pretty sure those would be able to have basic conversation in three languages and more. The more people from other places you meet, the higher the need to learn other languages, and the higher the possibility of doing so.

[Joran]

Yes and no. Two small carriers will let you be in two places at once, but a larger carrier will allow you to do more in the one place you are.


And for carriers, a supercarrier, like the Nimitz class, has a larger flight deck, allowing the carrier to launch fighter jets like the F/A-18 Super Hornet versus a STOL plane like the Harrier.

Of course, this limitation doesn't apply to space, but you can make a similar case with a larger ship being able to mount a larger weapon (e.g. a longer railgun). So, it's possible for a larger ship to have more advanced capability than two ships half the size.

[a_humble_lich]

It will also depend a lot on the languages that are being talked about. As fusilier mentioned many modern languages were really only unified after the creation of the nation state. I heard it said, that before Italy was unified, Italians from the north and south couldn't really understand each other. So if you consider a sailor from the Western Mediterranean they could easily "know" Castilian, Aragonese, Catalan, Portuguese, Sicilian, and Venetian. For your Eastern Mediterranean sailor, learning Greek, Venetian, Arabic, Bulgarian, and Turkish would be much more difficult.

[Galloglaich]

A couple of helpful facts.

1) It's really important to remember, Medieval Europe was not just divided up between nobles and serfs. There was the Church at many different social levels from poor monks to princely Archbishops and Cardinals, the Gentry, free peasants, and perhaps most relevant there were many trading towns as well, including almost every major European city that you have heard of which is still around today. Citizens of towns (burghers) would often travel and did business with visitors from other towns sometimes from very far away.

Towns often had long term trade relationships with other distant cities. For example Danzig which had a mostly German population had strong trade links with towns in Scotland, Holland, Sweden and Spain, and citizens from those other regions (they weren't really countries yet per se) had "factories" or little outposts in Danzig, and Danzig citizens also lived overseas for long periods. This was common all over Europe. The weaving industries of Bruges and Antwerp couldn't exist without Scottish and English wool. Denmark couldn't sell fish without salt from Luneburg (in Germany). So anyone involved in trade or in the Guilds was likely to have at least some foreign language skills.

2) Most medieval cities actually did have schools for kids up to about 12 years old. Danzig had several going back to the 12th Century. Not just for rich kids, but for the artisans as well. They also had church schools in most of the more established villages. They would typically be taught some basic arithmetic, to read and write and their catechism. Literacy was not as low as people assume, in Northern Italy by the late Medieval period the literacy rate was close to 50%.

3) In many if not most parts of Europe, more than one language or dialect overlapped. I just finished writing a book about Medieval Prussia, most of the cities and smaller towns there were bilingual, almost all citizens spoke both German and Polish and most even had both German and Polish versions of their names. In the countryside it could be more like what Yora said, in Prussia most of the people were of an ethnic group called Kashubians and only spoke their own Kashubian dialect (similar to Polish).

4) In the West, Latin was used as an international language for the educated elite, including virtually all Churchmen and most of the higher levels of the Aristocracy, and many of their servants, soldiers and ministeriales. This was how people from many cultures could communicate, so a Spanish envoy to Krakow who spoke no Polish could address the Polish court in Latin. In Catholic Eastern Europe German was also a very common trade language and almost everyone knew some German. In the Eastern Orthodox zone (i.e. Russia, Ukraine and parts of what are now the Balkans) Greek was a universal trade language.

G.

[Xuc Xac]

Mostly, I'm interested to know if anyone could dig up any info about the "double-weapons".
http://www.wle.com//products/w080a.html
http://www.wle.com//products/w080.html

So, all made up, or could some of these be actual weapons intended for battle?


They're real and they are intended for fighting, but not for battle. Soldiers wouldn't have used them, because they are awkward and complex to use. But not everyone was a soldier. There are many reasons to use these weapons, but military efficiency wasn't one of them.


They don't look like weapons. When you want to assassinate someone and need to get a weapon past the bodyguards, this is a useful feature for a weapon. Or if you're a peasant and the soldiery is going around confiscating swords, spears, and halberds, it can be useful to be armed with something that just looks like an agricultural tool (like a rake or pruning hook) or some other domestic implement.
They require specific techniques to use properly. In a real fight, they will limit your options. However, they are very useful for training because they force you to focus on those techniques that you might ignore while practicing a more versatile weapon. One sifu I knew described it this way: "Will you ever use this in a real fight? No, but it teaches you to move in a kung fu way. In a real fight, you use whatever works, but you won't have to think about what to do or how to do it when you automatically move in a kung fu way."
They look really weird. When you fight a guy with a spear, you know what to expect. When you fight a guy with a "Seven Star Plum Flower Spear" or some other exotic thing, you don't know what he's going to do with it. If your enemy can't anticipate your attacks, you have an edge. I like the iron flute for that reason: not only does it not look like a weapon (so you can carry it around with no problems), but no one knows how it's used. Everyone expects it to be swung like a club, but it isn't so their defenses aren't ready for it.
They're symbolic. Some of these weapons are designed to be symbolic of an organization or philosophy. They're only used in training to physically demonstrate a point of abstract philosophy or to mark their carrier as someone special. The "zen stick" isn't meant to be a better weapon than a regular stick, but carrying one signals that you're a monk. Carrying a plain staff will give you something to use to fight off bandits who want to rob you, but carrying a monk's staff might result in the bandits not attacking you in the first place because they think it's bad luck to hurt a monk (or monks just don't have anything to steal).

[endoperez]

Thank you all, especially Xuc Xac. Your reply explains many of the things that made me wonder at their use.

Here's (http://youtu.be/K-UVcI_uaxI) a video of one of the earlier double-weapons used in form practice. The video description says it was custom-made, but not if it's a custom design or not.


Could anyone find me a picture, painting or a tapestry which shows someone holding a warhammer? It could be of European design, something the Indian Zaghnal, or generally any weapon with a pick-like spike that isn't a polearm. I'm wondering at how big those things are, and while I've been able to find lots of great pictures of the weapons themselves, without the context of someone holding them I can't even tell if they were one-handed or not.

