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

[Dead_Jester]

I would anticipate the a large number soldiers/warriors with 'just' breastplates to also be wearing full quilted cloth under it.

Depending on the period, the actual material of the breastplate (some were made of linen or leather, and so don't have the same physical properties as metal ones) and the wealth of the soldier in question, it is possible that most soldiers wore very little underneath their armor. Full quilted cloth padding only become really prevalent after the 10th century, as "hard" armor required some form of padding underneath to help protect against impacts. However, there is some evidence of its use during the viking age, although mostly as a poor man's armor.

[Spiryt]

I would anticipate the a large number soldiers/warriors with 'just' breastplates to also be wearing full quilted cloth under it.

A lot of the names for this stuff, jupon, gambleson, aketon, etc. are medieval, but I'm pretty sure this kind of stuff has been around as long as cloth has been. It's not a big intuitive jump to make, and our ancestors were *not* stupid.

This is very probable indeed, but the question was about anything outside the torso and helmet, I believe.


Depending on the period, the actual material of the breastplate (some were made of linen or leather, and so don't have the same physical properties as metal ones) and the wealth of the soldier in question, it is possible that most soldiers wore very little underneath their armor. Full quilted cloth padding only become really prevalent after the 10th century, as "hard" armor required some form of padding underneath to help protect against impacts. However, there is some evidence of its use during the viking age, although mostly as a poor man's armor.

Well, technically speaking, linen jack, jupon, gambeson or whatever cannot be 'breastplate' because it's obviously not a plate of any kind. :smallwink:

Doesn't really sound good either.

And I don't think I follow the rest as it's pretty much backwards - mail and other more elastic armors require substantial padding to work properly. "Hard" armor less so, because it can absorb impact by itself.

There is very little evidence of cloth armor and padding before ~ 11th century because quite simply it didn't hold up till today.

Here are some interpretations of Roman padding :

http://www.kgorski.freha.pl/subermalis/01.jpg

http://www.kgorski.freha.pl/subermalis/04.jpg

http://www.kgorski.freha.pl/subermalis/03.jpg

http://www.kgorski.freha.pl/subermalis/02.jpg

http://www.kgorski.freha.pl/subermalis/01.jpg




If someone has time he can check if those drawing are accurate or not...

Here's Acceptus tombstone.

http://monetalis.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/stele-for-severius-acceptus-roman-era-istanbul-archaeology-museum-2011.jpg?w=450&h=378

[Dead_Jester]

Well, technically speaking, linen jack, jupon, gambeson or whatever cannot be 'breastplate' because it's obviously not a plate of any kind. :smallwink:

I was referring to the classical Greek breastplates (linothorax) that are usually theorized of having been constructed of either layered linen or leather. The term breastplate isn't exact, but it pretty much only occupies the torso. Sorry for the confusion.


And I don't think I follow the rest as it's pretty much backwards - mail and other more elastic armors require substantial padding to work properly. "Hard" armor less so, because it can absorb impact by itself.

There is very little evidence of cloth armor and padding before ~ 11th century because quite simply it didn't hold up till today.


I completely agree softer armor do need some padding, but heavy gambesons (or arming doublets) became more important with the advent of plate armor as it rendered most conventional melee weapons ineffective as far as piercing or hacking through the armor. As such, there was a relative increase in the quantity of bludgeoning weapons on battlefields, and people needed quilted armor under their primary armor to absorb the impact.

As far as cloth armor before the 10th century, I believe that some Scythians horsemen wore a form of quilted cloth or leather jacket, and the Mongolian silk armor probably dates back a long time too, but apart from that, there seems to be very little historical evidence to indicate it's widespread use.

[Fhaolan]

This is very probable indeed, but the question was about anything outside the torso and helmet, I believe.

Which in a round-about way is what i was referring to. As your images show, if those were in fact quilted armour and not just badly rendered segmenta (which is always possible. Never discount the possiblity that the artist is just... bad. :smallsmile: ) they did include the arms. Likely there were also legs to match as well. Put a breastplate over that, and away you go.


There is very little evidence of cloth armor and padding before ~ 11th century because quite simply it didn't hold up till today.

Makes it a bit difficult, yes. Given how cloth armour tends to rot away so easily (and anyone who actually has worn such can attest to why it rots away. Sweat and blood really do a number on natural cloth fibres.) it falls into the 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' problem. For all we know cloth armour could have been invented only moments after *cloth* was invented. It's not like it's that hard to figure out.

I can say for sure that cloth armour, while not in any way better than metal, wood, or bone armour, is definately better than no armour at all.

[gkathellar]

You have to remember about phalanx combat is that most of the hoplites weren't professionals. They were normal citizens who were wealthy enough for their armor and weapons(often only just wealthy enough for a spear and shield) and taken out and trained in how to march in formation over the summer.

Basically they were only taught fighting in phalanxes and to their logic if the phalanx broke that means they've already lost.

It's also worth noting that, for a good deal of Greek history, the "hoplite" and their "phalanx" did not exist. They were a relatively late invention in Greece's long history.


They also had some notions that were rather backwards, the most obvious one being having their leaders fight in the front lines, so expecting pure logic to determine how they ran their military is rather flawed.

On the contrary, decisions of this type were closely calibrated to the expectations of their culture. It is only in relatively recent history that leaders were not expected to be brave warriors. After all, how could a king justify sending other noblemen off to die if he himself was unwilling to take the field?

[Galloglaich]

There is one well known form of textile armor (for the torso) from the entire breadth of Greek history up to the post Alexander period: the linothorax. Mostly linen. Apparently pretty effective too.

http://www.uwgb.edu/aldreteg/Linothorax.html

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

I agree with spyrit though there is very little evidence of leather armor being used anywhere in Europe. You do see it somewhat in the Central Asian steppe (where they had a lot more cattle), mostly in the form of lamellar, but generally even there buffalo rawhide was more popular than leather.

G

[Spiryt]

It's hard to say if linothorax is 'well known" though, it seems that as even Wiki mentions, there are literally ltwo small pieces of something that most probably was an actual linothorax in "our" possession.

[Yora]

I've also seen a number of convincing arguments, that linothroax were not actual textile armor and the evidence that it was seems to be equally weak.
One was that linen is rather expensive and very work intensive to make, and to layer it into armor would require considerable amounts. And then you have to equip entire armies with it.
My personal guess is some kind of brigandine and most authentic images I found look quite like that to me:

#1 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/Paris_armour_Pomarici_Santomasi.jpg) #2 (http://www.roma-victrix.com/armamentarium/img/loricae_linothorax02b.jpg) #3 (http://www.thehistoryblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/linovase.jpeg) #4 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/BattleofIssus333BC-mosaic-detail1.jpg)

And the remains of a brigandine wouldn't be easily recognizable as such when found by archeologists who did not know what they were looking for.

[Spiryt]

Well, some kind of brigandine is pretty hard to consider, seeing as there is no sign of some constructional rivets of brigandine.... And otherwise pictures are relatively detailed - buckles, cords, eyelashes.


One was that linen is rather expensive and very work intensive to make, and to layer it into armor would require considerable amounts. And then you have to equip entire armies with it

Don't know much about linen in ancient Hellada really, but it's pretty hard to assume that it would be much more expensive and hard to make compared to metal armors...

Linen was all in all most certainly used in up to 30 layers as "cheaper" armor in 15th century.

As far as equipping goes - it probably would still be easier for some mid-class, working citizen to obtain than metal armor.

[Yora]

But you could glue a layer of cloth on the outside over the rivets.

[Dienekes]

It's also worth noting that, for a good deal of Greek history, the "hoplite" and their "phalanx" did not exist. They were a relatively late invention in Greece's long history.

True, but I do think this discussion was of that period, given the descriptions of the panoply.


On the contrary, decisions of this type were closely calibrated to the expectations of their culture. It is only in relatively recent history that leaders were not expected to be brave warriors. After all, how could a king justify sending other noblemen off to die if he himself was unwilling to take the field?

Yes, but I would argue that what makes sense for specific cultures ideology does not make sense when taking a step back and observing them logically. Many of Greece's leaders were killed because of this custom, and the benefits of such a custom appear very small, even detrimental to a war effort. Take the Persians, of course the leaders of the army were trained soldiers but they did not go charging into the field, neither did numerous Roman generals (though admittedly quite a few tried to copy the Alexandrian method of positioning with rather mixed results). Just as Athen's treatment of woman and Sparta's barbaric treatment of the helots does not make rational sense, but is firmly engrained in the ideology of the culture in question.

[gkathellar]

Yes, but I would argue that what makes sense for specific cultures ideology does not make sense when taking a step back and observing them logically.

Logic is only a means of proceeding from your utility function to a desired end point. Certainly, from the perspective of cultural survival, the obsession ancient Greeks had with personal greatness and bravado seems kind of dumb. But from the perspective of being proper, manly Greek men of their time, their behavior was perfectly logical.

[Dienekes]

Logic is only a means of proceeding from your utility function to a desired end point. Certainly, from the perspective of cultural survival, the obsession ancient Greeks had with personal greatness and bravado seems kind of dumb. But from the perspective of being proper, manly Greek men of their time, their behavior was perfectly logical.

Alright, if we want to be technical. Outside cultural biases many customs of the Greeks did not hold strategic or tactical value. While it made sense for a Greek leader to stand at the front lines in order to gain respect and honor for themselves such a standard can be harmful for the military success of an army. This does not mean they're stupid, but breaking down a military tradition with current knowledge will show they most if not all cultures did not run completely on practicality and total efficiency.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

It has tactical value in moral and psychological warfare.

If the troops are taught that a good leader leads by example, they'll follow a leader who leads from the front. If, however, the cultural belief is that the life of the leader must be guarded against all threats, then a leader who leads from the back will be successful.

The Greek culture had this culture of personal braveness and bravado, so a leader who showed these traits was more likely to instill courage in his troops, so his troops were least likely to break.

[Dienekes]

It has tactical value in moral and psychological warfare.

If the troops are taught that a good leader leads by example, they'll follow a leader who leads from the front. If, however, the cultural belief is that the life of the leader must be guarded against all threats, then a leader who leads from the back will be successful.

The Greek culture had this culture of personal braveness and bravado, so a leader who showed these traits was more likely to instill courage in his troops, so his troops were least likely to break.

Yes, but many armies did not break when the leaders where killed, and many armies did not break when their leaders where not in direct harm. While it makes sense from a cultural perspective, simply from practicality being in the front lines reduces options and control of the armies leaders. And the Roman armies show that such aggressive moral leadership can be rather successfully implemented through centurions and smaller leaders, without putting the large planners at risk.

It is not the individuals who are acting illogically, it is the culture which is not optimal which is making the individuals put themselves in unnecessary situations.

[Spiryt]

It has tactical value in moral and psychological warfare.

If the troops are taught that a good leader leads by example, they'll follow a leader who leads from the front. If, however, the cultural belief is that the life of the leader must be guarded against all threats, then a leader who leads from the back will be successful.

The Greek culture had this culture of personal braveness and bravado, so a leader who showed these traits was more likely to instill courage in his troops, so his troops were least likely to break.

Pretty much any culture that didn't get devoured got this trait back then though.

[gkathellar]

Pretty much any culture that didn't get devoured got this trait back then though.

This is very true. "Bravado," "face," "honor," or what have you is present in almost all surviving cultures, military or otherwise. Why that is relies on a lot more psychobabble, but almost any society you'll examine has something along those lines.


Alright, if we want to be technical. Outside cultural biases many customs of the Greeks did not hold strategic or tactical value. While it made sense for a Greek leader to stand at the front lines in order to gain respect and honor for themselves such a standard can be harmful for the military success of an army.

Absolutely.


This does not mean they're stupid, but breaking down a military tradition with current knowledge will show they most if not all cultures did not run completely on practicality and total efficiency.

It is not the individuals who are acting illogically, it is the culture which is not optimal which is making the individuals put themselves in unnecessary situations.

Efficiency and optimization towards what end, though? This wasn't just a question of putting stylish living before practicality, it was a question of stylish living being one of the aims of practicality. There are plenty of impractical weapons or military customs or fighting styles spread throughout world history, but most of them make perfect sense when you understand what the cultures they came from placed value on in battle — face, bravura, whatever. It is silly to think these people weren't relentlessly practical in pursuit of what they believed to be important, and that wasn't always victory.

Certainly, holding any of these as preferable to actual victory is an excellent way to lose a war against those who do otherwise, but that doesn't make it wrong to do so. If we're to learn anything from the Peloponnesian War, it is that as the war went on and its involved parties grew experienced and focused on advantage and victory, a tremendous degeneration of other values occurred. While there's no reason to believe that necessarily happens in all cases, it does indicate that "impractical" cultural priorities often had very good internal reasons for their "impracticality" to exist.

[Galloglaich]

I think y'all are over thinking this a little bit. I don't think too many things in warfare, whether wearing armor or using weapons or how leadership deployed, was done out of mindless fashion. It tended to all have a purpose, as war tends to weed out the superfluous. In this case, yes it had a lot to do with morale, but morale is very important in warfare particularly in hand to hand combat! Keeping a line from 'breaking' is the difference between life and death.

Leading from the front
The point of leading from the front correlated directly to the type of fighting they were doing, and is not necessarily worse than leading from the rear, it's just different. It conferred certain advantages and certain disadvantages. The Hoplites were effective in Combat against Central Asian armies such as that of the Persian Empire which led from the rear and kept reserves and so on. Alexander the Great led from the front line and obviously had many notable military successes. Thousands of years later during the Medieval period English Knights dismounted and led infantry from the front, to notable success in the famous battles such as Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt and so on (though admittedly, against an enemy which was also using leading from the front tactics, less effectively)

The advantage of leadership from the front is that of strengthening morale and contributing to shock attacks, both for infantry and cavalry. In the type of warfare the Hoplites practiced, the collapse of morale and resulting loss of unit cohesion (a line breaking and turning into a rout) would lead directly to death. It was precisely the ability of the Hoplites to endure a shower of javelins, stones, and arrows and maintain unit cohesion which made them effective as a military force. It is a tactic which dovetails well with armor and other types of protection (shields) which were a key component of the Hoplites overall approach. The high morale, 'staying power' and aggression of armies with a high degree of elan and esprit de corps helps these armies win by aggression. Infantry armies of this type in particular are also based on a type of loose control based on meritocracy, which also serves to enhance effectiveness. The Hoplites, the Goths, Cherusci, and other Germanic tribes of the declining years of the Roman Empire, the Vikings, the Swiss, the Czech Hussites all had armies which were effectively democratic and / or meritocratic to some extent. Leaders led on the basis of the respect they engendered in their comrades, not due to any formal authority.

Leading from the rear offers many strategic advantages, and certainly armies which used this tactic were often very successful, notably the Romans, the Mongols, the Ottomans and so on, but they were not always successful either, and there are just as many examples of well structured armies under very harsh discipline which failed in combat because their morale deteriorated.

In modern armies such as the United States army of the 20th Century, a hybrid system was invented: the morale-steadying role is played out by "non Commissioned Officers" (Corporals and Sergeants) and low ranking officers (Lieutenants) while the "field Grade" officers (Majors, Colonels and Generals) lead from behind... usually WAY behind But this proved to be something of a problem for American forces in World War II. The Germans by contrast tipped the balance a bit more toward having higher ranking officers closer to the front line, which increased their mortality rate closer to that of American Lieutenants but increased unit morale, discipline and tactical flexibility.

Textile Armor
As for the linothorax, I think there is little debate at this point that it was some kind of textile armor, there are literary references to it as well. But there is a gray area because plates and scales were included in the armor, though they do not appear to have been riveted. Some of the images Yora showed have contributed to a debate as to whether the linothorax was stiffened or hardened or whether it was soft like Medieval textile armors. What is not in dispute is the effectiveness of the linothorax, which has been proven amply (and if you read the link I posted that is to a pretty thorough experiment conducted by a major university along these lines) they found that both hardened and soft textile armor was effective. By contrast, leather has not held up well to tests and this is part of why they have concluded it was not used much in armor. They are still trying to figure out how Bronze armor worked

The Greeks had huge amounts of textiles and it was one of their major industries, it was not particularly expensive actually, it's what most of them wore for clothing. In Medieval times it was even cheaper due to the proliferation of hydro powered mills in nearly every town, but you also have to consider that in Greek towns only a small percentage of soldiers were fighting, Athens in 478 BC had a population of over 300,000 people, but only fielded about 10,000 - 20,000 Hoplites at any one time. They could afford to equip these men fairly well, and really, the shield was the greatest expense not the armor of any type.

On the effectiveness of Militias
Finally, I would also like to point out, it's foolish to go along with the old cliche that non-professional soldiers were automatically inferior to full-time professionals. Urban and rural militias historically performed quite well, and there is a BIG difference in effectiveness between troops which trained part time and were familiar with their weapons and tactics, and troops which never trained and had no experience of combat training. The Athenian Hoplites did well in battle and were feared across the Med. The famous Swiss Reislauffer were almost all urban or rural militia. Same with the English yeoman longbowmen, same with the Bohemian Hussites. Or most of the army of Finland in World War II. Napoleons conscript militias smashed the professional armies of all of Europe in the late 18th Century and were only barely defeated in the long run. Militias could be very effective. There is something of a law of diminishing returns with pro's at a certain point for a whole slew of reasons, and what makes an army good or bad is a more nuanced and multi-dimensional reality than most people (including some historians who should know better) want to acknowledge.

G.