[Storm Bringer]

Could anyone find me a picture, painting or a tapestry which shows someone holding a warhammer?

not a photo, but i think it's a pretty good pic, and it gives you an idea (http://civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/P025_Knights.jpg)


watching that vid you posted, i;ve seen some of those moves before, particulally the upwards slice with the little step at 0:36-0:39, done with a Jian, in another you tube vid. I think that strengthens the "useful training tool, not a battlefield weapon" arguement, as the Jian was used on the battlefield, but was more a officers "dress" sword, and more useful in unarmed combat.

[Spiryt]

Could anyone find me a picture, painting or a tapestry which shows someone holding a warhammer? It could be of European design, something the Indian Zaghnal, or generally any weapon with a pick-like spike that isn't a polearm. I'm wondering at how big those things are, and while I've been able to find lots of great pictures of the weapons themselves, without the context of someone holding them I can't even tell if they were one-handed or not.

That's a bit.... around way about it, quite a lot of originals stats can be found out there:

Wallace colection (http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMuseumPlus;jsessionid=8D7D471031D6A5B3AB21DDFE32C E045E.node1?service=direct/1/ResultLightboxView/result.t1.collection_lightbox.$TspTitleImageLink.l ink&sp=10&sp=Scollection&sp=SfieldValue&sp=0&sp=0&sp=2&sp=Slightbox_3x4&sp=0&sp=Sdetail&sp=0&sp=F&sp=T&sp=2)

There are 2 more after typing "hammer" in search, a bit ornate ones though.

Here's another that looks practical (http://www.muzeumwp.pl/emwpaedia/nadziak.php), although polish stuff was generally more "pick" thn "hammer".

Here's very detailed description (http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_higgins_pole.html) - wood had been most probably cut at some point, but it probably haven't reached 'polearm' size anyway. It's a 'polleaxe' by name, ut have hammer and spike ends just right.

Generally, from my humble observations two handed ones that weren't on more lengthy side were rather rare. I have seen one around 130 cm in some castle in Austria, I can recall castles name given some time, I think. :smalltongue:

Anyway, sizes obviously varied greatly, but 'classical' one handed ones were generally pretty short and compact - < 60 cm.

[fusilier]

2) Most medieval cities actually did have schools for kids up to about 12 years old. Danzig had several going back to the 12th Century. Not just for rich kids, but for the artisans as well. They also had church schools in most of the more established villages. They would typically be taught some basic arithmetic, to read and write and their catechism. Literacy was not as low as people assume, in Northern Italy by the late Medieval period the literacy rate was close to 50%.

I think this is one of those debated subjects, but the consensus is that more people were literate than originally thought. A literacy rate of 50% sounds a bit high to me, but by the 1500s it may be true in some of the cities -- and among men. Women and country dwellers tended to have lower literacy rates. (Although, again, not as low as one might think.) One of the ways they attempt to establish literacy rates is to look at the number of people capable of signing their own name. Which is potentially flawed.

William Eamon addresses this subject in his Science and the secrets of nature: books of secrets in medieval and early modern culture -- which I had borrowed a few months ago, so once again I don't have the relevant information at hand. :-(

He does point out that being familiar with books and being literate were two different things. Books being expensive (even after the introduction of the printing press), many people couldn't afford them. Even those that could often had very small libraries (often less than 10 books). Borrowing was one way of being able to read more books, but also books could be read to groups -- so even the illiterate could have some familiarity with the printed word.

[fusilier]

Fire Tube/Trump

Reading the Siege of Malta 1565, Balbi mentions a repulse of an attack on Fort St. Elmo, where the Knights managed to drive the Turks off the cavalier (a detached tower-like reinforcement). At one point a Knight is witnessed to use a "fire tube" to attack the Turks, although the translator calls it a "trump".

I'm trying to figure out what this fire tube would have been like. In Empires of Sea Crowley calls the weapon a "flamethrower" -- while Crowley's work is an enjoyable read, there's feeling that it has been exaggerated or perhaps suffers from hollywood-esque embellishment.

The description of the events indicates the weapon as a small enough to be wielded by a single person. This makes me wonder if "Trump" is a correct translation, as a trump seems to have required a bellows pump, which may indicate that it was crew served weapon. (This is from Medieval Sieges and Siegecraft, another definition is a fire-hoop, but I don't think that is what is meant in this case).

Fire tube is also an alternate name for a fire lance. Although almost everything I read about those is in relation to the Chinese, and usually contain a projectile of some sort. Again, the description doesn't seem to fit, although seems to get a little bit closer.

I imagine it is something like a large firework, based on gunpowder, but spraying fire/sparks from a hand-held tube. Any ideas or references that may describe it more clearly?

[Galloglaich]

Watch the whole video, it's informative check out 5:15 for example

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMzZ3CPgMrg

The Byzantines had a version of this they called Kierosphonta or something like that, I have a photo of one from a museum dating back to the 13th Century. There are records of these things being used in seiges in Europe as early as the 14th Century.

They are essentially early firearms which also have a secondary effect of creating a plume of fire or rocket exhaust as you can see in the video (especially toward the end) which apparently had a particularly useful role in siege warfare; they were on armoury records for cities in China well into the 16th Century, long after the advent of the Arquebus etc. In effect it's almost a little bit like a more primitive type of panzerfaust or bazooka, except instead of shooting a shaped -charge warhead, the weapon itself acts something like a low budget / low tech shaped-charge warhead going off.

I also really like the fireworks hoops they used at Malta, have you come across those yet?? Really diabolical.

G.

[fusilier]

Watch the whole video, it's informative check out 5:15 for example
. . .



Yeah, I've seen that video before and it is really cool! :-)

But I'm not so sure at this time they would have been using such a weapon. It may have been something similar, but with more fire/flame? I checked up the Spanish version and the term used is "tromba de fuego" (water-spout of fire?) -- which is interestingly close to the word "trump". It seems like "fire" is the primary use of the weapon in this case, and the use of projectiles may be a secondary one. In another instance, an Italian soldier, Pedro de Forli, attempts to set fire to a bridge using a "tromba de fuego".



I also really like the fireworks hoops they used at Malta, have you come across those yet?? Really diabolical.

G.

Yes! Other sources reported that the long robes of the Janissaries made them particularly vulnerable to fire hoops. The defenders liked to throw them over the walls, especially when the enemy was crowded into the ditch. There seems to have a been a large number of pyrotechnics employed during the siege.

[randomhero00]

This is also why cavalry usually used light rather than heavy maces and typically had a wrist-thong on them to help hold on after a ride-by strike.

G.

Called a lanyard.

[J.Gellert]

The Byzantines had a version of this they called Kierosphonta or something like that

Cheirosiphon (hand-siphon) is the hand-held pump for Greek Fire which, if the accounts are to be believed, must have been way more effective than this firework-thing :smalltongue:

[Galloglaich]

Yeah, I've seen that video before and it is really cool! :-)

But I'm not so sure at this time they would have been using such a weapon. It may have been something similar, but with more fire/flame? I checked up the Spanish version and the term used is "tromba de fuego" (water-spout of fire?) -- which is interestingly close to the word "trump". It seems like "fire" is the primary use of the weapon in this case, and the use of projectiles may be a secondary one. In another instance, an Italian soldier, Pedro de Forli, attempts to set fire to a bridge using a "tromba de fuego".

It's the same thing, and it's both projectile and flame effects, you just have to keep in mind that video is experimental archeology, on a sort of preliminary level. Try to imagine / extrapolate the same device a bit larger with a little bit faster burning powder (the video is meant to represent a 13th Century Chinese device)



Yes! Other sources reported that the long robes of the Janissaries made them particularly vulnerable to fire hoops. The defenders liked to throw them over the walls, especially when the enemy was crowded into the ditch. There seems to have a been a large number of pyrotechnics employed during the siege.

Yeah, that is brutal. I got a copy of that account you mentioned, looking forward to reading it.

G.

[Galloglaich]

Cheirosiphon (hand-siphon) is the hand-held pump for Greek Fire which, if the accounts are to be believed, must have been way more effective than this firework-thing :smalltongue:

Yes there are two different things though, Greek fire was more like a flame-thrower, but the fire-works thing worked too apparently, as more like a one-shot deal. I'm not sure if they were using the same name for both devices or maybe I got the name wrong, but the Byzantines also used this a version of this same Chinese firearm / 'firework' device.

G.

[a_humble_lich]

How effective were devices like the Cheirosiphon? I have heard a lot about Greek fire used as a naval weapon, but much less about its use for land combat.

[Galloglaich]

I think this is one of those debated subjects, but the consensus is that more people were literate than originally thought. A literacy rate of 50% sounds a bit high to me, but by the 1500s it may be true in some of the cities -- and among men. Women and country dwellers tended to have lower literacy rates. (Although, again, not as low as one might think.) One of the ways they attempt to establish literacy rates is to look at the number of people capable of signing their own name. Which is potentially flawed.

I don't know about all of Europe but in the 15th Century in northern Germany, Sweden and Bohemia from several academic articles I've read, girls were also educated at least to the 'grammar school' level and did read and write and had basic numeracy just like boys. There were at least three girls schools in medieval Danzig. This is probably not the case in some parts of Western Europe, but in the cities of Central Europe it appears to have been commonplace.

Women were also in the Guilds, there were some all-women Guilds, for example the Silk throwers and Silk Spinners Guild in Cologne. The butchers Guild in Cologne mandated equal pay for men and women members in their charter in 1396. Women were also involved in trade and female names show up on the charters of mercantile ship voyages (i.e. as investors) at a ratio of about 1/5 from the early Medieval period in towns like Genoa, Venice, and Bruges.

All this actually changed for the worse in the 16th Century after the reformation and counter-reformation..



He does point out that being familiar with books and being literate were two different things. Books being expensive (even after the introduction of the printing press), many people couldn't afford them. Even those that could often had very small libraries (often less than 10 books). Borrowing was one way of being able to read more books, but also books could be read to groups -- so even the illiterate could have some familiarity with the printed word.

Another relevant fact on this (on the flip side of that argument) they had an estimated 4,000 books available in public and private libraries in Danzig in the mid 15th Century. And Danzig wasn't even a University town. There were also pamphlets called 'incunables' which had become prolific by the second half of the 15th Century, from roughly 500 printed circa 1450 to over 9,000 in print (with hundreds of copies of each pamphlet in circulation) by 1481

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

But for most people literacy was a matter of day to day business, not for reading for education or pleasure, but just sending and receiving letters, writing down orders and making lists and little contracts etc.,

G.

[Galloglaich]

How effective were devices like the Cheirosiphon? I have heard a lot about Greek fire used as a naval weapon, but much less about its use for land combat.

Apparently quite effective. I think the Greek Fire (the flamethrower style) wasn't used as often in land because it was rather delicate and required an elaborate set up, whereas the little fire-bazookas were more portable and easy to use. But both types of weapons, plus all the strange fireworks devices like the hoop, were evidently of devastating efficacy. The Arabs and Greeks also used a lot of what we would now think of as molatov cocktails and incendiary grenades, going back to the 10th Century or earlier.

Some fun photos:

Byzantine incendiary weapon (supposed to be a kierosophonta) in use on land from a siege tower, from a 10th Century Byzantine manuscript:

http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/6862/pyrforos6vl.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/Hand-siphon_for_Greek_fire%2C_medieval_illumination.jpg/200px-Hand-siphon_for_Greek_fire%2C_medieval_illumination.jpg

Byzantine hand-grandes (greek fire)

http://www.artemission.com/pics/b105/4511ab0.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wgmuAZYk-ww/TTiPsnYtjqI/AAAAAAAAA88/kXaDzJ6xpxc/s1600/DSC02353.JPG

http://rpmedia.ask.com/ts?u=/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Liquid_fire_granades_Chania.jpg/120px-Liquid_fire_granades_Chania.jpg

Kierosphonta from the 16th Century, Arab

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/563/cheirosifon163uo.jpg

Modern reproduction
http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/4843/xeirosifon10aionas36ki.jpg

Greek fire in a naval context

http://neobyzantium.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Greek-Fire.jpg

G.