[Daosus]

Fighting from the front may be a strategic disadvantage. However, if your army is a citizen militia (like much of Greece), leading from the front may be the only way to even get your army out in the field.

Plus, for warfare between Greek states, their model of front-leadership and aggressive close combat made sense. By concentrating the fight at one place, there is little damage to the surrounding areas, the conflict is resolved without too much bloodshed, and most of those who instigated the conflict are likely dead. There is no siege warfare, or cattle raiding, or any of the other ways that neighboring states can destroy each other economically. By settling disputes in an agreed-upon, decisive fashion, the Greeks could prevent the conditions of endemic warfare.

[fusilier]

Leading from the front
. . .

On the effectiveness of Militias
Finally, I would also like to point out, it's foolish to go along with the old cliche that non-professional soldiers were automatically inferior to full-time professionals.
. . .


Another thing about leading from the front, is that the leader can place himself in the middle of combat, and orders can be issued immediately to respond to the events. Also, the leader can indicate where the rest of the formation should be, by placing himself close to the standard or whatever flag indicates the formations location, which gives him the ability to directly control the formation. For small (by later standards) battles, which come down to melee, leading from the front may give a leader greater control over the battle.

As for the effectiveness of militias -- I'm curious to understand where the cliche comes from. My first guess would be English militia in the 18th century, especially in the American colonies. Many of them failed to drill, and some were very poorly equipped, leading regular British officers to have a poor opinion of them. Although, I can think of a few British militia units during the French and Indian War that seem to have performed well. By contrast, Spanish militia in Louisiana and Mississippi region were known to drill regularly, often drilled by regulars who travelled from town to town, and were often well equipped by the crown, even with uniforms.

The other area would be Italian states which switched to Condottieri during the late middle ages, early renaissance -- but even more detailed study there shows that mercenaries were often augmented by militia, and militia were never irrelevant to military forces.

[Galloglaich]

Fighting from the front may be a strategic disadvantage. However, if your army is a citizen militia (like much of Greece), leading from the front may be the only way to even get your army out in the field.

Plus, for warfare between Greek states, their model of front-leadership and aggressive close combat made sense. By concentrating the fight at one place, there is little damage to the surrounding areas, the conflict is resolved without too much bloodshed, and most of those who instigated the conflict are likely dead. There is no siege warfare, or cattle raiding, or any of the other ways that neighboring states can destroy each other economically. By settling disputes in an agreed-upon, decisive fashion, the Greeks could prevent the conditions of endemic warfare.

That is a good point, part of this in the Greek context has to do with the more ritualistic style of combat which can go right over into the realm of (rough) games and sports. It is part of a natural tendancy to try to reduce the destructive impact of war, since if the fields are burned the victor will starve alongside the losers. This was also true with the Celts, the Japanese before the Mongol invasion, and many other people in history. It's the origin of games like Lacrosse and Hurling. And probably the Olympics.

G.

[Galloglaich]

Another thing about leading from the front, is that the leader can place himself in the middle of combat, and orders can be issued immediately to respond to the events. Also, the leader can indicate where the rest of the formation should be, by placing himself close to the standard or whatever flag indicates the formations location, which gives him the ability to directly control the formation. For small (by later standards) battles, which come down to melee, leading from the front may give a leader greater control over the battle.

Yep and also remember, the leader often has a cadre of well equipped tough guys with him, like Alexanders Companions or the Hirthmen Huskarls of the late Vikings, who were useful 'fire brigade' to impose on parts of the battlefield in order to achieve local victories at critical spots.

As I alluded to above, early Hoplite warfare in particular was quite formalized. They used to put all their strongest guys on the right flank, and all their weakest on the left, so each armies strong forces attacked the others weak forces (must have sucked to be put on the left side). Obviously this changed as they encountered foreign enemies with a more systematic approach to warfare, but only as much as it needed to.



As for the effectiveness of militias -- I'm curious to understand where the cliche comes from. My first guess would be English militia in the 18th century, especially in the American colonies. Many of them failed to drill, and some were very poorly equipped, leading regular British officers to have a poor opinion of them. Although, I can think of a few British militia units during the French and Indian War that seem to have performed well. By contrast, Spanish militia in Louisiana and Mississippi region were known to drill regularly, often drilled by regulars who travelled from town to town, and were often well equipped by the crown, even with uniforms.

The other area would be Italian states which switched to Condottieri during the late middle ages, early renaissance -- but even more detailed study there shows that mercenaries were often augmented by militia, and militia were never irrelevant to military forces.

I agree in both cases. Good point about the Spanish. Here in Louisiana we still have a large community of "Islenos", people from the Canary islands who were brought here by the Spanish to hold ground against the English. Their reputation for toughness and competence remains to this day.

G.

[GungHo]

Are there any modern pistols (ie WWI or later) that use rifle cartridges? (especially battle rifle or assault rifle sizing). Are rifle cartridges able to be fired safely from a pistol-sized barrel?
There are a number of "pistols" that are built on a AR-15 action that fire 5.56. Note, they are basically an AR-15 with a short barrel/gas system and no stock, and that's exactly what they look like. Some have an abbreviated recoil tube for the bolt carrier. Some don't even have the tube... not sure how they manage that (never took one apart... never been in the market for that kind of thing), though I do know those had a rod/piston set up, so who knows what else they altered with the bolt.

There are also several Thompson Center pistols that are basically break actions attached to a short barrel and a pistol grip. They made them in a lot of calibers... from .22 LR to .45-70. That's a little deceptive... while they did make .243s, they ran into pressure issues when they went up to .308 or higher cartridges (in terms of pressure). Something like a .30-06 or .270 would destroy the action.

Thompson also made bolt action pistols years ago as did a couple of other companies that have fallen by the wayside... you could use higher pressure calibers in those, but no one really shot them outside of a Ransom Rest.

There are several revolver makers that make .30 carbine, .30-30, and .45-70 revolvers. I have a friend who likes his BFR .45-70, though I think he gets more of a kick out of seeing people be too scared to shoot it.

Taurus at one time was planning to make a Raging Bull revolver in .223. No idea if it ever made it to market. I certainly wouldn't be the first in line shooting it. That's a heck of a lot of pressure to put on a cylinder... even if it is thick walled. Taurus makes good pieces, but at the end of the day, they're not a top-level gunmaker.

[Conners]

You know how lances break in jousting tournaments? Why is that? What causes a jousting lance to break? It it just any sort of solid impact with the other rider?

[Yora]

No it's a safety feature. They are specially designed to break on a good impact. I think thesy are hollow as well, which explains how anyone can hold them up.
The way they are build, they have enough push to kick one rider out of the saddle, but are weak enough to not penetrate the armor.

Though they are still dangerous, there have been some accidents in which large splinters slipped between the colar and the helmet and killed the knight.

[The Boz]

The tournament lance will either deflect or shatter as a safety feature. Actual lances used in combat are still useful for only one charge because the lance is heavy, unwieldy, and it's difficult to get that 200 pound corpse off it in any reasonable time span. And these also break a lot as well. I think modern lances used in fares employ some kind of powdered substance that has ~0 chance of creating dangerous splinters.

[Spiryt]

It might have been "safety feature" but the thing is that actual battle lances were breaking left and right anyway.

In pretty much any literal source about polish hussars from 16th century there's constant mention about breaking the lances and picking up new ones.

With very long piece of wood, and very violent impact horse charge could produce, wood was prone to snapping.

And since after the charge if you don't ride straight back, you pretty much have to drop lance anyway....

[Traab]

The solution is obvious, lances should be made out of 20 foot long lengths of solid steel. With a fist on the end. That way you knock someone the %$# out, dont break your lance, and dont get them impaled on it and make you drop it.



What? :smallbiggrin:

[The Boz]

Also, knights should all wear belts of giant strength to use that lance.

[Traab]

Also, knights should all wear belts of giant strength to use that lance.

/makes dismissive noise

[Knaight]

The solution is obvious, lances should be made out of 20 foot long lengths of solid steel. With a fist on the end. That way you knock someone the %$# out, dont break your lance, and dont get them impaled on it and make you drop it.

Obviously, the trick is to use hollow aluminum lances instead. They don't break, are easier to remove, and are obviously well within medieval metallurgy. Plus, its not like aluminum is a precious metal or anything. :smalltongue:

[Xuc Xac]

Obviously, the trick is to use hollow aluminum lances instead. They don't break, are easier to remove, and are obviously well within medieval metallurgy. Plus, its not like aluminum is a precious metal or anything. :smalltongue:

Since this thread is for people who don't know any better to come for information, maybe we should refrain from sarcasm that could be misleading if taken at face value?

[Knaight]

Since this thread is for people who don't know any better to come for information, maybe we should refrain from sarcasm that could be misleading if taken at face value?

Maybe. Though I figured that it was obvious enough (smileys included, response to 20 foot long steel lances, so on and so forth). And aluminum is a good material for light jousting, as its used today in that limited capacity.

[Conners]

Know any fantastic examples of elite warriors mopping up less-skilled "fighters"? Preferably something better than vikings slaughtering women and children...

Just wondering if there's any "heroic" stories, of a few men cutting a path through vaster numbers. Extreme cases are always interesting to hear about, too.

[Spiryt]

So do you mean actual battles and similar stuff, or stories and legends that emerged trough the history?

As far as actual events go, there are quite a lot of such, although "elite" "mopping up" are always pretty situational things

Battle of Montgisard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Montgisard) - only Templar knights would be probably considered "elite warriors" though, dunno if there are any detailed sources about composition of forces there.

[Knaight]

Know any fantastic examples of elite warriors mopping up less-skilled "fighters"? Preferably something better than vikings slaughtering women and children...

Just wondering if there's any "heroic" stories, of a few men cutting a path through vaster numbers. Extreme cases are always interesting to hear about, too.

Look at the Yellow Scarves Rebellion - actually, either of the events by that name. Both are in Han China, or at least, nominally Han China, prior to the Warring States Period, and both are large scale rebellions that were suppressed quite easily. Granted, that probably had less to do with the warriors than the leadership, but the government troops* were better equipped, better trained, and in general better.

For that matter, the fall of the Yuan Dynasty might be a period worth looking at as well. There were a lot of battles in it, with varying degrees of competence, and while the Yuan eventually fell due to being horribly outnumbered, that's not the case of all events in it.

*Inasmuch as that concept is even applicable.

[Demon of Death]

This question sounds kinda dumb/stupid in my head, but I figured I may as well ask it, to get a definitive answer.

The question is thus; Can a Mace (http://www.glogster.com/media/5/19/8/9/19080917.jpg), like such, have an extendable chain to turn it into a Flail (http://www.angelfire.com/anime5/supersentaimax/zodiacsoldiers/images/flail.jpg),oh and in Medieval times is the setting, but if it can be done in Modern times, then it has precedence.

Feel free to call me out on being dumb on this question.

[The Boz]

Sure, I can think of some solutions for that. Don't know if it ever has actually been done, but it can be, definitely. A chain here, a slot there, a screw on the bottom, not a problem.

[Spiryt]

There's about no reason why it couldn't be done with a little bit of effort, but I've never seen anything like that.

And from 15th to 18th century, there were a lot of crazy stuff being made - just because somebody wanted to build something like that apparently :

Combination weapons (http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_spot_combo.html)

Assuming that somebody would make something like that, it wouldn't be actually practical weapon, similarly to all those hammer with pistols in the link or whatever - a nifty toy, mostly.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

How would you use the hammer on those sword-hammers? Would you really hold the blade and hit people with the hammer-crossguard?

[Fhaolan]

How would you use the hammer on those sword-hammers? Would you really hold the blade and hit people with the hammer-crossguard?

According to the site in question, those sword-hammers are actually swordcanes with hammer/pick heads. When using the hammer, the blade *should* be inside the cane still.

[Conners]

You know how in a lot of sci-fi they use laser-swords, or futuristic plate armour, or large axes? I was wondering if there's any possibility of such things having a function in the future.

Let's say we had space-ships. One thing to note, is that if you had really good armour, guns capable of penetrating it might also blow a hole in the ship...?
Another possible stopper for guns, would be if explosive gas was in the vicinity--although rail guns would probably work just fine...

The above examples are taken from one of my preferred sci-fi series. Of course, the books were written in the 1980s... so it's understandable if it isn't accurate to how thing will turn out.


Just curious, since it's certainly popular to give melee weapons to super technological future worlds.

[B!shop]

You know how in a lot of sci-fi they use laser-swords, or futuristic plate armour, or large axes? I was wondering if there's any possibility of such things having a function in the future.


Herbert's Dune explain the use of melee weapons with personal shields blocking high velocity objects: so to hit someone carring this personal shield you must attack him with something slower than a bullet.

Also, melee weapons are even today ceremonial symbols (e.g. military swords/daggers), mostly useless in combat but you could think of them as effective weapons.

[The Boz]

Herbert's Dune explain the use of melee weapons with personal shields blocking high velocity objects: so to hit someone carring this personal shield you must attack him with something slower than a bullet.


Also, hitting someone shielded with a laser was suicidally genocidal.

[Mike_G]

Melee weapons are making a comeback as urban warfare cuts the range of engagement down to nothing, as you meet the enemy coming around a corner or through a door.

In theory, if we are talking about boarding actions or action on a space station, the close quarters may well lead to the use of melee weapons. The current choice for close quarters, the pistol or SMG, doesn't do very well against an armored enemy, so you may be be better off knocking down an armored foe and jamming the point of your bayonet under his gorget than flattening 9 mm rounds against his breastplate.

That said, melee weapons will always be the weapon of last resort. Even in the black powder era, few men died of bayonet wounds compared to musketry. It's psychologically a lot easier to shoot somebody than beat or hack or stab him to death.

[Yora]

That's the reason why in recent years there have been many weapons the size of SMGs that fire special armor piercing bullets instead of normal pistol rounds. Like the P90 and MP7.
The best of both worlds, but they perform poorly against non-armored targets as they pass straight through the body instead of expanding all their energy on the target.
Police usually wants the characterristics of 9mm parabellum and military still has their assault carbines, so they are not that frequent.

[Conners]

Penetration is actually what you want bullets to do, from what I learnt from reading an FBI study on handgun injuries/fatalities. The stuff about bullets expanding, from what the report said, is a popular myth.

Of course, some bullets are designed to shatter into lots sharp pieces that but into the body. Perhaps that's why armour-piercing bullets are less effective on unarmoured targets...?


On the subject of bullet penetration: How is the "Penetration vs. Protection race" going, in man-carried weaponry/armour?

Currently, I think there is a type of armour which can stop just about any man-carried gun, short of explosives. However, it was a very bulky sort of armour, and didn't cover the arms and legs from what I recall. So, while technically capable of making you bullet-proof, it leaves you as a slow, easy target, where the enemy just need to remember to shoot at your knees.
Plus, if the armour is hard to move around if, I doubt soldiers can freely travel around in such gear.
That is, assuming I'm not misinformed.

[Yora]

The main purpose of body armor is not to make you invulnerable to gunfire, but rather to improve your chances to survive a bullet wound.
Kevlar vests can stop 9mm bullets quite reliably from what I know, but that still leaves arms, legs, and head exposed. And rifles and armor piercing rounds can still penetrate.
Military body armor is a lot tougher. Ceramic plates can stop rifle rounds, but they shatter on impact and lose much of their protective ability after a hit.

But then there are also hand carried rifles that fire .50 BMG rounds. Those rifles are designed to destroy vehicle engines and I am quite sure that there is no form of body armor that would stop that. But you would very rarely have to face such things, as compared to kalashnikovs and 5.56mm rifles.

Body armor greatly improves your chance to survive hits, but it's still best to avoid getting hit as much as possible.
Here's a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEBszXAhBUk) of some soldiers pulling out a huge metal shard that they found stuck in one soldiers body armor that they didn't notice for a week. Yes, it's a video found on the internet, but it looks pretty authentic to me.

[Spiryt]

The stuff about bullets expanding, from what the report said, is a popular myth.

Uh.... It's not myth at all, it happens a lot, it depends on many, many factors though.

People tend to 'streamline' it to "bigger round more wound etc." while in reality it's pretty complicated.

But lead bullets deform quite easily on relatively 'giving' obstacles, so yeah, they can deform a lot in body too.

Adding copper jacket to, say, .45 will change it quite a lot.

Handguns often don't propel bullet fast enough to cause it to deform that much on impact, but still.



The best of both worlds, but they perform poorly against non-armored targets as they pass straight through the body instead of expanding all their energy on the target.

I'm reading a bit about HK 4.6 x 30 and it seems that, similarly to many other small, very fast bullets, it's actually prone to tumbling a lot during penetration, so in fact can be pretty lethal all in all.

[Beleriphon]

But then there are also hand carried rifles that fire .50 BMG rounds. Those rifles are designed to destroy vehicle engines and I am quite sure that there is no form of body armor that would stop that. But you would very rarely have to face such things, as compared to kalashnikovs and 5.56mm rifles.

The Barrent M81 and M82 Anti-Material rifles being the two most well known (the M81 is a pretty standard, if enormour rifle, and the M82 is a shoulder fired bullpup design designed to to take out slow moving low flying aircraft). There is some debate on whether using one a human target is breaching the Geneva Conventions, but then I don't think anybody hit by a .50 cal BMG round is any position to complain to the relevant authorities.


Body armor greatly improves your chance to survive hits, but it's still best to avoid getting hit as much as possible.