[J.Gellert]

Just don't call it kierosiphonta, it doesn't mean anything :smalltongue: It's cheirosiphon.

The Arab version of Greek Fire is in all probability a different incendiary, but the name kind of stuck.


A 12th-century treatise prepared by Mardi bin Ali al-Tarsusi for Saladin records an Arab version of Greek fire, called naft, which also had a petroleum base, with sulphur and various resins added. Any direct relation however with the Byzantine formula is very unlikely.

Finally, the grenades in the photo with the caltrops apparently come from Chania, Crete :smallsmile: The tag reads 10th, 12th century... We have a large byzantine museum where I live, but it's much more focused on art rather than war.

[Galloglaich]

I promise to use cheirosiphon from now on.

naft is probably 'naptha'. It's one of many different incendiary substances known from the early Medieval period, made from bitumen, pitch, quicklime, phosphorus and several other substances. I agree it's not the same as Greek fire which was a special formular known only to the Byzantines. The arabs had petroleum products even back then, and made use of them for fuel and for weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naphtha#Etymology

Crete was under the control of the Byzantines from the mid 10th until the early 13th Century, when it was captured by the Genonese and then the Venetians in the aftermath of the 4th Crusade.

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

This is a 12th Century account of Naptha used in battle, from Usamah Ibn Munqidh:

"One of the Turks climbed, under our very eyes, and started walking towards the tower, in the face of death, until he approached the tower and hurles a bottle of naptha on those who were on top of it. The naptha flashed like a meteor falling upon those hard stones, while the men who were there threw themselves on the ground for fear of being burnt. The Turk then came back to us."


G.

[fusilier]

But for most people literacy was a matter of day to day business, not for reading for education or pleasure, but just sending and receiving letters, writing down orders and making lists and little contracts etc.,

G.

Actually, this is something that Eamon gets into. In the early 16th century, there was a rise in Fechtbuche Kunstbuchlein, or trade manuals (books of secrets), due to increase labor demands and new employer-labor relationships which increasingly relied on semi-skilled labor. These manuals, Eamon argues, were cheap and prolific. Indeed, at one point he lists the costs of books by a bookseller at a German Fair and by far the most expensive was collection of fables! This reading material was still related to business, but was more than simple book-keeping/contract making.

[fusilier]

. . .
Kierosphonta from the 16th Century, Arab

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/563/cheirosifon163uo.jpg

Modern reproduction
http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/4843/xeirosifon10aionas36ki.jpg

. . .

G.

This may indeed be the tromba de fuego that Balbi was referring to, and the translator called a "trump". It looks as though it could be wielded by a single person.

[fusilier]

Yeah, that is brutal. I got a copy of that account you mentioned, looking forward to reading it.

G.

Balbi's account is the account. He was the only person there to leave us a detailed account of the events. There were others who came later (one with the relief force), but he was there for the entire siege.

The edition that I got (and most likely the edition that you have) has a few problems: the translator has taken some liberties, he's removed lists of knights that Balbi included, and has embellished Balbi's writing -- which is apparently very simple and used words repetitively. Also, as the work was done in the 1960s, the translator's introduction is harsh on Don Garcia, and his sketches (especially of St. Elmo), are . . . well . . . poorly done, and reflect a lack of understanding.

There is a slightly earlier translation (by a descendant of Balbi), that is a direct translation, and would probably be more useful in academic settings, if not quite so enjoyable to read. Of course, the original Spanish version is also available, if you can read Spanish.

I would like to see more from the Turkish perspective. My understanding is that more records from that time period have been discovered, so we should be able to assemble the opposing viewpoint.

[GraaEminense]

This may indeed be the tromba de fuego that Balbi was referring to, and the translator called a "trump". It looks as though it could be wielded by a single person.
The military history museum in Athens has a reproduction of a Byzantine (I think) flame thrower that looks much like these, except without the fuel tank. It looks like a slightly oversized old-fashioned hand-pumped garden spray with a lamp in the funnel. It's definitely a one-man weapon, probably one-shot as well.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS5BhcQsJhbD1WZcyZflKC0dJKBFwp2O FB8ZHsSuhI43TeN8-bj&t=1

Edit: Picture found, but I haven't found other sources for this exact design. While it looks plausible to me, I am also disinclined to accept any historical claims that may very well stem from the Junta era at face value.

[endoperez]

not a photo, but i think it's a pretty good pic, and it gives you an idea (http://civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/P025_Knights.jpg)

Thank you, that's exactly what I was looking for.


That's a bit.... around way about it, quite a lot of originals stats can be found out there.

I wasn't interested in the numbers, exactly, but in how big it would be in relation to the user. I've done a 3D model of a war hammer for a mod project, but got the scale wrong. I can now compare it to the character model and readjust it as needed. Thanks for the Wallerstein link though, that'll be useful for when I need more inspiration or references.

[J.Gellert]

The military history museum in Athens has a reproduction of a Byzantine (I think) flame thrower that looks much like these, except without the fuel tank. It looks like a slightly oversized old-fashioned hand-pumped garden spray with a lamp in the funnel. It's definitely a one-man weapon, probably one-shot as well.

(Pic)

Edit: Picture found, but I haven't found other sources for this exact design. While it looks plausible to me, I am also disinclined to accept any historical claims that may very well stem from the Junta era at face value.

In Thessaloniki, when I was little and went to the museum, they showed us a few suggested designs, similar to that, only with the fuel tank and a dragon's head on the front. Kind of like the design they chose for the game, Medieval 2 :smalltongue:

The guide also told us that there probably was a small fire burning in the dragon's "mouth" to ignite the fuel.

But as with every reconstruction, you can't really be sure unless you have a surviving item. And the siphons couldn't have been exactly common...

[Caustic Soda]

Does anyone here know how double-edged swords compare to single-edged swords? Since I have no experience with either smithing or sword-fighting myself, I have no real idea what difference it would make for forging or wielding a sword. AFAIK, sabers tended to be one-edged, and I know that seaxes were used by the Anglo-Saxon and other German peoples. What are the implications of a one-edged sword in terms of being forged, the properties of the blade, or how it is used?

I know my question is quite broad and apologize for that, but at this point I simply don't know enough to ask more specific questions.

[Galloglaich]

That is a very broad question indeed.

For a very broad answer (from which maybe you can drill down into more specific questions) single edged weapons are a bit easier to forge, and can be more easily made with lower grades of steel; a lot of times for early weapons like seaxes particulalry the 'spine' of the blade may be wrought iron while the edge is hardened steel. They also used thee same technique sometimes in forging axe-blades.

The main purpose of two edges is to use both edges for cutting, which is hard to explain unless you have some familiarity with fencing. Cutting with the false edge greatly increases the versatility of the weapon in a fight and the effective speed of the weapon in follow-up attacks. But to further complicate this, in Europe at least by the Medieval period and continuing up into the Early Modern Age, most single-edged swords were also made with a partial false-edge (i.e. the last third or quarter of the blade would be sharpened on both sides) so that they too would be capable of false-edge cuts.

The secondary reason for double edges is that it enhances the damage in a piercing wound somewhat.

G.

[Spiryt]

I don't think there's really great difference in forging, whether blade's on both sides or not, the whole blade can be more or less complicated, well or not designed etc.

As far as geometry goes, one edged swords obviously would tend to have some kind of spine instead of sharp edge - so thick part of blade more or less gradually tapering to an edge.

As far as wielding goes, you cannot obviously do false edge cutting if you have no false edge.

As far as "properties" go there's not much to say, as it's too broad indeed, 2 one edged or 2 two edged swords can be nothing alike apart from number of edges.

Although it obviously will, limit number of options a bit in most cases - you generally won't see one edged sword of rigid thick diamond section and pointy tip - as it would be kind of counterproductive.

[Eldan]

Question of interest, inspired by that one:

Are there any double-edged curved blades? Because I don't think I've ever heard of any.

[Spiryt]

Very many swords from around the space and time had false edge running far down the blade, and sometimes those edges were quite similar to 'main' ones, effectively making the tip kind of two edged, but I don't think I've ever saw truly two edged one.

Probably doesn't really make sense at all.

[Galloglaich]

Jambaiya dagger, looks lke a bent pugio

[Galloglaich]

Actually, this is something that Eamon gets into. In the early 16th century, there was a rise in Fechtbuche, or trade manuals (books of secrets), due to increase labor demands and new employer-labor relationships which increasingly relied on semi-skilled labor. These manuals, Eamon argues, were cheap and prolific. Indeed, at one point he lists the costs of books by a bookseller at a German Fair and by far the most expensive was collection of fables! This reading material was still related to business, but was more than simple book-keeping/contract making.

Fechtbucher were technically fencing manuals,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_arts_manual#German_Fechtb.C3.BCcher

though similar work-books were indeed used in many trades, and there was often a great deal of overlap. This went back to the early 15th Century of course. Several of the fechtbucher had all kinds of other stuff in them, alchemy, architecutre, military designs. For example the famous MS 3227a has chapters on making gunpowder, fireworks, toothpaste, paint, astrological charts, and magic potons in addition to fencing, wrestling, staff and knife fighting techniques.

http://www.wiktenauer.com/wiki/Codex_D%C3%B6bringer_(MS_3227a)

This makes the MS3227a technically a Hausbuch which were notebooks used by households, some famous ones associated with certain castles have survived today full of wonderful illustrations (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hausbuch_(Schloss_Wolfegg)&ei=ZjnyTZS9EZGUtwenlqjrAg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCQQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhausbuch%2Bwolfegg%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D 1899%26bih%3D994%26prmd%3Divns). And there were the so called books of hours, psalm books, and the Rules of religious orders and all kinds of other religious pamphlets (incunables) and etc. which many people made reference to on a daily basis.

G.

[Matthew]

The secondary reason for double edges is that it enhances the damage in a piercing wound somewhat.

Just occurred to me on a similar note that a thrust might go easier through textile armour if both edges are sharp.

[fusilier]

Fechtbucher were technically fencing manuals,
. . .

G.

Like I said, I didn't have the work in front of me. The term I was searching for was Kunstbuechlein (skills booklets) or Kunstbuecher.

[Galloglaich]

That means "art-book" which makes a bit more sense, though like I said there was considerable overlap with these types of books.

I'll check with some people I know who ought to know about this, it sounds interesting if the Guilds had a specific type of book they used to use.

G.

[Endon the White]

I'm not a DnD player, I'm just a fan of the comic. So I'm curious, what is a bastard sword? What are its advantages compared to a longsword or rapier? And why is it called such?

[Fhaolan]

I'm not a DnD player, I'm just a fan of the comic. So I'm curious, what is a bastard sword? What are its advantages compared to a longsword or rapier? And why is it called such?

Weapon terminology is a dark, deep hole that it's difficult to recover from. :smallsmile:

In D&D terms a bastard sword is a sword that is used two-handed normally, but is light enough that it can be used one-handed provided you have special training.

In reality, the term 'bastard sword' came from the French term 'epee batarde' which along with hand-and-a-half sword, spada longa, etc. are localized names applied to longsword variants. The term 'bastard' is being used in the older sense of being of unusual proportions. Bastard in this sense is also used in minerology (Bastard quartz being a solid crystal that is spherical instead of the more normal columnar).

Which brings up the point that 'longsword' was not a one-handed sword the way D&D depicts it. What D&D calls 'longsword' is more just 'sword' in RL.