Yeah, body armour is really meant to try and turn a lie threatening bullet hit into a non-life threatening hit. Wearing a bullet proof vest, like a police vest, and get shot is still going to ruin your day. At a minmum you'll have a massive bruise and at worst you'll end up with broken ribs, but you wont be dead.

[Mike_G]

I'm reading a bit about HK 4.6 x 30 and it seems that, similarly to many other small, very fast bullets, it's actually prone to tumbling a lot during penetration, so in fact can be pretty lethal all in all.


Even 5.56 round fired from a rifle tends to be lethal....in a little while.

That's fine if you hit a guy who is a hundred yards away, since his new biggest worry is the hole in his body, and he tends to lie there and bleed and stop shooting at you. In close quarters, the adrenaline and the immediate concern of his enemy being three feet away tends to focus his concentration a bit. People hit at close range with small, fast bullets tend to shoot back or keep running. Even if he falls over five seconds after the fact, he can ruin your day in those five seconds.

This was the whole idea of fragmenting rounds, expanding rounds, hydroshock rounds and so on. The bullet would dump energy in the body or create a bigger wound channel or spit and have a greater chance of damaging something vital and incapacitating. All these things make a round worse at penetrating armor, so as always, everything is a trade off.

[Spiryt]

Even 5.56 round fired from a rifle tends to be lethal....in a little while.



The 5.56 round from a less than hundred yards is very, very lethal, and not "even" or in a "little while" - at least fired from something of at least carbine like barrel.

Long, small bullets traveling at great velocities tend to, obviously, react violently when they change the environment in which they move abruptly.

In many cases, they're just not substantial enough to survive the impact in one piece, and thus:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4022/4212874189_b6cf645b83.jpg


Compared to way more substantial, a bit slower rifle/ish bullets :

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/AK-47%20762x39mm.jpg

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/M80.jpg

Still destructive, but not quite so.

Bullet has basically low momentum and general substance, so it's prone to spend a lot of energy going trough target. Poor target will of course face the consequences of all that energy being spent.

That was pretty much the story about usage of original M-16 in Vietnam, for example - anything hit square from ~ 100 (when bullet was still very fast) was pretty much dead meat.

Of course it depends too - if bullet had hit soft, 'border' part of the body, where it didn't travel trough that much meat (below 10cm) - it didn't cause quite as traumatic wounds.

I'm pretty sure one can pretty easily find very drastic pictures of some actual poor souls hit by 5.56 or similar small caliber carbine rounds.

So, all in all, someone hit by that won't "keep running". At all.

In case of such bullet from handgun - bullet probably won't behave quite like that in most cases - high velocity is required.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/22LR%2040gr%20RNL.jpg

I'm no expert though.

[Raum]

This was the whole idea of fragmenting rounds, expanding rounds, hydroshock rounds and so on. The bullet would dump energy in the body or create a bigger wound channel or spit and have a greater chance of damaging something vital and incapacitating. All these things make a round worse at penetrating armor, so as always, everything is a trade off.Additionally, the fragmentation and subsequent energy loss helps prevent (or at least mitigate) over penetration. You want to prevent a shot from going through a wall and into your neighbor's house or your daughter's room.

[gkathellar]

Penetration is actually what you want bullets to do, from what I learnt from reading an FBI study on handgun injuries/fatalities. The stuff about bullets expanding, from what the report said, is a popular myth.

It's not a myth, and there are many factors other than expansion at play in a bullet's damage potential. Ideally, you want the round to tumble inside the target's body — and a bullet with too much penetration will just go straight through, without any tumbling.


Body armor greatly improves your chance to survive hits, but it's still best to avoid getting hit as much as possible.

Not to mention that taking a shot to your body armor (especially lighter body armor) can be incredibly painful or jarring, and still lead to bruising or broken bones.

Also, heavy armor generally teaches the enemy to aim for unarmored places, and ballistic armor is no exception. If rifles can't routinely do damage to the torso, people will start practicing their head-shots. That's not a flaw in said armor, just an interesting side-note.

[Beleriphon]

Not to mention that taking a shot to your body armor (especially lighter body armor) can be incredibly painful or jarring, and still lead to bruising or broken bones.

Lets not forget that military grade body armours are also designed to stop the squishy things inside the body from getting cut to ribbons or squishy things by shrapnel from antipersonal munitions.

Type III armour is noted as being designed to stop up to a NATO 7.62x51mm round, while Type IV is noted to stop up to a .30-06 AP round.

As an aside since the Pentagon is looking to replace Interceptor armour, what kind of armours might be worthwhile investigating. Something with ceramics or imact absorbing gels perhaps?

[The Boz]

I'd say the Dragon Skin is pretty interesting. Multiple discs form a multilayered protection similar to that of scale armor. Too early to tell, and its surrounded by controversy.

[Beleriphon]

I'd say the Dragon Skin is pretty interesting. Multiple discs form a multilayered protection similar to that of scale armor. Too early to tell, and its surrounded by controversy.

I was reading about that, looks interesting but the fact that it seems to consistently fail tests is telling of something. The main complaint that I could find was that the disks will warp or separate in environments that are too hot.

[Mathis]

Does anyone know how effective modern day body armour such as the Interceptor type is at stopping melee weapons? Here I mean knives, but also swords, axes and maybe even spears. If anyone knows, how does it compare to for example a steel breastplate, or a suit of chain armour? I mean, it's designed to stop high-velocity piercing attacks, but would it also do well against powerful slashing and hacking? I know the force of the blow from the attack itself would still be dangerous, but would an attack from such a melee weapon be able to penetrate the body armour?

[The Boz]

Depends on type. Knives, axes, arrows and spears will pretty much ignore Type I armors. Due to their momentum and edge, I'd be surprised if Type I, II or III body armor was at all effective against an axe or a sword.
I've heard rumours that in China they are trained to use crossbows as means of penetrating up to Type II body armor without any risk of overpenetration.

[Beleriphon]

Depends on type. Knives, axes, arrows and spears will pretty much ignore Type I armors. Due to their momentum and edge, I'd be surprised if Type I, II or III body armor was at all effective against an axe or a sword.
I've heard rumours that in China they are trained to use crossbows as means of penetrating up to Type II body armor without any risk of overpenetration.

I'd question whether a crossbow has sufficient energy to penetrate Type II armour, Type II-A maybe but full Type II has a pretty heavy chest plate. That thing will stop a 9mm AP or .357 Magnum round.

I'd think that most body armours will stop a knife or sword, even an axe blade. At least anything that somebody would be using currently as a weapon. I don't think it would be fun to be on the receiving end of taking a fire axe to Type III ballistic vest's chest plate, but I'd think it would be a survivable attack.

The main issue with most modern body armours is that they are designed to stop bullets, which means they tend only provide armour in places where bullets are likely to kill you. This usually means the torso and neck. Most of the armour provides no coverage for the arms or even shoulders.

[The Boz]

I'd question whether a crossbow has sufficient energy to penetrate Type II armour, Type II-A maybe but full Type II has a pretty heavy chest plate. That thing will stop a 9mm AP or .357 Magnum round. The way I understand it, it's all about the increased mass of an arrow with a smaller, non-deforming penetration point.


I'd think that most body armours will stop a knife or sword, even an axe blade. At least anything that somebody would be using currently as a weapon. I don't think it would be fun to be on the receiving end of taking a fire axe to Type III ballistic vest's chest plate, but I'd think it would be a survivable attack. I remember that in a chemical engineering class a few years ago the professor was demonstrating the physical properties of two different types of kevlar by using a hunting knife. The hard, rigid kevlar used in helmets did fine as far as stabbing and cutting went, showed only a nick, but the fabric type used in bulletproof vests did nothing to stop the knife stabbing or cutting through it. Stab vests work quite differently than bulletproof vests, and quite a specific type of protection is required to safeguard against slashing and stabbing melee weapons. As for the heavier weapons such as an axe or a sword, once it hits the rigid portion of a Type II vest, it will deflect/slide along the plate until it finds the end of it. A hit on the side will be turned either towards the hip or towards the armpit (assuming that the side even has a plate, and many Type IIs don't), a hit square in the chest will end up cutting either the throat or the groin, or it can find a place in the chest between the plates (even if the plates are normally overlapping, it can cut/slide between them). Or it will cut into the plate slightly, not move at all, and break stuff inside the body. This is preferrable, but axes will still retain their killing or disabling power.
And these were just attacks against the body. Limbs are still as vulnerable as ever, and cutting one open can be just as deadly.

[Conners]

Come to think of it, how much use do infantry have in war, these days? I hear there's a lot of soldiers in places, just to watch things. But I also hear that when there's a major conflict nowadays, they just press the button and the drones shoot missiles on the general area.

How important are infantry, in modern day? And what uses do they have?

Are infantry likely to become less necessary over time?

What sci-fi elements would be required, to make Infantry a critical element in battles?

[The Boz]

Come to think of it, how much use do infantry have in war, these days? I hear there's a lot of soldiers in places, just to watch things. But I also hear that when there's a major conflict nowadays, they just press the button and the drones shoot missiles on the general area.

How important are infantry, in modern day? And what uses do they have?

Are infantry likely to become less necessary over time?

What sci-fi elements would be required, to make Infantry a critical element in battles?

If you're not willing to utterly destroy the enemy, their economy, infrastructure and population, there's no going around using infantry.

[Conners]

Infantry are more deadly to those things than missiles...?

[Yora]

Missiles can only destroy what is standing out in the open.
But do defeat an enemy, you need to do a lot more. If you only bomb things to the ground, the enemy troops will go hide and come back out after the planes are gone.
Also, you usually don't want to kill the 99% of civilians who are also present in a city in addition to the few soldiers. And missiles are really expensive. Some of the bigger ones costing over a million dollars.

[The Boz]

Infantry are more deadly to those things than missiles...?

You either misread or I wasn't clear enough.
If your only goal is to completely obliterate your enemy, you can ignore the infantry. Nuke the guy, drown him in missiles and pound him with carpet bombing all day.
However, if you actually want to win a war, infantry is the way to go.


And missiles are really expensive. Some of the bigger ones costing over a million dollars.

That's cheap. Training, equipping and paying a US Marine comes to about half a million dollars, on average, plus something like half a million per year of deployment.

[Yora]

No wonder we have all bancrupted our economies.

[Conners]

Actually, I don't think the military budget is the cause of bankruptcy of late.


Either way, so the consensus is that you need soldiers to conquer a nation, unless your wish is to nuke it.

However, isn't it the case that we won't see any more large-scale infantry battles? Since, after all, if there are a lot of enemies out in the open, in taking cover in some bushes, nowadays it's easy to launch a bunch of tactical bombs down on them?

[Yora]

Even back in World War 2, it was actually quite common to retreat to large cities instead of meeting the enemy in open field battles. Berlin and Stalingrad for example. It was also the reason the allies expected to lose three times more men during the invasion of Japan than they had in the war in Europe and the Pacific combined.

These days, a war starts with about one week of air strikes against anti-air defenses to make way for troop transports, and then you get to fighting in the cities.
Or you have small groups of fighters hiding in the wilderness that only come out for short ambushes and then disappear again. You can't bomb people when you don't know where they are. However, the wars we've seen in the recent decades have usually been among armies with very large disparities in equipment. If neither side has the equipment to bomb anything the size of a truck and bigger at a short notice, things might look quite different.

I have no idea what would happen if you have two modern high-tech armies fighting each other, but currently there is no indication that this would happen within our lifetime.

[Conners]

Don't be so sure. There's always hope for humans, when it comes to interesting wars :smallfrown:...


Been wondering about a plausible way to have melee weapons gratuitously used in a futuristic setting. Armour that is hard to damage with guns, but can be damaged with super melee weapons would be one thing.


On that note... has there been research into ways to improve melee weapons? Like, are they trying to develop those chainsaw blades which Gears of War stole from Warhammer?

[Yora]

Chainsaw bayonets are not going to happen. People are trying very hard to get weapons to become smaller and lighter. Adding a chainsaw would make those things really heavy and difficult to move with.

The best thing I know is very compact automatic guns with special armor piercing rounds. Hand to hand combat is really terribly dangerous, when you can shot, it's always preferable.

[Mathis]

I've fixed a few chainsaws and when I was playing through Gears of War it always annoyed me that they worked so splendidly well without any kind of trouble. I can not imagine those things affixed to a rifle, aiming it would become incredibly difficult without supporting the barrel with some kind of tripod. Then there's the issue of carrying spareparts. The chain and teeth have a nasty habit of wearing down pretty easily, and would require maintenance in just the same way as a regular rifle, adding to the total amount of work an infantryman would have to carry out to keep his weapons in working condition.

It looks awesome, and works well in a fantasy setting. But I honestly doubt any sane weapons developer working for a professional army would build anything like it.

[Spiryt]

Melee weapon that requires a engine is huge no - no, you have clunky, hard to maneuver weapon, that requires fuel, and engine providing the torque can cause the chain link to fly in all directions, if something too non-giving had been hit...

Doesn't have sense.

If melee weapons would make a 'comeback' somehow, it probably would be something completely opposite - some kind of stuff that can cause damage with minimal violent movements and tension involved... Just by touching, instead -something akin to lightsaber, or whatever.

That's obviously even more of a fantasy, at this point.

[Yora]

It looks awesome, and works well in a fantasy setting. But I honestly doubt any sane weapons developer working for a professional army would build anything like it.

Except DARPA.

Oh wait, you said sane.

[Raum]

Even back in World War 2, it was actually quite common to retreat to large cities instead of meeting the enemy in open field battles. Berlin and Stalingrad for example. It was also the reason the allies expected to lose three times more men during the invasion of Japan than they had in the war in Europe and the Pacific combined.Not quite. Stalingrad was a political decision and a strategic mistake. It should have been cut off and bypassed. Instead, a certain unstable dictator threw away an entire Army on trying to take it in the middle of winter. As for Berlin, the war was essentially over by then. It was simply a matter of pride to go take the capital. That same war saw several cities either surrendered or declared open to avoid destruction while armies still clashed in the field.

As for Japan, islands and mountains both make natural barriers / fortresses. Combine the two and populate it with a culture who views capture as dishonorable and you have a very expensive target.


These days, a war starts with about one week of air strikes against anti-air defenses to make way for troop transports, and then you get to fighting in the cities.
Or you have small groups of fighters hiding in the wilderness that only come out for short ambushes and then disappear again. You can't bomb people when you don't know where they are. However, the wars we've seen in the recent decades have usually been among armies with very large disparities in equipment. If neither side has the equipment to bomb anything the size of a truck and bigger at a short notice, things might look quite different.Yep, asymmetric warfare has been the norm for the last few decades. Though Iraq's Republican Guard wouldn't have been a pushover if Iraq had anything close to parity in the air.


I have no idea what would happen if you have two modern high-tech armies fighting each other, but currently there is no indication that this would happen within our lifetime.With the European Union in the process of collapsing, I'm not as optimistic as you appear to be. :smalleek:

But national bankruptcies and EU collapses are probably best left for another forum.

----
Regarding close combat and melee weapons - rumor a few years ago had the Army ceasing to teach bayonet use in basic. This was occurring during the Iraq conflicts. So the questions - was this true and does it mean melee weapons weren't seen as useful even in urban fighting?

[Yora]

Nah, there's nothing to gain by fighting wars in Western Europe and we have a youth that would never pick up a gun to kill each others because some high ups say so. And all the big powers need each other so much, even a cold war would completely destroy everyones own economy as you can't get any more of the goods you need and you have no place to sell your exports.
War between Sweden, Germany, and France seems as likely to me as war between Bavaria and Saxony. Or another civil war in the US. It's like mutually assured destruction, except that we wouldn't even have to shot at each other. Just ignoring each other would devasted our countries. And we don't even dislike each other.
The only reason Europe has troops in wars is because it's in countries that are really far away from us, so we don't have to deal with the aftermath when we leave. Also, we have massive technological superiority.

As for Japan, islands and mountains both make natural barriers / fortresses. Combine the two and populate it with a culture who views capture as dishonorable and you have a very expensive target.
That's what I meant. It would be close to impossible to fight out in open fields in Japan. Even outside of the actual cities, you would have a nightmare of maintaining support lines and keeping all your flanks covered.

[Traab]

Yep, asymmetric warfare has been the norm for the last few decades. Though Iraq's Republican Guard wouldn't have been a pushover if Iraq had anything close to parity in the air.

Because noone in their right mind wants to fight a war against an equal or near equal opponent. There are exceptions, like say, rebels trying to overthrow their incumbent leader, which is a semi common thing throughout history, but in general, countries dont like to fight other countries that can actually put up a real struggle, its not cost effective. Even fighting a near equal opponent is bad because it weakens your side too much to defeat them, leaving you open to someone else wanting to attack.

[fusilier]

Are infantry likely to become less necessary over time?

There has been something of a debate in this area for some time. Ever since the introduction of mechanization to the battlefield, tanks and planes, so since World War One, there has been a question of whether or not infantry are still relevant. In World War One, an obvious argument would be that they were too exposed to artillery and machine guns on the modern battlefield.

Nevertheless, the fact seems to be that infantry are still relevant. And air strikes alone are too limited. Air strikes basically project power and threaten a weaker opponent (100 years ago, a naval bombardment would be a similar event). No war has been successfully fought without the use of ground forces and infantry. Perhaps that will change, but in about 100 years of development it hasn't yet.

Note, that I'm not saying that air strikes (or naval bombardments) aren't useful as a preparatory measure to an invasion, and they can have other tactical and strategical uses -- but in terms of waging full out war, they are too limited by themselves.