[bansidhe]

Archers with Falchions seems an English cliche,I know some archers were "gentlemen archers" with their own little team of one or two archers,horses for riding and packs etc,is it given this prominece for being a symbolic blade,is for utility,as it seems the tip heavy blade could be good for stake cutting as well as fighting against armour,though a simple handaxe would surely be better?
And I have seen some truely beautiful examples of them,so, in a nutshell,why falchion?

[Eldan]

That means "art-book" which makes a bit more sense, though like I said there was considerable overlap with these types of books.
.

Note that in slightly out-dated German, "Kunst" can also mean trade, craft, profession, etc.

[fusilier]

Note that in slightly out-dated German, "Kunst" can also mean trade, craft, profession, etc.

Thanks. Art can mean imply something similar in English as well, especially in older language. Or even in modern English (e.g. artful -- clever or skillful).

The Kunstbuchlein were more than workshop notebooks -- although if I recall correctly, that's where they had their origins. I think they were also an intermediate step to the true "books of secrets", but it's been a while since I read the book. Science and the Secrets of Nature is a very academic book, full of references and sources. It's a fairly tedious read especially compared to Eamon's more recent work The Professor of Secrets, which, even though was primarily focused on medicine, a topic which I'm not terribly interested in, I found it to be an engaging and exciting read.

I was able to find a copy of Science and the Secrets of Nature in my University's Engineering Library. It may be worthwhile, even as an introduction to other sources on the subjects, as the author is constantly referring to other works (at times it feels more like a thesis, or very long academic paper).

[Eldan]

Books of Secrets? I think I vaguely remember something like that from when I looked into local guild history, but I'd have to look again.

[Storm Bringer]

I'm not a DnD player, I'm just a fan of the comic. So I'm curious, what is a bastard sword? What are its advantages compared to a longsword or rapier? And why is it called such?

its the "bastard" (ilegitimate) son of a two handed sword and a one handed sword.

as Fhaolan points out, the names for weaponry changes over time. weapons like this (http://www.sword-buyers-guide.com/images/Arming-sword1.jpg), which DnD calls a "longsword", were generally *called "arming swords" at the time, while a sword like this (http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/pix/longsword_leg_cut.jpg) would have been called a "Longsword" at the time, but is now called a "bastard sword" or maybe just a "two handed sword".

do note that the DnD weapons cover quite a large range of RL weapons. this (http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/3508459/2/istockphoto_3508459-young-ninja-girl-in-field-with-drawn-katana-sword.jpg)is still a DnD bastard sword.

*I must qualify this with the statement that swords were called many names, in different languages, and the destinctions between swords varied between places and times (languages were more fragmented back then). wether a sword was a longsword or a two handed sword might simply depend on teh preference of the speaker. most of our words for "sword" are loanwords, taken and used to discribe the swords style that an area used ("scimitar" and "tulwar" and "katana" are all fairly genernic words for swords in their native tongues, but are used to talk about speficic styles of swords in english. I'm told is is possible to call a european sword a "katana" in japanese and be correct)


as to the pros and cons of a DnD bastard sword compared to a DnD longsword and a rapier, it breaks down somthing like this:

a rapier is a "civilian" weapon. it's not ment to be used on the battlefield, like modern day pistols, it's meant more for self defense. that said, agianst unarmoured foes, it is a powerful and dangerous weapon, with devilshly quick lunges that can cause leathal wounds (though not instantly leathal ones. several rapier duels ended with both men being killed by stabs that punctured a lung or cut a major artery, but failed to disable them fast enough to stop them inflicting a simmilar wound to the other man).

it's light, easier to carry than battlefield weapons like the longsword or bastard sword (agian like a pistol. it;s somthing you can carry around in public without being "over armed". at least one name for rapiers translates as "dress sword", and they were as much a part of the clothes of a nobleman as his boots or his shirt. it's kinda like how a Wild west cowboy could walk around with a pistol on his belt without drawing the eye of the law, but would be stopped and questioned if he had a shotgun or rilfe in his hands).

a DnD longsword was a backup weapon. Knights made a charge with a lance, then draw their arming swords for the melee. it was a very vesitile weapon, good at cuts, stabs blocks, etc. a very good all-rounder, and one which a great many soldiers chose to fall back on, wether form a lance, a polearm or some other weapon. It was popular at a slightly earlier period of time than either the longsword or the rapier, but all three were in use together at one time.

a DnD Bastard sword is a heavy battlefield sword, used as a primary weapon. if anything, it is more versitile than the arming sword, with longer reach, better leverage, while still light and balenced enough for rapid, high tempo attacks and parries (hollywood likes to show these weapons as being swung like sledgehammers and being about as unweildy. they weren't (http://youtu.be/HC5FIyfI8TA), as you can see here) . it can deal with either armoured or unarmoured foes, with anti armour techiques based around attacking weak spots such as joints (then agian, all anti armour tactics are about attacking weak spots). it's only drawback is that it's too big and unwieldly to conveinently carry around off the battlefield, like a longsword or a rapier.

[fusilier]

Books of Secrets? I think I vaguely remember something like that from when I looked into local guild history, but I'd have to look again.

Yeah, while the authors of such books would often introduce them as fantastic secrets that were being divulged to the reader, they were typically full of practical recipes for things like stain removers, or dye fixers. :-)

[fusilier]

a rapier is a "civilian" weapon. it's not ment to be used on the battlefield, like modern day pistols, it's meant more for self defense. . . .

This was debated during the time that rapiers were popular (circa 1600). Many authorities would agree that they were not good battlefield weapons, but some saw no problem with rapiers being used in battle. Others objected to arming soldiers with rapiers because they would be careless, and break them doing mundane things like chopping branches for firewood . . .

[Galloglaich]

Yeah, while the authors of such books would often introduce them as fantastic secrets that were being divulged to the reader, they were typically full of practical recipes for things like stain removers, or dye fixers. :-)

I'd have a look at that wiki on Ms 3227a which I linked above, there is some pretty interesting things in there...

also dye fixing was potentially a very valuable trade secret which could make or break the economic life of a city.

G.

[Spiryt]

This was debated during the time that rapiers were popular (circa 1600). Many authorities would agree that they were not good battlefield weapons, but some saw no problem with rapiers being used in battle. Others objected to arming soldiers with rapiers because they would be careless, and break them doing mundane things like chopping branches for firewood . . .

I think that this may be also case of terminology - that was getting mixed up since the time of use of this things, particularly in early 20th century...

Many Walloon swords and palashes were being called 'rapier' later, even though only roughly common thing with contemporary rapiers were guards.

I can't really see anyone trying to chop branches with any ~1600 rapier, even if he's very clueless. With some backsword - well looks tempting at least..

AFAIR officers of most European armies were bearing rapiers to battle in early 18th century - but that doesn't really mean 'use in the thick of battle" - more like personal weapon/insignia of charge.

[fusilier]

I think that this may be also case of terminology - that was getting mixed up since the time of use of this things, particularly in early 20th century...

Many Walloon swords and palashes were being called 'rapier' later, even though only roughly common thing with contemporary rapiers were guards.

I can't really see anyone trying to chop branches with any ~1600 rapier, even if he's very clueless. With some backsword - well looks tempting at least..

AFAIR officers of most European armies were bearing rapiers to battle in early 18th century - but that doesn't really mean 'use in the thick of battle" - more like personal weapon/insignia of charge.

Yes, terminology is a problem. Actually, I double checked the source on that one, and it was just "swords" not rapiers (should not be issued to common soldiers), although the context made it seem as though rapiers were being suggested, it may just have been a reference to poor quality swords in general. The English seem to have preferred the term "tuck" when referring to a rapier at the time -- although modern definitions vary, by context you can figure out that they meant a rapier. There are also some weapons which can blur the line between a rapier and an Elizabethan "broadsword" (cut-and-thrust sword?).

By the 18th century wouldn't it have been more of a "smallsword" than a rapier?

[Galloglaich]

I'm kind of between the two of you on this. There appear to have been a rather wide range of weapons which were referred to as "rapiers" in period, some of which are clearly battlefield weapons, or are at any rate much more robust than strictly civilian types which can be very thin indeed. There are also waloon swords, pallasches, bolo swords, espada ropera, schiavona etc. which are often confused for rapiers even though they are really different weapons, and then you also get the various smallswords and their precursors and subvariants, which were also carried into battle in the 17th and 18th Century.

This photo includes two weapons you might still call rapiers which are obviously very different in intent

http://www.salvatorfabris.com/img/WhatIsRapier2.jpg

I think the analogy of a pistol is a pretty good one.


G.

[Spiryt]

I didn't really thought about 'robustness' here, plenty of rapiers even about ~ were still pretty damn robust.

Just that the blade of typical rapier won't serve as branch chopper at all.

Neither in mass battle, without space to operate rapier where it shines with lunges etc.


http://www.salvatorfabris.com/img/WhatIsRapier2.jpg

Great pic, although without seeing the 'bussines' part of the blade, especially of the 2nd sword, it's hard to say if should it be called 'rapier' or not.

Middle sword here (http://lh4.ggpht.com/-zYmeyAy4Ir4/SNtaD7Ml0TI/AAAAAAAACiI/-BvMch3h_TQ/s720/di009.jpg) starts pretty much similarly, yet seemingly very quickly blade turns into thick hexagon - seemingly, hard to tell exactly from that one.

[fusilier]

Rapiers
I'm inclined to agree with Galloglaich, there were probably "rapiers" that were more acceptable for battlefield use, and others that were best left for civilian duels.

@Spiryt -- these were English sources, and clearly the soldiers weren't being issued proper equipment for day-to-day life. So if you have a pike, musket and rapier at your disposal, which one would you be trying to hack away at branches with? ;-) As for mass battle, some authorities thought rapiers were fine to use, although the issue was debated at the time (at least in English sources).

Siege of Malta 1565: Firearms vs. Armor

I have finally gotten to the death of Don Francisco de Sanoguera in Balbi's account. It is the first real mention of armor vs. firearm in the book. During a seaborne attack on his post, Don Francisco had jumped up onto the parapet, with his clerk and Balbi himself right behind him:


Now Don Francisco was a small man, but the Turks recognized him as a leader by his armor and his colorful trappings. While they were still in their boats they opened fire on him, and hit him with an arquebus shot. Luckily his breastplate was bullet-proof and he was unharmed. But soon after this, a Janissary, wearing a large black headdress with gold ornaments on it, knelt at the foot of the battery, aimed upwards at him and shot him in the groin. The bullet pierced the steel and he fell dead on the edge of the parapet. . . .
I tried to recover his body, but could not do so because it was very heavy.

At this point there ensued a contest for the body of Don Francisco with the Turks pulling on his legs and the Christians pulling on his upper body. Eventually the Christians won, but the Turks took his shoes.

There's a few things to note about this encounter. First, his armor must have been heavy, as even though he was a small man, Balbi couldn't move his body. The translator states at this point that there are several existing examples of the Knights' armor in the museum at Malta. A breastplate would have weighed about 18 pounds, and the back plate could weigh up to 20 pounds.

Next, is that the armor was effective at longer ranges, but couldn't stop a close range shot -- it is clear that the shot to the "groin" penetrated some armor, although it's not clear exactly what that armor was (mainly because "groin" is not being used with precision). This is part of the argument. I contend that the Turkish tufeks were like long barreled arquebuses, and would have lacked the punch of a contemporary Spanish musket, but would have been more powerful than a European arquebus. I'm still trying to find out some information about the caliber of the turkish firearms.

Another thing to note, is how the Knights' armor singled them out. Shortly after this attack another commander is killed while on a raid into the landside ditch by arquebus fire. Also, Babli relates how the commanders of Fort St. Elmo were picked off by arquebus fire, once the Janissaries had occupied a trench on the cavalier which dominated the fort. (I may need to reread that section, because I don't remember him mentioning when the Turks managed to establish themselves on the cavalier).