[Traab]

There has been something of a debate in this area for some time. Ever since the introduction of mechanization to the battlefield, tanks and planes, so since World War One, there has been a question of whether or not infantry are still relevant. In World War One, an obvious argument would be that they were too exposed to artillery and machine guns on the modern battlefield.

Nevertheless, the fact seems to be that infantry are still relevant. And air strikes alone are too limited. Air strikes basically project power and threaten a weaker opponent (100 years ago, a naval bombardment would be a similar event). No war has been successfully fought without the use of ground forces and infantry. Perhaps that will change, but in about 100 years of development it hasn't yet.

Note, that I'm not saying that air strikes (or naval bombardments) aren't useful as a preparatory measure to an invasion, and they can have other tactical and strategical uses -- but in terms of waging full out war, they are too limited by themselves.

I agree to an extent, you need infantry, unless your goal is to reduce your enemy to glass. Air strikes and naval bombardments/blockades are critical features in modern warfare though, air strikes in particular because they have a much less limited range in general. Air superiority means you can take out strategic targets behind enemy lines, harass any formations of troops or armor on the ground, destroy any supply lines, etc etc etc. Air strikes are there to break the backs of the defenses and allow your infantry to march in and take over with far greater ease than they would otherwise. Honestly, I cant think of a single branch of military that isnt highly useful and even critical to a modern day war effort. Maybe back in the middle ages you could field an army of a single type like cavalry and still achieve some solid success, now though, you need the full monty or else you are left vulnerable.

[DrewID]

Maybe back in the middle ages you could field an army of a single type like cavalry and still achieve some solid success, now though, you need the full monty or else you are left vulnerable.

Actually, I read a grad school paper by a friend that addressed the idea that military strategy was stagnant during the Middle Ages. His paper's premise was that what developed (or to a certain extent re-developed) over the course of that time period was the idea of, and eventually the necessity of, combined arms. By the Late Middle Ages, certainly by the Renaissance, you needed infantry, cavalry, and missile troops, or you were pretty were going to loose to someone else who had all three (utterly overwhelming numbers aside).

DrewID

[Traab]

Actually, I read a grad school paper by a friend that addressed the idea that military strategy was stagnant during the Middle Ages. His paper's premise was that what developed (or to a certain extent re-developed) over the course of that time period was the idea of, and eventually the necessity of, combined arms. By the Late Middle Ages, certainly by the Renaissance, you needed infantry, cavalry, and missile troops, or you were pretty were going to loose to someone else who had all three (utterly overwhelming numbers aside).

DrewID

Ok then sure, that wasnt really my point though, I was just pointing out that it hasnt been advisable to field only a single type of unit for a long time now.

[Mike_G]

You need infantry to control territory. You will never control anyplace until you can get some 18 year old with a rifle to stand on it. Air strikes can do a lot of damage, but you can't control a country from 3,000 feet up. And you can't hunt insurgents among the general population with Tomahawk missiles.

Small scale warfare, like most recent ones, rely more on infantry. The 1990 Gulf War was dominated by air strikes and the ground war by tanks while we defeated the Iraqi army and chased them out of Kuwait. The 2003 invasion, since it involves occupation, has seen a lot more use of infantry.

[Conners]

You need infantry to control territory. You will never control anyplace until you can get some 18 year old with a rifle to stand on it. Air strikes can do a lot of damage, but you can't control a country from 3,000 feet up. And you can't hunt insurgents among the general population with Tomahawk missiles.

Small scale warfare, like most recent ones, rely more on infantry. The 1990 Gulf War was dominated by air strikes and the ground war by tanks while we defeated the Iraqi army and chased them out of Kuwait. The 2003 invasion, since it involves occupation, has seen a lot more use of infantry. Hmm... assuming there was adequate space travel, couldn't you set up a couple of shipping docks on a planet, then order the locals to give you taxes at intervals? The idea would be you could drop nukes on them if they didn't comply, so you wouldn't even need to send soldiers (aside from guarding your transport docks).

Of course, this is assuming you disabled their ability to retaliate in any meaningful way (you might need a ground strike-force to go in and take out any dangerous projects, as well as spies to keep you alerted).

[Yora]

Threatening a smaller country to nuke its cities if they don't do what you want is no problem at all with current technology. Even with technology from 50 years ago.

The problem is, that you would make lots of enemies, even within your own country. There's also a very good chance that either the soldiers refuse the order to do so, or the generals stage a coup and remove you from power.
The entire thing would be just insane.

[Eldan]

That and, well, you'd need a very unified enemy country. You can be sure that even if the government complied, a few dozen guerilla organizations would spring up to fight you. What do you do then?

[Conners]

@Yora: That's why I was suggesting if it was another planet (either humans colonizing it, or cartoony/plausible aliens). Threatening another country, which you share a planet with, is rather different, considering the radiation would carry over to you for one immediate problem. The other is that if your country is on the same planet... you are more vulnerable to terrorism, surprise attacks (can't nuke an army in your own country), and having something done about your nuke-superiority.

If it's another planet, however, it could be possible to keep the thing under wraps. Pick cold-blooded soldiers, don't let any messages go out that aren't censored, and if you do transfer any boys away from the mess, make sure they're under watch for a while.
Also, people from the nukes nation might just hate those people who are threatened with nukes (government propaganda is scary...).


@Eldan: Well, depends on the power of the Guerillas. Their only feasible points of attack would be the loading bays, I imagine. Those could be pretty heavily fortified and armed. What with space superiority, I'd guess you'd have air superiority, in order to easily take out anything but a very skilful/well-equipped result.

At least, that's my theory. Don't know enough about the specifics of modern warfare to know if that's accurate.

[Yora]

Well, then we enter the realm of fiction and complete speculation. That's well outside the scope of contemporary and historic warfare.

[Conners]

Well, not completely. I don't know much about how tough Guerilla Groups are these days, you see. If I did, it'd be easier to compare their effectiveness in besieging a major fortress. Of course, it seems difficult to move an army large enough to be capable to such an attack, when the fortress could be placed in remote areas.

The stuff about nukes from space doesn't seem too hard to calculate with today's calculations.

And the propaganda stuff is fairly easy to imagine happening, with the right people in charge.

[The Boz]

If you're already in space with a starship, you don't really need nukes. Tungsten telephone poles fired at relativistic velocities are quite enough.

[Conners]

What sort of damage do you get from firing one of those...?

[The Boz]

It depends on the speed. Relativistic means it's comparable to the speed of light (the actual definition is moot, but most agree that anything over 1% c is relativistic). A 500kg pole hitting a target at ~1% c will unleash a blast equal to an atomic bomb in the low megatons.

[Conners]

WOW O_O!!! That IS scary...

Guess it'd introduce a dynamic, that if an enemy ship reached a planet's orbit, that planet would immediately surrender (or face a swathe of telephone polls).

[Eldan]

And you don't even really need to fire those poles. Just dropping, say, a ton of metal from orbit is enough to devastate a small town. At the very least.

But the problem is the same as with every bombing strike against civilian targets: you wipe every city, town and military base off the map and you still have a population that is now very angry, is convinced that you won't ever threat them fairly and knows the terrain a lot better than you. Welcome to 200 years of guerilla warfare where you never again will see a target large enough to hit from orbit and where, now, no enemy organization is left to treat with.

[Spiryt]

What's the cost of bringing up tonne of metal to and orbit though?

And more importantly, how the hell does one aim a metal beam at something smaller than Portugal? From orbit?


Relativistic means it's comparable to the speed of light (the actual definition is moot, but most agree that anything over 1% c is relativistic). A 500kg pole hitting a target at ~1% c will unleash a blast equal to an atomic bomb in the low megatons.

How do you produce energy required to speed up 500kg to 1% c though? In space?

Sorry for trying to keep the topic at least vaguely real world. :smalltongue:

[Eldan]

I'd imagine that if you can send a ship to another planet in a reasonable timeframe, energy to accelerate something for use as a weapon isn't really a problem anymore.

[Aux-Ash]

An important flaw with the "bomb them from orbit"-notion is that well... you're also bombing the thing you wanted in the first place. Sure, you can "teach" them for not providing you the materials from their mines. You also destroyed the mines though... so regardless of wether you taught them a lesson or not. It just cost you money.
You gained absolutely nothing on it. It'll take years of investment to rebuild. So all you can do is move on and repeat the threat. And if they too refuse... well...

All those "powerless" settlements can do is to refuse en masse... because you cannot possibly bomb them all. You'd end up being unable to support yourself. The whole idea only works if you assume you don't really need what those settlements provide anyways... at which point the whole thing is pointless.

Not to mention that to collect you actually have to send someone down.

Basically... threatening to bomb a settlement from orbit unless they pay you is a rather empty threat. Sure, you most certainly can bomb them. But you also blew up your pay.
And even if they comply... you're dependant on them cooperating and not sneaking a huge bomb onboard the crates you're loading onto your vessel, or taking your men hostage, or just plain blowing up your shuttle, or storming it and then storming your ship.

Now bombing a settlement from orbit from preventing someone else from getting something from it. That'd work. But threatening to bomb them unless they pay? Just how do you expect to collect after that?

[Conners]

I think it'd be a pretty effective threat, for any stable nation. Most politicians would be terribly anxious to save their skins, and their power.

Not really sure what the settlers would really plan to do... if they annoy the people in orbit: The Pirates/Military can just radiate the whole planet and kill most of the population with cancer.

When they comply, you send down cargo ships one at a time, making sure there aren't peculiarities.

----
This would seem like a good piracy method, since there's little chance of reprise, and the worst that'll probably happen is the people all scattering and you genociding a few million people.... admittedly, that sounds pretty bad, but a lot of pirates wouldn't care, unless they were starving for resources (I doubt the next planet would be so uncooperative).



One thing I'm wondering about, is female soldiers/knights in western countries, in the iron and steel ages. Know much about them?

[Raum]

I suspect the cheapest way to prepare for such orbital strikes would be to grab a few passing asteroids and use the planet's gravity as an assist to put them in orbit. Risky for the planet perhaps, but we're already talking about a group of ethically bankrupt raiders.

Once you have your rocks in high orbit, you've got your threat. However you still don't own the territory. You can't colonize it or use it yourself in any way. You're limited to blackmail and extortion.

Take it a step further, let's assume you have the local government scared enough to accede to your demands for Danegeld. Let's even assume the locals can't strike at you in orbit. (I find this a difficult assumption for reasons below.*) What will prevent them from striking at the native production facilities to prevent construction or transport of extorted goods? When they do, you have the choice of retaliating as threatened which hits both partisans and innocent civilians, not retaliating (which makes your threats pointless), or putting boots on the ground.

Long story short, you need boots on the ground to conquer territory. Temporary extortion is possible without infantry but I suspect that would be extremely ephemeral and end up strengthening the resistance. (See France in WW2 for an example. And Germany had boots on the ground.)

*I find it difficult to see what would be worth extorting out of a culture who couldn't put things in orbit. And doing so doesn't take a government. We have backyard rocket hobbyists putting rockets into space. Targeting and an explosive payload aren't a big step from there...the worst is targeting but that can be avoided if you're willing to fill your orbitals with ball bearings and other trash.

[Conners]

Wasn't saying they couldn't launch things into orbit. However.... if you did fire at the satellite, it could fire back--and guess which the bigger target is, the city of the satellite.

Plus, if we're going with armed space-ships... I figured it was reasonable to assume they'd have some pretty good missile-defence.

[Eldan]

Missile defence won't really work in space.

Know why? You don't need missiles. One of the biggest dangers for space missions today is trash. Small trash. If your space shuttle hits a piece of metal the size of a tennis ball at the wrong angle, it's bye-bye shuttle.

Now think how many metal tennis balls you can shoot into orbit.

Edit: Also, chances are that it will be too small and moving too fast (relative to you) to be picked up by whatever sensors you have.

[Raum]

Yep. Just launch a payload of ball bearings into orbit from the nearest mountain range then run. Get an entire planet doing this and it will be expensive (at best) to remain in orbit. Particularly if you can't rely on the planet for repair and resupply.

[Aux-Ash]

I think it'd be a pretty effective threat, for any stable nation. Most politicians would be terribly anxious to save their skins, and their power.

Not really sure what the settlers would really plan to do... if they annoy the people in orbit: The Pirates/Military can just radiate the whole planet and kill most of the population with cancer.

When they comply, you send down cargo ships one at a time, making sure there aren't peculiarities.

----
This would seem like a good piracy method, since there's little chance of reprise, and the worst that'll probably happen is the people all scattering and you genociding a few million people.... admittedly, that sounds pretty bad, but a lot of pirates wouldn't care, unless they were starving for resources (I doubt the next planet would be so uncooperative).

That's just the thing though. Sure, they have unparalleled destructive ability. But sooner or later they either need to put boots on the ground to make use of it (and once boots are on the ground, shooting at the settlement is out of the question) or sooner or later they're going to run out of settlements capable of giving them what they want. And then they just can't shoot.

They depend entirely on the locals being very compliant and agreeing. Because if they don't, their destructive potential means nothing.

Ultimately... this whole premise relies that nothing those settlements have is something they sorely need. That just bombing from orbit is cheaper than missing out on what they demanded.

And ultimately, if this sort of thing do happen, all the locals will learn to do is hide their settlements really well.

[Autolykos]

And ultimately, if this sort of thing do happen, all the locals will learn to do is hide their settlements really well.Awesome campaign setting. Want to play!

[Galloglaich]

Sorry I came to this subject a bit late, but my $.02

They do still use melee weapons to some extent in combat.

First of all in the type of gray area between demonstrations, riots, and civil unrest that we've seen in the Arab spring , there have been numerous incidents where swords, knives, spears, pipes, bats and so on have come into use.... too numerous to mention, including cavalry charges with camels and horses, and machete and shield combat. Swords seem to win in a lot of these fights.

Even in real full scale war, these hand weapons come in handy in close situations that can happen during room clearing and sometimes in caves and tight mountain passes such as in Afghanistan.

The Gurkhas, who are fighting in the British army and are also in a lot of the "Contractor" organizations which currently outnumber actual combat troops in Afghanistan for example, still carry their famous Kurkri knives. Most infantry still carry bayonets though more for use as a knife than on the end of a rifle (as the rifles have gotten smaller) but the latter is still sometimes used for crowd control and at least some British units are still deploying with Bayonets (see link below).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Winklerhawk.jpg/220px-Winklerhawk.jpg

Hatchets and tomahawks are probably the most popular weapon from what I here, and have been actually issued as weapons to some American and NATO combat units, including the Stryker Brigade in Afghanistan and several smaller and special ops units. It is used both for personal defense and as a multi-purpose tool, much as the old entrenching tool used to be used in the Vietnam era and into the 1980's when I was in the military (we used to sharpen the edge of ours).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_%28axe%29#Military_application

My understanding is that some troops also carry machetes and or kurkri's and other large tactical knives.

Obviously it's much better to use a carbine, a sidearm, grenades and so on but people forget, firearms run out of ammunition quickly and when used a lot, jam or have stoppages quickly as they heat up. So for example when a small outpost is in the process of being overrun in a long (all day) firefight there have actually been numerous incidents in the current large wars, and some of the smaller less publicized ones, which have come down to hand to hand combat.

G.

EDIT: couple of hand to hand combat incidents, one with a bayonet
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/6178044/British-officer-wins-two-gallantry-awards-for-fending-off-Taliban-attack-with-bayonet.html
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/10/army_silverstar_100408w/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1296136/As-Gurkha-disciplined-beheading-Taliban-Thank-God-side.html


EDIT AGAIN: this quote from the British guy pretty well sums up why the bayonet, hatchet etc. still have a use once in a while:

"That was when I decided to use the bayonet on him. It was a case of one second to bayonet him or two seconds to put on a fresh magazine. "

[Pheehelm]

On this subject, I was informed in a history class that soldiers arriving fresh on the battlefield in World War I were told right away to take off their bayonets. Reason being, they were very blunt puncturing implements, making them overly cruel ways to kill someone, so much so that soldiers with bayonets still equipped were specially targeted by the enemy. Instead they were instructed to use their shovels -- some trick like hitting them under the jaw to break their neck, I think.

Confirm/refute/elaborate?

[Yora]

They probably were more afraid of poking each others eyes out in the trenches, so they would remove them while not making an attack.

[Spiryt]

On this subject, I was informed in a history class that soldiers arriving fresh on the battlefield in World War I were told right away to take off their bayonets. Reason being, they were very blunt puncturing implements, making them overly cruel ways to kill someone, so much so that soldiers with bayonets still equipped were specially targeted by the enemy. Instead they were instructed to use their shovels -- some trick like hitting them under the jaw to break their neck, I think.

Confirm/refute/elaborate?

Any source/data?

This obviously doesn't make any sense, but since many military people back then were pretty damn disconnected from reality, someone could have easily actually came up with something like that.

All I know is that it didn't make it's way to "The Good Soldier Švejk", even though there were plenty of jokes from bayonets there. :smallwink:

Unfortunately, many history teachers don't know much better, and take such anecdotes as facts, instead of someone's quotes/ideas.

[Pheehelm]

Any source/data?
I was informed in a history class


This obviously doesn't make any sense, but since many military people back then were pretty damn disconnected from reality, someone could have easily actually came up with something like that.