Concerning the accuracy of the Turkish fire: in an event prior to the attack on Don Francisco's post, the Turks sent four men over to destroy a chain that was protecting part of the harbor from ships. The men at Don Francisco's post were unable to fire on them, because the "finest arquebusiers" of the Turks were giving them covering fire, "Despite the fact that they were over six hundred paces away, they never missed." However, when four Maltese jump down from the post of Bormla to attack the Turks attempting to destroy the chain, they are not only successful they all return safely under a "hail of musket fire". These two statements appear to contradict each other, and while I suspect that the Turkish fire was indeed more accurate, I think Balbi may have exaggerated it's effectiveness.

[Galloglaich]

I think it proves my point, but I suspect in this debate one of us will see the cup half full and one will see the cup half empty.

Also, the Maximilian style harness they used which was specifically mentioned in the Osprey book was very light, could be as little as 40 lbs for the whole harness.

The later 16th Century style iron harness would be very heavy though, up to 100 lbs for a whole harness, though 3/4 or half armor would be more common.

Of course there will always be parts of the armor even in a full harness which are not bullet proof, in the groin, in the armpit, etc. it's impossible to cover every part. The thickest parts are the head, chest, and shoulder pieces.

I think the accuracy was for over time, running around fast at 600 paces distance you were probably relatively safe. The Europeans couldn't stand there and exchange fire at long range with the Ottoman snipers because the latter had better muskets.

Anyway on another previous subject, check out what I found with the help of a German colleague:

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89092522648

From what I've been told, these Kunstbuchlen were basically the same thing as a Hausbuch or similar workbooks like the Ms 3227a, they seem to be of a type. But what you said about the Guilds provides good context, it sounds very likely to me that they would use such things.

I noted with interest that in the famous Hausbuch of Castle Wolfegg apparently the key ingredients in the recipes were written in Hebrew as a form of low-grade encryption.

This particular one linked above however really looks like an artists workbook of little details, hands, hats, architectural features etc.

G.

[Galloglaich]

I should also point out, re: Malta, the Ottoman leaders were targeted every bit as much as the Latin ones, and were killed even frequently during the siege. So the armor was clearly not a liability, except in one important area, it was very hot.

G.

[fusilier]

I think it proves my point, but I suspect in this debate one of us will see the cup half full and one will see the cup half empty.

Heh, probably. :-)


I think the accuracy was for over time, running around fast at 600 paces distance you were probably relatively safe. The Europeans couldn't stand there and exchange fire at long range with the Ottoman snipers because the latter had better muskets.

This makes a lot of sense. I suspect that tracking a target with a matchlock is difficult enough as it is. Balbi also (at some point) mentions that one of the detriments of the long Turkish firearms is the ability to quickly aim (different from accuracy per se). So at a fixed target (the parapets) they could keep up accurate enough fire to keep the soldiers there down, even at fairly extreme ranges.


Anyway on another previous subject, check out what I found with the help of a German colleague:

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89092522648

From what I've been told, these Kunstbuchlen were basically the same thing as a Hausbuch or similar workbooks like the Ms 3227a, they seem to be of a type. But what you said about the Guilds provides good context, it sounds very likely to me that they would use such things.

I noted with interest that in the famous Hausbuch of Castle Wolfegg apparently the key ingredients in the recipes were written in Hebrew as a form of low-grade encryption.

This particular one linked above however really looks like an artists workbook of little details, hands, hats, architectural features etc.

G.

Cool find. The Kunstbuchlein were printed and more widely distributed, but they do seem to be very similar to the earlier Hausbucher or workbooks. I should be clear that they are not the same as books of secrets, although something of an intermediate step.

[fusilier]

I should also point out, re: Malta, the Ottoman leaders were targeted every bit as much as the Latin ones, and were killed even frequently during the siege. So the armor was clearly not a liability, except in one important area, it was very hot.

G.

Balbi hasn't commented on wearing armor, on Malta, during the summer -- that hasn't stopped the translator from commenting on it! His opinion is that the weight wasn't as big a deal as the heat.

As for Ottoman leaders being targeted, I have no doubt that is true. I'm only reporting on what Balbi says. Knights and leaders who expose themselves do seem to have be recognized by their armor (not just the fact that they were wearing armor), and they tend to end up shot in Balbi's account.

[Caustic Soda]

@One-edged vs. two-edged blades: All right, if I've understood the arguments so far correctly, then a one-edged blade is easier to make with lower amounts of steel available. Unsurprisingly, a two-edged sword or one with a 'false edge' lends flexibility in wielding, because you can cut with either side.

All this with the standard caveat that swords vary a lot, based on geography, period, materials and skills available, the other equipment being used by/against the soldiers equipped with swords etc. Is this correct?

If I've understood correctly, then it seems to me that forging one-edged blades would be most relevant in areas lacking good-quality iron and/or steel-making processes, right?

In that vein, IIRC pattern welding emerged as a forging technique to make better blades with relatively poor grade iron. Was there overlap between areas where pattern welding came into use and the use of one-edged blades?

Would a blade being one-edged give any advantage in the wielding, such as half-swording? as understand it, it was common for the part of a blade nearest to the hilt to be less sharp than the rest, since it was less often used and/or made it easier to half-sword. Is that true? Would a sword with a spine on one side instead of an edge or false edge be easier to half-sword?

[Fhaolan]

Would a blade being one-edged give any advantage in the wielding, such as half-swording? as understand it, it was common for the part of a blade nearest to the hilt to be less sharp than the rest, since it was less often used and/or made it easier to half-sword. Is that true? Would a sword with a spine on one side instead of an edge or false edge be easier to half-sword?

Half-swording, as a technique, tended to be for swords like hand-and-a-half (longswords) or full-on two-handed swords. Single-edged swords tended to be one-handed and shorter. So while it is technically possible to half-sword a single-edged sword, I've not run into many where the technique really helps much.