All I know is that it didn't make it's way to "The Good Soldier Švejk", even though there were plenty of jokes from bayonets there. :smallwink:

Unfortunately, many history teachers don't know much better, and take such anecdotes as facts, instead of someone's quotes/ideas.*shrug* It makes sense to me. The pictures he showed of bayonets looked less like knives than like...icicles, or spikes, really blunt and thick, and supposedly had a bad habit of getting caught between ribs, which made them even more cruel. In any case, it wasn't "don't kill people at melee range," it was "kill people this other way because we're not here to torture them."

But yeah, in the years since I took that class I've come to see the truth in that last line of yours in regard to him, which is why I asked in the first place.

[Spiryt]

*shrug* It makes sense to me. The pictures he showed of bayonets looked less like knives than like...icicles, or spikes, really blunt and thick, and supposedly had a bad habit of getting caught between ribs, which made them even more cruel. In any case, it wasn't "don't kill people at melee range," it was "kill people this other way because we're not here to torture them."

But yeah, in the years since I took that class I've come to see the truth in that last line of yours in regard to him, which is why I asked in the first place.

It was world war I....

People were getting shredded by machine guns, blasted with artillery, were stepping on mines, getting torn by barbed wire, and were drowning in mud somewhere on no man ground because no one could reach them and help them.

And in combat for life and death there really is little space for "no torture". Melee fight with bayonets and other basically improvised melee weapons, in gunpowder warfare, without armor or anything, was seriously dangerous thing, and no sane person would worry about enemy, since the first problem would be to stop him before he can harm you.

So, as I mentioned, this sounds like an idea of some old(school) somehow detached officer of WWI era, who was by no means prepared for realities of trench war. Or haven't seen any conflict for few good years, as well.

There were plenty stuff like that back then, including Veteran Foundations etc. sending soldiers in trenches stuff for dental hygiene, pedicure, or whatever.....

In reality, no one would think about enemy before himself.

[Autolykos]

I suspect that the reason is more that a shovel is a more practical melee weapon than a bayonet. Bayonets tend to get stuck, and might not take your opponent out of the fight quickly enough. Breaking their neck/skull with a shovel takes them out almost immediately (and has a rather low risk of making your shovel unusable). Plus, a bayonet at the end of a long and heavy rifle is rather unwieldy when fighting in a cramped trench (or even a tunnel). I'd prefer the shovel in most cases.

[Spiryt]

I suspect that the reason is more that a shovel is a more practical melee weapon than a bayonet. Bayonets tend to get stuck, and might not take your opponent out of the fight quickly enough. Breaking their neck/skull with a shovel takes them out almost immediately (and has a rather low risk of making your shovel unusable). Plus, a bayonet at the end of a long and heavy rifle is rather unwieldy when fighting in a cramped trench (or even a tunnel). I'd prefer the shovel in most cases.

Bayonet has some ridiculous reach on shovel though, and quickness/short attack path, so I in fact wouldn't fight someone with bayonet armed with shovel at all....

Even if I managed to land a blow, I would be butterfly on a pin in effect too.

So I would be careful with judging like that.

What's certain, is that there are a lot of stories about bayonets simply getting destroyed quickly in frantic trench struggles.

Shovels are undoubtedly hard stuff to damage, so in that sense they're very practical.

[Dead_Jester]

Bayonet has some ridiculous reach on shovel though, and quickness/short attack path, so I in fact wouldn't fight someone with bayonet armed with shovel at all....

The thing is, trenches, especially secondary ones, tend to be pretty cramped fighting space, and a longer weapon could potentially be less useful than a smaller one.

As such, while stabbing someone with a bayonet is probably faster than bashing/hacking him with a shovel, you pretty have a minimal range you need to keep to cause significant damage (most WW1 soldiers weren't really trained in using their guns as weapons in extremely close quarters, although a few special force units were trained in serious unarmed combat).

There is probably a link between the inefficiency of bayonets in extremely confined space and the apparition of improvised and official melee weapons designed for trench warfare.

[Spiryt]

The thing is, trenches, especially secondary ones, tend to be pretty cramped fighting space, and a longer weapon could potentially be less useful than a smaller one.

As such, while stabbing someone with a bayonet is probably faster than bashing/hacking him with a shovel, you pretty have a minimal range you need to keep to cause significant damage (most WW1 soldiers weren't really trained in using their guns as weapons in extremely close quarters, although a few special force units were trained in serious unarmed combat).

There is probably a link between the inefficiency of bayonets in extremely confined space and the apparition of improvised and official melee weapons designed for trench warfare.

Actually, training with bayonets was often quite a sport in armies (German one, in particular, AFAIR), together with competition using some safe bayonet wasters.

And with the way bayonet is used, cramped space isn't that much of a problem, since you're obviously stabbing forward. Taking a swing with something would be more of a problem.

I suspect that raise of shovels and other improvised stuff could come from "outside combat" practical aspects of bayonets - keeping them clean and nice, general clumsiness and accidents mentioned by Yora, the fact that they were prone to breaking, and so on.

[fusilier]

WW1 bayonets

Bayonets were used by all nationalities during WW1. The French bayonet, and I believe the Russian bayonet were thin triangular thrusting bayonets. Most other nations used a sword or knife bayonet. The Russians didn't even issue a bayonet scabbard, the bayonet was only supposed to be removed for cleaning, or transport.

Reach with a bayonet during WW1 wasn't necessarily a drawback -- American troops had shorter rifles than the Germans, and therefore shorter reach with the bayonet. This was considered a disadvantage, and supposedly they asked for bayonet training from the French to help overcome such disadvantage.

Reach was useful when fighting out of the trenches, and when first entering or defending a trench. Once in the trench fighting might be too crowded to effectively wield a long bayonet on the end of a long rifle. Entrenching tools (shovels, picks), trench knives/daggers, improvised clubs, etc., could all come into use. Some troops like the Arditi relied primarily on offensive grenades and daggers in an attack.

Some troops may have been told to remove bayonets upon entering their own trenches, so that they weren't getting caught on things on the trench walls, and being a nuisance.

[fusilier]

Had to end that last message quickly, so here's a little more on bayonets in WW1:

In the remake of All Quiet on the Western Front, there's a scene where new recruits are berated for bringing bayonets with sawbacks on them to the frontline. They claimed that the allies would simply kill them if they were taken prisoner which such a weapon. This is not really an accurate reflection of the facts. The Germans issued sawback bayonets only to NCOs -- the purpose was to provide some of the troops with a saw, that might be useful in cutting branches and preparing camp fires. They were not general issue. Also I haven't heard confirmation that the Allies thought it was a barbaric practice, although it's plausible.

Bayonet training is likely one of those things that suffered during the war. I believe that British recruits received a total of 4 weeks of training, and Italians and French 3 weeks, before being shipped to the front. That's raw recruits! I'm sure some of the details were picked up once they were on the front from veterans. I know in the Italian army, entire units were sometimes pulled out of the normal rotation and sent to training camps for a few weeks (probably for more advanced training), and I suspect that it was similar in other nations. But still, stabbing bags filled with straw was probably all the bayonet training most recruits got.

Once the regulars had been used up at the beginning of the war, some soldiers may have had some advanced bayonet training in prewar service, as many nations ostensibly had national service plans that would have given some training to much of the fighting-age population -- but how regularly and diligently that prewar training occurred varied. Britain and the USA had no such programs, although United States troops did get months of training -- unfortunately most of that training did not have the benefit of having instructors experienced in trench warfare. They received more training in France from French instructors, but the instructors seem to have complained a lot about the Americans not listening to them.

[Galloglaich]

American troops did pretty well in WW I didn't they? I had that impression anyway, better than in the early parts of WW II... or is that wrong? I'm not very well versed on WW I. I find it too ghastly to think about for the most part.

G.

[Yora]

They did a good jon, but they only shpwed up half a year before the war was over, after millions of people had already died and pretty much all the big events had happened.
They could have even been the deciding factor, but for the people in western europe they would have appeared as huge last minute reinforcements for the Brittish and French.

And then they disappeared again for the next 25 years while the european powers were all preparing for the next war with each other.

[fusilier]

American troops did pretty well in WW I didn't they? I had that impression anyway, better than in the early parts of WW II... or is that wrong? I'm not very well versed on WW I. I find it too ghastly to think about for the most part.

G.

In the Meuse-Argonne offensive. Americans basically made rookie mistakes, like the armies of 1914-15, and paid for it dearly. This may have disheartened the Germans, not because of the effectiveness of American forces, but because they could still afford to make such mistakes, both in terms of resources and morale.

Despite Pershing's wishes not to parcel out American forces as reinforcements to the Allies, some American divisions were used to plug holes towards the end of the German Spring Offensive, and they did well there. Although there may have been some instances of trouble, like when Harry Truman's unit (he was a captain of artillery), got involved in a counter attack in the Vosges and they referred to it as "The battle of who ran". Many of the men ran when the first sergeant did, Truman promoted those who stayed with him, and demoted the sergeant.

At the end of the Meuse-Argonne offensive one general estimated that 100,000 American troops had been found straggling behind the lines. There are good reasons to doubt this estimate, and most of those soldiers were coaxed back to their units. To me it paints a picture of some disorganization, but I would say that would be expected from a new army, that lacked the years of experience that the other Allies had.

[Galloglaich]

Ah,... well this all sounds pretty much like what happened in WW II then.


I thought some of y'all might appreciate this

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/02/us-navys-futuristic-railgun-passes-projectile-milestone/

[GungHo]

Come to think of it, how much use do infantry have in war, these days? I hear there's a lot of soldiers in places, just to watch things. But I also hear that when there's a major conflict nowadays, they just press the button and the drones shoot missiles on the general area.

Missiles can't occupy territory. The occupations of Iraq and Afganistan have been infantry conflicts assisted by close air support. The overthrow of the Libyan government was an infantry conflict assisted by close air support (we may not have been the infantry, but at the end of the day, that's how it worked). The first Iraq War was a cavalry conflict assisted by close air support, but only because the tanks chased everyone away so not many soldiers had to "get out". It was otherwise going to be an infantry conflict.

Drones/warplanes/missiles were used in the initial/follow-on phases to take out fortified positions and/or to respond to requests for precision strikes. They certainly made things easier on the ground. But drones didn't pull anyone out of a rabbit hole. Drones didn't make any contacts with any tribal elders. Drones didn't get anyone any food, water, or medical supplies.

[Yora]

New topic:

Please educate me about leather armor.

I am trying to find out what would be a good way for semi-realistic uses of armor in a campaign, but I find it quite hard to find info on leather armor.
What I already do know is that studded leather armor never existed and wouldn't even work. But what about armor made of leather that did actually exist. Does anyone know more about that?

[Spiryt]

New topic:

Please educate me about leather armor.

I am trying to find out what would be a good way for semi-realistic uses of armor in a campaign, but I find it quite hard to find info on leather armor.
What I already do know is that studded leather armor never existed and wouldn't even work. But what about armor made of leather that did actually exist. Does anyone know more about that?

Well, AFAIK:

Basically, in the nearer or further east, more wealthy warriors of migrating tribes had quite an abundance of quality leather from different beasties, so they were making lamellar, or sometimes scale armors out of thick, heavily treated leather plates - instead of any kind of ferrous/bronze/whatever ones.

Don't know that much about it, and it's not that easily achievable stuff, but such armors were definitely popular for quite a long time.


http://www.freha.pl/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=2059


Some more pictures (http://www.freha.pl/index.php?showtopic=10819&st=0)

There are a lot of discussions about the exact way in which those armors were being made - boiled in water? Wax? Oil?

I would think that remaining armors/single plate could give definite answer if analyzed, but maybe that's only easy to say.

[Yora]

Something like hoplite armor, but made from hardened leather sounds quite plausible, but so do many other things that are just stupid on closer examination.

The only types of armor common in fiction that I knew actually existed and that I do understand in the way they work are gothic style plate armor and roman chain shirts. With everything else, I am not so sure.
Armor made of scales did also exist, but I'm not sure how that actually looked.

[Spiryt]

Something like hoplite armor, but made from hardened leather sounds quite plausible, but so do many other things that are just stupid on closer examination.

The only types of armor common in fiction that I knew actually existed and that I do understand in the way they work are gothic style plate armor and roman chain shirts. With everything else, I am not so sure.
Armor made of scales did also exist, but I'm not sure how that actually looked.

Armor made of scales existed in multitude of forms and thus they had quite a lot of different 'looks' from 3000 BC Egypt to 17th century Poland.

And as far as mail goes, am not really sure what you mean - why only Roman ones are "understandable"? :smallwink:

As far as "solid" leather armor goes, the closet thing will probably be buff coats of ~ 1500 - 1700.

Not exactly standalone armor, but few millimeters of solid cowhide could probably save your own hide from quite a few threats.


but made from hardened leather sounds quite plausible

Not really. All kinds of more or less serious test suggest that something like that is simply easily bypassed by most pointy threats. Even if it approaches really cumbersome thickness.

[Yora]

Then what form of hardened leather would be useful?

Lorica hamata looks actually like a chain shirt as you would see it in a movie, RPG book, or video game. If chainmail armor made by other people also looked like that, I don't know.

[Spiryt]

Lorica hamata looks actually like a chain shirt as you would see it in a movie, RPG book, or video game. If chainmail armor made by other people also looked like that, I don't know.

There were plenty short mail hauberks all around the space and time.

http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMuseumPlus?service=ExternalInterface&module=collection&objectId=60496&viewType=detailView

But I'm pretty sure that I have seen more or less full mail suits in all kinds of movies and and games,starting from Monthy Python so I'm still not sure if I get your point. :smallwink:



Then what form of hardened leather would be useful?

As I said earlier, armor made out of leather scales, or lames, was most certainly pretty popular in Asia, trough at least 1000 years. Even though actual preserved armor suits mostly date from 1600+ from obvious reasons.

[Spiryt]

Something about buffcoats:

thread with a lot of pictures (http://www.freha.pl/index.php?showtopic=7215&st=40) - with warning that the picture of dude and his full leather attire from last page is some complete misunderstanding. :smallwink:


http://www.freha.pl/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=17635

[Yora]

Currently I feel seriously in doubt that leather armor ever existed at all. There are no contemporary images from the middle ages or earlier, no archeological remains, and from what I know no written descriptions.
The only argument for it seems to be "Some people did try to make one and it did well in testing it", which I assume means "hitting it once with a sword in a backyard.

But on the other hand, people who claim that leather was always much too expensive to make armor that would be destroyed after one good hit also seem to stand on rather shaky legs.

[Spiryt]

Well....

There is pretty much no data of leather armor being ever used in Medieval Europe on serious scale indeed.

Some mentions of "cuir boulli" and one pretty ornate elbow (I think) defense from ~ 1300 and that's all, apart from some ambiguous art.

Even though many people rather maniacally try to grab something.:smallwink:

In Asia, however, existence of leather armor is not really disputable - although I don't know much about it, there's quite a lot of remaning traces or leather lammellar or similar forms.

[Mike_G]

Currently I feel seriously in doubt that leather armor ever existed at all. There are no contemporary images from the middle ages or earlier, no archeological remains, and from what I know no written descriptions.
The only argument for it seems to be "Some people did try to make one and it did well in testing it", which I assume means "hitting it once with a sword in a backyard.

But on the other hand, people who claim that leather was always much too expensive to make armor that would be destroyed after one good hit also seem to stand on rather shaky legs.


As with anything degradable, archeological findings are probably unlikely. There's not a lot of linen armor remains, but nobody disputes it.

A society of herdsmen, like the Mongols, would have plenty of leather available. Probably more than they'd have flax for linen. Leather is fairly tough, and no more likely than textile to be destroyed by a few whacks with a sword. Firefighter's helmets were traditionally leather, and many departments in the Noretheastern US still use the leather helmet. I've seen them and worn them at fire scenes while on the ambulance. I wouldn't want to try to hack through one.

I think leather armor is plausible. I don't think much would have survived, especially in the damp climate of Europe. I'd be stunned if it never existed.

[Yora]

Plausible definitely.

I also don't buy the claim that nobody would use it because a spear, arrow, or sword point could pierce it. A hardhat does not stop a steel beam, but that's no reason to not wear one. Being impaled through the chest is not the only kind of injury one would want to avoid.

But I wonder about the ability to withstand weather. Obviously people who wore deerskin clothes didn't have to replace them every month because they rot away, but what's the life expectancy of leather that sees a lot of outdoor time with rain and mud.
Today we rarely go out for more than a few hours and mostly at fair weather with opportunity to clean everything up every night. But when it really sees long-term exposure to the elements, how long does leather actually last?

[Conners]

One thing also to consider, is the Samurai had a lot of leather armour (lacquered in some way). The richer ones could afford to put some metal in their armour (and they did have some mail armour), but the majority had fancy leather stuff.

Also, Samurai didn't use personal shields... so that says something about how well their armour needs to hold up. For some battles, they did have huge shields with wheels you could move about (can't remember what they're called... pavise?).

[Mike_G]

Plausible definitely.

I also don't buy the claim that nobody would use it because a spear, arrow, or sword point could pierce it. A hardhat does not stop a steel beam, but that's no reason to not wear one. Being impaled through the chest is not the only kind of injury one would want to avoid.

But I wonder about the ability to withstand weather. Obviously people who wore deerskin clothes didn't have to replace them every month because they rot away, but what's the life expectancy of leather that sees a lot of outdoor time with rain and mud.
Today we rarely go out for more than a few hours and mostly at fair weather with opportunity to clean everything up every night. But when it really sees long-term exposure to the elements, how long does leather actually last?

Leather boots, properly waxed, can last a long time, even in wet environments, even wehn hit with salty water, so lonmg as you clean them and retreat with oil or wax. Ditto for the aforementioned firemen's helmets, which get wet a lot. Combat boots are leather, at least mine were when I served in the 1980's, and the were constantly wet, then dry, then muddy, and generally abused, and they held up

I wore leather fencing gloves throughout college. The salty sweat would eat the leather and people would buy two or three a season. I was poor, so i just washed my gloves with soap and water, then applied Neat's Foot Oil and the gloves stayed supple and usable for several seasons.

If soldiers maintained their leather armor, just like they'd have to maintain their other equipment, I think it would last for years.

[jaybird]

Properly cared for leather military equipment will last for many years - the case I find with combat boots is that the (rubber) soles wear out before the leather does. As for leather armour, the case should be the same - oil and wash it regularly and it will last. Won't stop a musket ball or a lance, but nothing else would have either.

[Dienekes]

So a question that's been puzzling me. Is there any practical purpose for a katana to be sheathed blade top? I don't know of any other curved one-side bladed weapons that are carried that way and I don't see the practical purpose. I've tried thinking through the movement and it seems a bit unnatural, and looking up why online got me that apparently the other way would make the katana cut through it's own scabbard which to me sounds like the ridiculous "katana's can cut through anything better than anything" propaganda.

[Daosus]

They are carried that way so that when you draw them from the saddle, the blade clears the reins. Another sword carried a similar way was the Shashka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shashka)

[gkathellar]

So a question that's been puzzling me. Is there any practical purpose for a katana to be sheathed blade top? I don't know of any other curved one-side bladed weapons that are carried that way and I don't see the practical purpose. I've tried thinking through the movement and it seems a bit unnatural, and looking up why online got me that apparently the other way would make the katana cut through it's own scabbard which to me sounds like the ridiculous "katana's can cut through anything better than anything" propaganda.

The movement is actually pretty flowing and natural if you know what you're doing. If you think about it, no matter which way the blade is facing, unless it hangs at mid-thigh level you have to bend your wrist at a weird angle.

But you're right — it's unusual, and it's at least in part an invention of politeness. In a lot of traditional battojutsu, many techniques switch the blade to face down before the draw, and on the battlefield many samurai used tachi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachi) instead of katana, which were carried with the blade down, hanging at about mid-thigh level.

It's very difficult to think of the "modern" Japanese sword arts in general as strictly practical, or even many of the later koryu. The Edo period saw samurai assume a lot of new responsibilities, and saw the introduction of arms and armor regulations that changed, removed, or added many assumptions. There are entire stances that were rendered irrelevant by laws regulating the length of a sword, for example.

[Spiryt]

There's not a lot of linen armor remains, but nobody disputes it.

Eh, there's quite a lot remains, aside from thousands of other sources, from literal to graphic.

Not quite comparable to any leather stuff, were faint hints are very scarce.

http://www.historiclife.com/pdf/KASF2008/Jacks.pdf

[Yora]

I think it's actually easier to go from unsheathing your weapon into an attack when you have the blade edge up rather than edge down. With edge up you end up with your arm outstretched to the side and can make a swing at the legs as you pull the blade out. Not a well aimed swing, but possibly something to make an attacker jump back. While with edge down you have your arm outstretched high and the tip of the blade making a large arc. With edge up the blade remains closer to the body which reduces the chance of hitting something by accidents.

Though i am not a fencer and don't have my bokken here, so it might actually behave quite differently.

[Galloglaich]

Eh, there's quite a lot remains, aside from thousands of other sources, from literal to graphic.

Not quite comparable to any leather stuff, were faint hints are very scarce.

http://www.historiclife.com/pdf/KASF2008/Jacks.pdf

Yes I agree with Spiryt here again ... there is almsot no evidence of real leather armor in Europe. I have some photos of cuir boulli armor from Italy from the 15th Century (shoulder and leg defenses) it looks pretty cool like something from mad max but it is believed to be tournament armor for use with blunt weapons. Similar to what we use for modern HEMA actually. And there is also some metal / textile armor which uses leather as a facing, brigandines and so on, both torso and leg defense, which we have evidence for both in art and surviving artifacts (I have a photo of a 15th Century Spanish Brigandine with a leather facing, and paintings depicting what looks like leather faced brigandine limb defenses from the 14th Century). And there is the buff coat which Spiryt mentioned but that (IMO) barely qualifies as armor.

The only "real" functional leather armor that I know of existing is in fact lamellar in Asia, and we do have surviving examples from the Mongols. This seems to be basically be 'poor mans' armor and is often augmented by scales of horn, wood, and metal. In Asia it's also worth noting that water buffalo hide was preferred over cow leather.

In India they also made armor out of Elephant and Rhino skin, and I believe I've read about armor made from Crockodile skin as well.

There are some controversial mentions in the Viking Sagas of magical "Reindeer hide armor" obtained from the Finns but there is no consensus on what that actually was. Is suspect it's buckskin-faced textile armor like a gambeson.

In Europe the functional equivalent of leather armor as 'poor mans armor' is various forms of textile armor mostly made of linen or fustian for which there is an abundance of evidence of all kinds. This was both made as stand-alone armor as well as padded garments for wearing either under or over armor (or both)

In modern tests textile armor seems to be pretty functional and leather armor does not hold up well, especially hardened leather and large pieces of leather. Leather lamellar provides some protection against missiles, which is what it was intended for.


G

[Thiel]

Plausible definitely.

I also don't buy the claim that nobody would use it because a spear, arrow, or sword point could pierce it. A hardhat does not stop a steel beam, but that's no reason to not wear one. Being impaled through the chest is not the only kind of injury one would want to avoid.

But I wonder about the ability to withstand weather. Obviously people who wore deerskin clothes didn't have to replace them every month because they rot away, but what's the life expectancy of leather that sees a lot of outdoor time with rain and mud.
Today we rarely go out for more than a few hours and mostly at fair weather with opportunity to clean everything up every night. But when it really sees long-term exposure to the elements, how long does leather actually last?

Quite a long time. Like I've remarked earlier wooden sailing ships were buildt almost entirely from easily degradeable materials, including a fair amount of leather and raw-hide and, in the RN at least, the only treatment it got was cooking grease.

[Spiryt]

In modern tests textile armor seems to be pretty functional and leather armor does not hold up well, especially hardened leather and large pieces of leather. Leather lamellar provides some protection against missiles, which is what it was intended for.

G

I'm pretty sure that leather lammelar can be pretty damn good armor, hard to really imagine piercing it easily, so it indeed had been used.

It basically solves pretty big problem with leather for armor - leather hard and thick enough to stop stuff is just becomes stiff to the point when it chips, and hard to imagine anybody wearing it functionally.

As mentioned, buff coats were often as thick as 6mm, and therefore pretty heavy, restricting and very expensive items due to effort required to shape, sew etc. such piece of leather.

Leather used as actual standalone armor, to resist spears, javelins, arrows, lances etc. would require to be even thicker...

Using it as scales instead, one not only get's single small pieces that can be harder to pierce (thickness/surface ratio) and is bearable to move and shape due to lacing between scales providing shape and mobility.

That's obviously mostly theoretical rambling, what's certain is that:

Europe - no leather armor (with leather as main armoring factor, of course) found

Asia - quite a lot of it


In Europe the functional equivalent of leather armor as 'poor mans armor' is various forms of textile armor mostly made of linen or fustian for which there is an abundance of evidence of all kinds. This was both made as stand-alone armor as well as padded garments for wearing either under or over armor

Very rich man also used plenty of textile armor, to add to this sentence.

Obviously, they usually used it to supplement some mail, and later some kind of other metal armor, obviously.


And there is also some metal / textile armor which uses leather as a facing, brigandines and so on, both torso and leg defense, which we have evidence for both in art and surviving artifacts (I have a photo of a 15th Century Spanish Brigandine with a leather facing, and paintings depicting what looks like leather faced brigandine limb defenses from the 14th Century).

Usage as backing for coats of plates and so on was pretty popular indeed.

Anybody knows some relatively achievable source about Visby finds?

As far as I recall there were quite a lot of leather backing there, alongside heavy fabric ones, but would be interesting to see more detailed data.

[gkathellar]

I think it's actually easier to go from unsheathing your weapon into an attack when you have the blade edge up rather than edge down. With edge up you end up with your arm outstretched to the side and can make a swing at the legs as you pull the blade out. Not a well aimed swing, but possibly something to make an attacker jump back. While with edge down you have your arm outstretched high and the tip of the blade making a large arc. With edge up the blade remains closer to the body which reduces the chance of hitting something by accidents.

Either way, you're usually going to get a vertical or diagonal cut — the real question is whether it's going up (edge down) or up (edge down), and whether it leaves you in a better offensive (edge down) or defensive (edge up) position. You can't draw-cut with the edge down in a sitting position, however — which is very important when you're an unarmored courtier who might have to kill someone or defend yourself at the drop of a hat. (Note that you can draw into a block and counter while sitting with the edge down, but that's a little more intricate.)

One should keep in mind, however, that these types of draw-cuts were usually executed with one hand on the sheath, which meant that a reasonably quick fighter could adjust the blade's positioning situationally. How the sword was actually carried wasn't always relevant.


Quite a long time. Like I've remarked earlier wooden sailing ships were buildt almost entirely from easily degradeable materials, including a fair amount of leather and raw-hide and, in the RN at least, the only treatment it got was cooking grease.

I know in early Greece, their ships weren't particularly durable, and they tarred them to prevent water damage (that's why Homer keeps talking about "black ships"). In general, its better to have costly essentials then not have any essentials at all.

[Yora]

Silly question, but I was just peeling an orange:

Is there any good reason to grip a knife with the blade near the thumb and the edge pointing to your arm?
Except for stabbing yourself.

With the blade on the opposite side of the thumb, both orientations of the edge have some use, but blade near the thumb and edge towards the arm does not seem to have any use.

[gkathellar]

This (http://www.jayfisher.com/Knife_Grip_Styles_Hand_Sizing.htm#Unusual_Knife_Gr ip_Technique_Forward_Grip_Edge_Up_FGEO) is probably the closest thing you'll find to what you're talking about.

[Joran]

This (http://www.jayfisher.com/Knife_Grip_Styles_Hand_Sizing.htm#Unusual_Knife_Gr ip_Technique_Forward_Grip_Edge_Up_FGEO) is probably the closest thing you'll find to what you're talking about.

Ah good, a perfect segue. I was watching American Guns and someone traded in a Confederate Bowie Knife.

http://confederatebowieknives.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/ReverseEdge.jpg.w300h86.jpg

Notice, the edge is pointing up not down. The explanation from the expert was that a reverse edge knife was for an experienced knife fighter. Any truth to this?

P.S. The person had also traded in a beautiful Model 1860 Light Cavalry Saber. The Saber was only worth about $800-900 but that knife, because it was both reverse edge and left-handed was worth 4-5 times as much. Is it bad that my initial reaction was "WHERE CAN I BUY THAT SABER?" ;)

[gkathellar]

Are we sure that's not just a badly made knife where the guard swung around and then rusted that way? Eh, Occam's knife, probably not.

If it was meant to be used with a reverse grip or with the blade held sideways, I could see it having some use. Otherwise, I suspect they had no idea what they were talking about. Of course, I'm sure someone here knows more about knife-fighting than I do.

[Mike_G]

Ah good, a perfect segue. I was watching American Guns and someone traded in a Confederate Bowie Knife.

http://confederatebowieknives.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/ReverseEdge.jpg.w300h86.jpg

Notice, the edge is pointing up not down. The explanation from the expert was that a reverse edge knife was for an experienced knife fighter. Any truth to this?

P.S. The person had also traded in a beautiful Model 1860 Light Cavalry Saber. The Saber was only worth about $800-900 but that knife, because it was both reverse edge and left-handed was worth 4-5 times as much. Is it bad that my initial reaction was "WHERE CAN I BUY THAT SABER?" ;)

I picked up an 1860 sabre for $450 about twenty years ago. The blade and guard were in good condition, but the wrapping around the hilt was gone, which isn't all that surprising. They made tons of the things during the Civil War as the Army expanded, then sold them for surplus when it shrank back, so they're not hard to find. I'm not shocked that the sabre was valued where it was.

[Joran]

I picked up an 1860 sabre for $450 about twenty years ago. The blade and guard were in good condition, but the wrapping around the hilt was gone, which isn't all that surprising. They made tons of the things during the Civil War as the Army expanded, then sold them for surplus when it shrank back, so they're not hard to find. I'm not shocked that the sabre was valued where it was.

Yup, something like 200,000 made by Ames. I'm not sure where I'd look, but it's something I'm interested in. I always wanted a sword and a piece of history, but always thought that it'd be too expensive. $700-$800 is eminently affordable to me.


If it was meant to be used with a reverse grip or with the blade held sideways, I could see it having some use. Otherwise, I suspect they had no idea what they were talking about. Of course, I'm sure someone here knows more about knife-fighting than I do.

Expert demonstrating it held it upright, not a reverse grip. I'm not sure if that's correct though.

[Xuc Xac]

The Saber was only worth about $800-900 but that knife, because it was both reverse edge and left-handed was worth 4-5 times as much.

What exactly makes that knife "left-handed"?

[Joran]

What exactly makes that knife "left-handed"?

The hand guard was positioned so it'd protect the knuckles. It curved so it could only fit properly on the left-hand instead of the right.

[Beleriphon]

For those interested in the previous discussion regarding RKVs (that would be relativistic kill vehicle) the following has a calulators that you can use to do the math for working out how much energy would be released from such a weapon.

http://xeriar.com/calculators/relativistic_kill_vehicles_mass_driver

[Matthew]

New question! I have been talking a bit about this elsewhere, and am not really sure what to make of it all.

On the battlefield (or in a dungeon corridor) there is a limited amount of space between files of men, and this has to be balanced against the space required to fight efficiently. Based on Vegetius and Polybius, it is generally thought that 3' of frontage would be "close order" and 6' of frontage would be "open order", though obviously that is chiefly theoretical.

So, you have a line of men in close order with spears, shields, and padded armour (or mail hauberks for the better off) closing with another similarly arrayed enemy (could be orcs, but maybe we should not go there in this thread!) and it goes past the initial clash into a general mêlée. These fellows have a mix of weapons suited to close quarters: short hafted axes and maces, and short bladed swords. Are the fighters with short hafted weapons (say 1-2' hafts) significantly worse off than those with short bladed swords (say 1-2' blades)? In short (pun intended), are axes and maces suitable for close order combat?

[Yora]

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking for.

Something like two hordes of barbarians running at each other and starting to hack at each other with not much room to move?

[Matthew]

Just your standard clash of shield walls. Whether on a battlefield of thousands or in a dungeon corridor with a dozen should not make too much difference.

[Yora]

Genrally, shield walls didn't clash. If you're fighting in a solid phalanx with big shields and spears, you'd do everything you can to keep the formation. It's the wall of shields that keeps you alive, but the same thing goes for the enemy.
If you have only your eyes and feet show from behind your shield, it's very difficult to hit you with a spear and probably short of impossible to get close enough with a sword or an axe.

Figure A:
http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs31/i/2008/200/d/e/Greek_phalanx_by_Saint_Jan.jpg

You can't get around the guy in front of you, since there are two more guys with shields next to him, and you can't get really close, since the three (or possibly five) have all spears pointed in your direction. You would approach them only in the same manner and trying it without similar large shields would probably end in a complete masacre. If there are enough guys packed tightly in front of you, you only have to stab away with your spear and are quite sure to hit someone. Unless they also have shields.
When one side breaks, running away would probably be the only sane thing to do, which would probably work since the others can't march as fast in formation as you can run in wild retreat.

This does leave the question how barbarians fought the roman legions. But to see how that worked out, see Figure B:
http://www.biblestudy.org/maps/roman-empire.gif

NOT WELL!!!

The romans did get their asses handed to them famously when Armenius destroyed the legions of Varus, but that battle hinged entirely on not allowing the romans to fight in formation.

Which leave the possibility of two forces fighting each other in a big brawl, but I have no idea how that actually worked out in practice. But if you get something like in Braveheart or Lord of the Rings, casualties on both sides must have been massive.

[Matthew]

Well, the "clash" was metaphorical (at least I think that is the right word here, I wanted to say figurative, but since that featured in your post I began to wonder if I was being unduly influenced), as in the phrase "clash of arms", rather than literal as in "clashing shields together". :smallwink:

That said, warriors regularly carried secondary weapons for when spears were of no more use in the press of combat (either broken, or too close). Hoplites, particularly Spartans with their very short swords, are well known for this, but it goes far beyond the classical world, and into the medieval. I was just trying to provide context for the question, which is whether a short hafted axe or mace is a reasonable choice of secondary weapon for close formations of soldiers (as opposed to a short sword of some description).

[Spiryt]

Genrally, shield walls didn't clash. If you're fighting in a solid phalanx with big shields and spears, you'd do everything you can to keep the formation.

That's pretty bold statement.

In fact, many researchers claim that phalanx battles were in fact large scale pushing contest, and there's a lot sources suggesting that.

Generally I would guess that they were indeed clashing a lot.

Rather unavoidable with a lot of aggressive man in the fight, and that obviously would be always good option for better organized, drilled and determined side - collide and collapse more wonky wall of shields.



These fellows have a mix of weapons suited to close quarters: short hafted axes and maces, and short bladed swords. Are the fighters with short hafted weapons (say 1-2' hafts) significantly worse off than those with short bladed swords (say 1-2' blades)? In short (pun intended), are axes and maces suitable for close order combat?

It really all depends on what do you mean by 'close order combat' and how does it exactly looks.... So many variables.

But generally that do reenacting of all kinds seem to enjoy all kinds of one handed, maneuverable axes quite a lot.

Although they are certainly more suitable for 'loose' combat than in some tight formation.

[Matthew]

That's pretty bold statement.

In fact, many researchers claim that phalanx battles were in fact large scale pushing contest, and there's a lot sources suggesting that.

Generally I would guess that they were indeed clashing a lot.

Rather unavoidable with a lot of aggressive man in the fight, and that obviously would be always good option for better organized, drilled and determined side - collide and collapse more wonky wall of shields.

Quite so, the question resounding around a lot of that is how fierce was combat generally? Was it more a case of sporadic combat up and down the line, or did each side "grind" into the other? Anyway, that is another question!



It really all depends on what do you mean by 'close order combat' and how does it exactly looks.... So many variables. But generally that do reenacting of all kinds seem to enjoy all kinds of one handed, manoeuvrable axes quite a lot. Although they are certainly more suitable for 'loose' combat than in some tight formation.

Very true, I was trying to close down the variables with the context. Here I am talking about frontages of about 3', large shields (about 3' diameter) and a mêlée following "impact" [i.e. one side charged the other, or both sides charged and neither has yet broken ranks]. Now it is down to hand to hand combat, some spears would still be evident, but the majority are using other hand weapons. Say you are one of these fellows, but all you have is a hand axe whilst a good number of other combatants (on both sides) have (for instance) seaxes. Are you at a significant disadvantage, or is the axe suitable for this contest?

[Spiryt]

Very true, I was trying to close down the variables with the context. Here I am talking about frontages of about 3', large shields (about 3' diameter) and a mêlée following "impact" [i.e. one side charged the other, or both sides charged and neither has yet broken ranks]. Now it is down to hand to hand combat, some spears would still be evident, but the majority are using other hand weapons. Say you are one of these fellows, but all you have is a hand axe whilst a good number of other combatants (on both sides) have (for instance) seaxes. Are you at a significant disadvantage, or is the axe suitable for this contest?

It would be probably good idea for guys with axes to take their place on the wings of the formation - where they always can have easier time of getting some space.

As far as I understand, left handed axemen can be pretty nasty opponents in particular. :smallwink:

Here you have some merry man with axe on the flank, for what it's worth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00LAYPfdH-c) :smallwink:

Not entirely sure what their rules were. They looks pretty serious at least, no transparent axe heads and weird costumes. Occasional drunk guys with T-shirt and military boots are inevitable, I guess.

Ranks had been broken by pretty much first forceful tackle by the guys from the palisade, though.


EDIT: BTW, Aside from throwing, I would suppose that dude weren't that eager to drop the spear - probability of it getting lost or destroyed is always there, not to mention that nobody probably would want to tread on a lot of dropped spears. :smallwink:

[Mike_G]

My gut feeling is that a short bladed sword would have the advantage, since you can stab with almost no space, whereas to do any damage with an axe or mace you need to get a good swing in.

There's probably a good reason the Romans used the Gladius for close combat, not an axe or mace. The Greek Hoplites carried a short sword, late medieval pikemen carried the Katzbalger. If you have room, use the polearm. If you are standing on your enemy's toes, you want a short stabby blade.

[Spiryt]

Stereotypical Katzbalgers are by no means 'stabby', though.

Likewise, very much choppy swords, like machaira were being carried by hoplites, as well.

http://earlyridinggroup.org/images/research_greeksword3.jpg

[Matthew]

Good video. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, it is tricky. My gut feeling was similar to that of Mike G, but then I started thinking about the same sort of issues Spiryt brings up, which is that the swords used were not necessarily "optimised" for thrusting. Which brings us back around to the general "swords are more versatile, hafted weapons are better at striking" mantra. So, the question becomes is limited space (in this instance 3' per man) more detrimental to the use of short hafted weapons than it is to the use of short bladed swords?

It is interesting to me that in modern times, as Galloglaich was saying, hatchets are being used by soldiers alongside machetes, kukris and other large tactical knives.

[Dienekes]

Genrally, shield walls didn't clash. If you're fighting in a solid phalanx with big shields and spears, you'd do everything you can to keep the formation. It's the wall of shields that keeps you alive, but the same thing goes for the enemy.
If you have only your eyes and feet show from behind your shield, it's very difficult to hit you with a spear and probably short of impossible to get close enough with a sword or an axe.

You can't get around the guy in front of you, since there are two more guys with shields next to him, and you can't get really close, since the three (or possibly five) have all spears pointed in your direction. You would approach them only in the same manner and trying it without similar large shields would probably end in a complete masacre. If there are enough guys packed tightly in front of you, you only have to stab away with your spear and are quite sure to hit someone. Unless they also have shields.
When one side breaks, running away would probably be the only sane thing to do, which would probably work since the others can't march as fast in formation as you can run in wild retreat.


This is mostly considered incorrect. And if it were true there would be no reason why every phalanx army also carried shortswords like the gladius and the xiphos.

The two would advance, the spears would eventually break and they would make a pushing match.

When one side did break turning around and fleeing would generally mean you were running through, and tripping over your own side as very few units decide it's time to disengage together. This is also why some scholars have rationed the high number of casualties on the losing side of a phalanx battle compared to the winning side. When they break the only way to get out is turning your back to the enemy who is probably directly behind you and crawling through those dense formations.


This does leave the question how barbarians fought the roman legions. But to see how that worked out, see Figure B:
http://www.biblestudy.org/maps/roman-empire.gif

NOT WELL!!!

The romans did get their asses handed to them famously when Armenius destroyed the legions of Varus, but that battle hinged entirely on not allowing the romans to fight in formation.

Which leave the possibility of two forces fighting each other in a big brawl, but I have no idea how that actually worked out in practice. But if you get something like in Braveheart or Lord of the Rings, casualties on both sides must have been massive.

This is also kind of simplifying the Roman conquests. Frankly they lost quite a few times. And study of Julius Caesar's work would show that he used lose formations a time or two, as well as some interesting stories of Centurions breaking rank and kicking arse.

And then later in Rome's more eastern expansion there use of non-formation barbarians actually increased

A more likely description of these types of fighting was that the formations moved toward each other first spears met but they kept pushing until it's shield against shield, the back ranks trying to take whatever shots they can with their spears the front ranks spears would break or be too confined to use so they would go to shorter weaponry.

From what I know, most preferred shortswords for this, and so there may be an advantage with that, but the Franks had some success in these close fighting with their axes, since they couldn't get a full side swing they probably went with an over the shoulder type of attack making the necessary space smaller trying to catch and pull away shields. Of course that's just my speculation.

[Spiryt]

This is also why some scholars have rationed the high number of casualties on the losing side of a phalanx battle compared to the winning side.

That's pretty much common as far as pre gunpowder warfare goes though....

With tonnes of exceptions, naturally, but still, guys were fighting, few % of all had fallen, and then one side was being broken/routed/disorganized/out maneuvered/outfighted in general.

Then the rest of the casualties came.



From what I know, most preferred shortswords for this, and so there may be an advantage with that, but the Franks had some success in these close fighting with their axes,

There's always matter of availability/traidtion etc. over preference, although some kind of knife or seax would be usually available to most Germanic tribes....

What's certain is that after the fall of Rome, "shortsword" tradition generally fades - "new" swords emerge from spathas, germanic, migrating tribes swords and similar styles, and it's generally longish - at least 30 inches of sword, mostly cutting too.



It is interesting to me that in modern times, as Galloglaich was saying, hatchets are being used by soldiers alongside machetes, kukris and other large tactical knives.

"Formation" no longer means guys that are really close to each other, at all though. :smallbiggrin:

[Traab]

Good video. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, it is tricky. My gut feeling was similar to that of Mike G, but then I started thinking about the same sort of issues Spiryt brings up, which is that the swords used were not necessarily "optimised" for thrusting. Which brings us back around to the general "swords are more versatile, hafted weapons are better at striking" mantra. So, the question becomes is limited space (in this instance 3' per man) more detrimental to the use of short hafted weapons than it is to the use of short bladed swords?

It is interesting to me that in modern times, as Galloglaich was saying, hatchets are being used by soldiers alongside machetes, kukris and other large tactical knives.

Even if not primarily a thrusting weapon, as a slashing weapon, id imagine it can do more damage with less room than an axe would manage right? I mean, an axe is more of a hacking weapon, needing enough room and momentum to chop through a target, while a sword can slice and slash with less momentum needed behind it. Im no expert so I may be wrong about that.

Also, once again, speaking as not an expert, it makes sense that the choice of up close weaponry is more eclectic in modern times since nowadays we dont have shoulder to shoulder lines of infantry so much, so when things get up close and personal, there is generally more room to swing, or stab, or bash. So its a matter of preference instead of necessity, since there is less worry over smacking your teammate in the face every time you wind back to swing again than there was in a phalanx or other in tight formation style of fighting.

[Matthew]

There's always matter of availability/traidtion etc. over preference, although some kind of knife or seax would be usually available to most Germanic tribes....

What's certain is that after the fall of Rome, "shortsword" tradition generally fades - "new" swords emerge from spathas, germanic and similar styles, and it's generally longish - at least 30 inches of sword, mostly cutting too.

Even before then, apparently, and of course in mid-Republican Rome the "Spanish" gladius was a similar length as later "Migration era" swords (27-30"), only towards the late Republic getting shorter again through the Principate and "Soldier Emperor" periods until the third century or so when it became fashionable for them to be longer (possibly because of an increasing emphasis on cavalry as the dominant arm).

It might be due to less professional soldiers or looser formations preferring more "reach", but as you say it might just be native traditions as the Roman army began to lose its "Roman" character.



"Formation" no longer means guys that are really close to each other, at all though. :smallbiggrin:

Definitely, but we are talking still about limited space, I think, Taliban caves or something. :smallbiggrin:



Even if not primarily a thrusting weapon, as a slashing weapon, id imagine it can do more damage with less room than an axe would manage right? I mean, an axe is more of a hacking weapon, needing enough room and momentum to chop through a target, while a sword can slice and slash with less momentum needed behind it. Im no expert so I may be wrong about that.

Also, once again, speaking as not an expert, it makes sense that the choice of up close weaponry is more eclectic in modern times since nowadays we dont have shoulder to shoulder lines of infantry so much, so when things get up close and personal, there is generally more room to swing, or stab, or bash. So its a matter of preference instead of necessity, since there is less worry over smacking your teammate in the face every time you wind back to swing again than there was in a phalanx or other in tight formation style of fighting.

Possible, I suppose, but I would not think so. The way hafted weapons are balanced means you are going to get a stronger "strike" than with a sword, and without much "wind-up". Both are similarly sized objects, so if you are striking with them there should not be much difference in terms of how much room is required or risk to companions.

[Spiryt]

Even if not primarily a thrusting weapon, as a slashing weapon, id imagine it can do more damage with less room than an axe would manage right? I mean, an axe is more of a hacking weapon, needing enough room and momentum to chop through a target, while a sword can slice and slash with less momentum needed behind it. Im no expert so I may be wrong about that.


Not necessarily, I've seen quite a lot nice axe strikes dealt with short movement and axe held quite near the head -all depends on actual situation, and user.

Also axe = axe, different 'configuration' brings different use.


Even before then, apparently, and of course in mid-Republican Rome the "Spanish" gladius was a similar length as later "Migration era" swords (27-30"), only towards the late Republic getting shorter again through the Principate and "Soldier Emperor" periods until the third century or so when it became fashionable for them to be longer (possibly because of an increasing emphasis on cavalry as the dominant arm).

It might be due to less professional soldiers or looser formations preferring more "reach", but as you say it might just be native traditions as the Roman army began to loes its "Roman" character.

AFAIK, celtic swords around time when Rome was seriously starting violence&stuff were coming in lengths from really, really dagger-like to pretty lengthy blades.

So I can easily see earlier Roman sword being not very uniform at all as well, until rough standardization occurred.

And yeah, earlier gladii were apparently much longer than later pompei style ones.

[Matthew]

AFAIK, celtic swords around time when Rome was seriously starting violence&stuff were coming in lengths from really, really dagger-like to pretty lengthy blades.

So I can easily see earlier Roman sword being not very uniform at all as well, until rough standardization occurred.

And yeah, earlier gladii were apparently much longer than later pompei style ones.

Whenever I read Polybius and the casualty figures for annihilated Roman armies versus the numbers involved in freshly raised legions, I am always plagued by the question "What the heck were they rearming them with?" Must have been quite an arsenal in Rome! :smallbiggrin:

I think the longer gladius is also supposedly closely associated with the subduing of Spain, and Polybius is clear that the Romans were fighting with it in a much more open order than we think of usually (6' frontage per man).

[GungHo]

There's always matter of availability/traidtion etc. over preference, although some kind of knife or seax would be usually available to most Germanic tribes....
In fact, one might say that at least one group of Germanic tribes liked them so much that they eventually became associated with each other...


So its a matter of preference instead of necessity, since there is less worry over smacking your teammate in the face every time you wind back to swing again than there was in a phalanx or other in tight formation style of fighting.
Of course it's preference. The "tactical" tomahawks/axes are tools. They're used for entry when you don't want to use a shotgun or explosives. They're used to open crates and barrels. They're used for trenching. Yes, you can go axe-crazy with them in a pinch, but they're weapons of last resort. They didn't really consider "can I use this in a formation?" or "what if we have to stand shoulder to shoulder and we get hung up on each other?". They said, "hey, look, this works for all this stuff, so I don't need 20lbs of single-purpose equipment to my job... and I can always whack someone with it and it looks bad-ass."

[Mike_G]

Stereotypical Katzbalgers are by no means 'stabby', though.

Likewise, very much choppy swords, like machaira were being carried by hoplites, as well.

http://earlyridinggroup.org/images/research_greeksword3.jpg


Sure, you can chop with a Katzbalger, but it's short and has a point, ergo you can stab with it, and the length means you can stab a guy while you grab his belt buckle. And you can stab effective with just drawing back your arm and driving it forward, which is easy in a crowd, unlike a slash, where you need to swing your arm and to get a good chop, get your body into it. A stab can be delivered with a lot less momentum and still do the job. Hacking with just the movement of the arm will be quite weak.

Such a sword isn't an axe, or a machete. It's a good versatile weapon designed for close quarters. In open order a longsword or Danish axe or poleaxe or arming sword would probably be a better bet, but in the press, the short sword that can stab or slice or hack without needing a lot of room just seems a better choice. Plenty of close infantry formations seem to have agreed on that, even if the primary weapon was a spear/pike.

[Spiryt]

Sure, you can chop with a Katzbalger, but it's short and has a point, ergo you can stab with it, and the length means you can stab a guy while you grab his belt buckle. And you can stab effective with just drawing back your arm and driving it forward, which is easy in a crowd, unlike a slash, where you need to swing your arm and to get a good chop, get your body into it. A stab can be delivered with a lot less momentum and still do the job. Hacking with just the movement of the arm will be quite weak.

Such a sword isn't an axe, or a machete. It's a good versatile weapon designed for close quarters. In open order a longsword or Danish axe or poleaxe or arming sword would probably be a better bet, but in the press, the short sword that can stab or slice or hack without needing a lot of room just seems a better choice. Plenty of close infantry formations seem to have agreed on that, even if the primary weapon was a spear/pike.

It's hard to disagree with general premise, especially that noone was saying anything about poleaxes in close quarters - was just pointing out that Katzbalgers were obviously optimized to chop. Flat, thin octagonal cross section, wide, non tapering blade, spatulate tip that's already very wide like inch from the end ...

One can aruge if it's really a point, I guess, since it's not very poinbty.

One naturally could stab, and do nasty things that way, but maker obviously had choppin' time in his mind.

http://users.wpi.edu/~jforgeng/CollectionIQP/artifact.pl?anum=3130

EDIT: And that one is not very 'radical' katzbalger either.

Here's some other (http://swordmaster.org/uploads/2011/euro-swords/katzkabalgers.jpg)

[Traab]

Possible, I suppose, but I would not think so. The way hafted weapons are balanced means you are going to get a stronger "strike" than with a sword, and without much "wind-up". Both are similarly sized objects, so if you are striking with them there should not be much difference in terms of how much room is required or risk to companions.

What I more meant was that you can use a thrusting motion, to slash with the edge of a sword in close proximity. A nice deep slice to the arm and you can make your opponent drop his weapon, or cut a tendon or vein. No need to swing at all, its the same motion as a stab, just instead you are trying to cut them with the edge instead of impaling on a point. All without needing any room from side to side to arc a swing like with most axes.

[Spiryt]

More like pulling/slicing motion, using thrusting motion to slice something would be damn awkward. Not that i had tried it :smalltongue but.....

No manual seems to propose something like that either, even though all kind of schnitten seems to be crucial fighting.

In any case, you can do some wonderfully effective chop in small space/arc, with many weapons, even axes.

http://historical-academy.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Cod.icon_.394a_114r-300x211.jpg

[Yora]

A thrusting slice would probably be the result of a failed attempt at thrusting impalement that glanced off. Probably wouldn't cut very deep as you won't press the blade into the wound or armor.

[DodgerH2O]

Ah good, a perfect segue. I was watching American Guns and someone traded in a Confederate Bowie Knife.

http://confederatebowieknives.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/ReverseEdge.jpg.w300h86.jpg

Notice, the edge is pointing up not down. The explanation from the expert was that a reverse edge knife was for an experienced knife fighter. Any truth to this?

I'm not an expert, and have no basis for this but hearsay and speculation but... a friend of mine mentioned the "copper spine" on some bowie knives to "catch an opponent's blade". The knife methods I've been taught don't exactly encourage defending with the knife, but if one were to do so, holding it in a reverse grip with the spine outward allows one to protect the arm area. With a traditional bowie the clip-point "claw" at the tip can still be used to tear/rip, while inward "pulling" strikes would use the blade. I don't know what advantages/disadvantages such would have, but having the handguard on the "opposite" side would protect the fingers and hand while holding a weapon in this position.

Whether or not this would actually help in a real fight, who knows, but I can theorize a style of fighting that would rely on blocking with the spine of the blade, and while it seems odd to me, it may have worked for people of the time and place. Having an idea of the scale of the weapon would help too, I've heard that the "Confederate Bowie" was essentially a short sword more than a knife. Hopefully someone can tell us more, it's piqued my curiousity.

[Beleriphon]

Question:

What exactly does it mean when one states a sword has an octagonal cross section? I'd assume that means that if one were to clip the blade in half along its width it would looke "octagonal", but no sword I've ever seen in pictures or museums looks remotely like an octagon. At best they're very flat diamond shapes.

[jaybird]

Question:

What exactly does it mean when one states a sword has an octagonal cross section? I'd assume that means that if one were to clip the blade in half along its width it would looke "octagonal", but no sword I've ever seen in pictures or museums looks remotely like an octagon. At best they're very flat diamond shapes.

I believe it refers to double-edged swords with no "flat" per se - something that looks like this:

/\
| |
| |
\/

If you imagine the two inside flat parts to be slightly angled the same way as their closest choppy parts. Not a very good description, I know...

[Raum]

Question:

What exactly does it mean when one states a sword has an octagonal cross section? I'd assume that means that if one were to clip the blade in half along its width it would looke "octagonal", but no sword I've ever seen in pictures or museums looks remotely like an octagon. At best they're very flat diamond shapes.They're referring to a double edged blade where the edges are at a significantly different angle than the fullers. See the "Bronze Jian (Warring States Period)" cross section in this diagram (http://1501bc.com/files/ridgefinal3.jpg) for an example.

[Spiryt]

Question:

What exactly does it mean when one states a sword has an octagonal cross section? I'd assume that means that if one were to clip the blade in half along its width it would looke "octagonal", but no sword I've ever seen in pictures or museums looks remotely like an octagon. At best they're very flat diamond shapes.



Blade probably simply has eight 'facets' therefore cross section is octagonal, but this is obviously very, very flat octagon, and by no means really very geometrical one - angles are rounded etc.

As far as I know there are not much swords like that in medieval Europe - so not much under Oakeshott typology - but they happen here and there like that Katzbalger from my link apparently. Hexagonal cross section was very popular, more gonals were not welcome. :smallbiggrin:

It is very possible that museum guys in fact referred to the angles between fulllers or generally something else's off - I don't know. :smallwink:

[Beleriphon]

They're referring to a double edged blade where the edges are at a significantly different angle than the fullers. See the "Bronze Jian (Warring States Period)" cross section in this diagram (http://1501bc.com/files/ridgefinal3.jpg) for an example.

Where as an arming sword would be what? Lets assume that its a Type XII. What about a blade with no fuller, but still being double edged?

[Yora]

And then what?

I don't understand what your question is.

[Spiryt]

Where as an arming sword would be what? Lets assume that its a Type XII. What about a blade with no fuller, but still being double edged?

If you're still talking about octagonal section - the as far as I understand, Type XII are pretty much universally lenticular in cross section. It's all of course rather fluid, and some might have some more acute angles, but certainly not 8 of them.

I've seen type XX described as being octagonal sometimes (http://www.albion-swords.com/articles/oakeshott-typology.htm)

Other than that, I could easily imagine Type XVII like that as well -they usually had very stout, squarish hexagonal cross section for most lenght, so I could imagine some one angle being thrown in there as well.

[Norsesmithy]

One can aruge if it's really a point, I guess, since it's not very poinbty.

One naturally could stab, and do nasty things that way, but maker obviously had choppin' time in his mind.

http://users.wpi.edu/~jforgeng/CollectionIQP/artifact.pl?anum=3130

EDIT: And that one is not very 'radical' katzbalger either.

Here's some other (http://swordmaster.org/uploads/2011/euro-swords/katzkabalgers.jpg)

A point like that might not be "very pointy" but a spatulat tip on a thrust leaves a massive and brutal wound, and isn't terribly harder than a really pointy tip to push into someone's gut (assuming blade kept sharp, and in relation to the broad scheme of things that people have tried to push into other people throughout time). The reason why older thrusting swords were super pointy had less to do with the difficulty of piercing flesh than it had to do with the precision needed to hit flesh instead of armor. As the Katzbalger evolved, armor coverage was being reduced, for a truly enormous variety of reasons covered in great detail in earlier threads and probably earlier in this thread:smallamused:.

Mind you that profile and distribution makes the Katzbalger an excellent "chopping" blade, and I'm sure the people who carried it used it as such whenever they had the space for a good blow, but I would be absolutely shocked if it didn't see plenty of use being slowly (and not so slowly) thrust into an opponent as the press of formation forced men into "shorter than pike" range.

[Spiryt]

The reason why older thrusting swords were super pointy had less to do with the difficulty of piercing flesh than it had to do with the precision needed to hit flesh instead of armor. As the Katzbalger evolved, armor coverage was being reduced, for a truly enormous variety of reasons covered in great detail in earlier threads and probably earlier in this thread:smallamused:.

Actually, when katzbalgers evolved on the break of 15th and 16th centuries, coverage and widespread of armor was most probably biggest in the whole history.

Full plate was at it's peak, and even more lowly soldiers usually had at least solid jack and breastplate.



Mind you that profile and distribution makes the Katzbalger an excellent "chopping" blade, and I'm sure the people who carried it used it as such whenever they had the space for a good blow, but I would be absolutely shocked if it didn't see plenty of use being slowly (and not so slowly) thrust into an opponent as the press of formation forced men into "shorter than pike" range.

I agree, that some thrusts, especially against unprotected target's were being performed, still such blades were undoubtedly cutting in character.

With huge diversity of bladed weapons in Europe at that period, there were plenty of cut and thrust swords around, as well as many swords more heavily on thrust side.
While katzbalgers were on the cutting 'side'.

[B!shop]

Is there any example of pre-modern bows usable in melee without the certainty that they break after the first hit?

[Fhaolan]

Is there any example of pre-modern bows usable in melee without the certainty that they break after the first hit?

*heh* Technically, yes. In reality, no. 'Real' bows are actually relatively tough. They have to be in order to take the strain of 80+lb draws.

However, once they've taken damage that compromizes the material the bow is made out of, they may still be technically intact but it is highly unlikely that they will take the strain of a pull. So in many cases you won't know the bow is going to break until you try to use it as a bow.

And unfortunately the materials that make a good bow, even modern bows, won't take a edged blow without compromize. They might be able to take an impact, but anything edged... nah.

[Spiryt]

No matter if they can survive the bashing or not, bows are quite simply extremely lousy clubs...

Light, somehow whipy, bent, sticks getting very thin and flimsy at the ends - no way to make even improvised weapon out of it.

You can give a good whack to someone with a bow - but looking at this that way - you can also do it with pretty much anything.

[Knaight]

I recently received some rather good data that suggested that Japan didn't really have any siege engines prior to the introduction of the cannon (with the possible exception of rams). What can anyone tell me about this?

[Boci]

Question.

Setting: Europe, 800 AD. We are playing Vampires: Dark Ages, but it’s not that important, since the world is the same only with vampires. I want to know about some details fighting style for increased authenticity.

Both characters share the following background: Turkish descent, turned into a vampire by the assassin clan at age 20 and have spent a similar amount of time as a vampire, a few of which is in what is now Germany. They both wield a sabre, but can also fight unarmed.

Character A: 4 dots in unarmed combat (which is ranked as being an expert) with a specialty in throwing. 4 dots in melee, so again an expert, with a speciality in swords.

Character B: 2 dots in unarmed combat, which is ranked as practiced) with no speciality. 4 dots in melee (expert) with a speciality in swords and 3 dots in archery (competent) with no speciality. It should be noted that this one came to Germany earlier.

So basically, what fighting styles could these characters use given the setting and their background? I’m guessing there are only so many ways you can wield a bow, but swords and unarmed combat should have distinct styles.

[Spiryt]

Well, in the first place, assassins order was formed somewhere around First Crusade, so around 800 'assassin clan' is pretty weird thing to occur. :smallwink:

But aside that small nitpick, your question is pretty hard to answer.

Firstly, Seldjuks, so ancestors of Turks as we understand it today, generally arrived onto Turkish area around ~ 9th century at earliest, AFAIU it.

Before, whole area is rather firmly under Byzantium rule - save the times when Arabs had been pushing heavily.

Not a good chance any of them would wander around Germany around 800, but again, this is mostly nitpick.

I don't think that anything about 'swordmanship' of Turkish people (or any other people) from that period, other than guessing principles that rule melee combat in general.

People that were migrating to Near East at the time were in general migrating horsemen tribes, so we can guess that their sabres and other swords were mainly used as rider weapons.

So art of their use would me most probably somehow cavalry orientated as well.

[Boci]

Well, in the first place, assassins order was formed somewhere around First Crusade, so around 800 'assassin clan' is pretty weird thing to occur. :smallwink:

Its a vampire assassin clan. There is 1 vampire for every 10,000 people on average.


But aside that small nitpick, your question is pretty hard to answer.

Firstly, Seldjuks, so ancestors of Turks as we understand it today, generally arrived onto Turkish area around ~ 9th century at earliest, AFAIU it.

Before, whole area is rather firmly under Byzantium rule - save the times when Arabs had been pushing heavily.

Not a good chance any of them would wander around Germany around 800, but again, this is mostly nitpick.

The backgrounds aren't written in stone so I could my character's birth place into the middle east. Anything change then?


I don't think that anything about 'swordmanship' of Turkish people (or any other people) from that period, other than guessing principles that rule melee combat in general.

That's not a problem, I was just wondering if there was a specific fighting style I could make reference too. Nothing I could have picked up in north west Germany either then?


People that were migrating to Near East at the time were in general migrating horsemen tribes, so we can guess that their sabres and other swords were mainly used as rider weapons.

So art of their use would me most probably somehow cavalry orientated as well.

Character A can ride, but character B cannot. At least not during combat.

[Hawkfrost000]

Question.

Setting: Europe, 800 AD. We are playing Vampires: Dark Ages, but it’s not that important, since the world is the same only with vampires. I want to know about some details fighting style for increased authenticity.

Both characters share the following background: Turkish descent, turned into a vampire by the assassin clan at age 20 and have spent a similar amount of time as a vampire, a few of which is in what is now Germany. They both wield a sabre, but can also fight unarmed.

Character A: 4 dots in unarmed combat (which is ranked as being an expert) with a specialty in throwing. 4 dots in melee, so again an expert, with a speciality in swords.

Character B: 2 dots in unarmed combat, which is ranked as practiced) with no speciality. 4 dots in melee (expert) with a speciality in swords and 3 dots in archery (competent) with no speciality. It should be noted that this one came to Germany earlier.

So basically, what fighting styles could these characters use given the setting and their background? I’m guessing there are only so many ways you can wield a bow, but swords and unarmed combat should have distinct styles.

When you say saber, do you mean sword? or do you mean the curved weapon that was often used from horseback and held by officers in the 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th centuries?

specialty swords is like saying specialty guns. its not very specific.

anyway. most of the swords used in europe at that time looked kina like this:
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSa0RSxjX64jspWVsPTjJD7WagmY8oYG 64lSFsU6ZAthDhDZ1ri

the Byzantines (living around constantinople) had one handed swords kinda like these but also favored large axes like the one the guy on the left is carrying in this picture:
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSd4V7Ablz600_cqOeqcCgNaYXojReBS gSpR_5EKtFZH31bYFyN

As to fighting styles, i am not an expert in this time period (most of my training is in renaissance era fighting techniques) but i believe they were rather limited to sword with shield or sword without shield and whether you were on or off a horse.

DM

[Spiryt]

That's not a problem, I was just wondering if there was a specific fighting style I could make reference too. Nothing I could have picked up in north west Germany either then?


Don't think that really anything prevailed, about combat techniques, save for some short literature mentions.


the Byzantines (living around constantinople) had one handed swords kinda like these but also favored large axes like the one the guy on the left is carrying in this picture:

Your picture is somehow artistic license variation about Varangian Guard, regular Byzantian troops (depending on ethnicity etc.) would look generally differently around 800.

In overall, Boci, you may probably find this site useful for some 'Turkish' stuff of that era, including some Byzantine style sabers:

http://www.levantia.com.au/

[Boci]

When you say saber, do you mean sword? or do you mean the curved weapon that was often used from horseback and held by officers in the 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th centuries?

specialty swords is like saying specialty guns. its not very specific.

I mean sword. It how the game mechanics work, the melee specialites are pretty vague (save for rapid draw). But both characters wield a sabre as their sword of choice.


anyway. most of the swords used in europe at that time looked kina like this:
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSa0RSxjX64jspWVsPTjJD7WagmY8oYG 64lSFsU6ZAthDhDZ1ri

the Byzantines (living around constantinople) had one handed swords kinda like these but also favored large axes like the one the guy on the left is carrying in this picture:
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSd4V7Ablz600_cqOeqcCgNaYXojReBS gSpR_5EKtFZH31bYFyN

Yeah, both characters had to specifically commision the blade from the Prince's blacksmith (or its possibly we brought it with us from our homeland).


As to fighting styles, i am not an expert in this time period (most of my training is in renaissance era fighting techniques) but i believe they were rather limited to sword with shield or sword without shield and whether you were on or off a horse.

DM

Both characters are going to be unmounted as a general rule and neither uses a shield.


In overall, Boci, you may probably find this site useful for some 'Turkish' stuff of that era, including some Byzantine style sabers:

http://www.levantia.com.au/

Thanks I'll check that site out, although its pretty important that my character be Arabic so I'll change the Turkish part.

[Spiryt]

As far as North West Germany goes, here are pretty good reconstructions : how expensive, noble sword might have look like (bottom 3):

http://www.arscives.com/vevans/viking.htm

It might be worth noting that around 800 ares of modern France, most of Germany, Switzerland, North Italy, Austria etc. were under Charlemagne rule, so travel and communication on those areas might have been relatively easy compared to the rest of the Europe before and later, when that organism broke up again into way more divided realms.

[Arminius]

For the Turks, you would probably want to give them Kilijes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilij). I don't know much about fighting styles, but curved blades like this were primarily intended for cavalry use, since the Turks were originally nomads from Central Asia. Curved blades weren't really well known outside the Turkic tribes then, so they would have had to either made the swords themselves, brought them from Central Asia, or been able to describe them well enough to a smith. Since they are cavalry weapons, they probably aren't all that good for sneaking around murdering people with. They are hard to conceal, and stabbing is more difficult, since they are designed for slashing. If you are going for general purpose assasins, you might want to make them experts at knives, since those are more practical for assassination purposes. Some ability to make and use poisons might also be useful.

EDIT: For unarmed fighting, Kurash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurash) is a traditional Turkic style of unarmed combat.

[Spiryt]

For the Turks, you would probably want to give them Kilijes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilij). I don't know much about fighting styles, but curved blades like this were primarily intended for cavalry use, since the Turks were originally nomads from Central Asia. Curved blades weren't really well known outside the Turkic tribes then, so they would have had to either made the swords themselves, brought them from Central Asia, or been able to describe them well enough to a smith. Since they are cavalry weapons, they probably aren't all that good for sneaking around murdering people with. They are hard to conceal, and stabbing is more difficult, since they are designed for slashing. If you are going for general purpose assasins, you might want to make them experts at knives, since those are more practical for assassination purposes. Some ability to make and use poisons might also be useful.

Well, kilijes generally evolved much later.

And curved sword were pretty widely used in Byzantium for example.

But AFAIK, no matter if Byzantine, Avar, Hungarian, Proto-turkish or whatever else, sabres of that period wouldn't have nearly as drastic curvature as typical kilij.

So it's not good comparison.

[Arminius]

The degree of curvature in the blade did become greater as time went on, the early ones, which is what would exist around this time would probably be a lot less curved than the later patterns, and bear more similarity to a Dao than enything else.

[Boci]

They are hard to conceal, and stabbing is more difficult, since they are designed for slashing.

True, but sometimes we don't have the element of surprise on our side, so a longer weapon is useful. Plus it would be the kind of sword we are used to.


If you are going for general purpose assasins, you might want to make them experts at knives, since those are more practical for assassination purposes.

We carry knives, but I don't think a speciality in them is required. If you're already an expert with knives it shouldn't matter that your slightly better with swords. Any target you get the drop on is likely dead.


Some ability to make and use poisons might also be useful.

We can. Vampire abilities rock.


EDIT: For unarmed fighting, Kurash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurash) is a traditional Turkic style of unarmed combat.

Thanks, this is just the thing I was looking for.


Well, kilijes generally evolved much later.

And curved sword were pretty widely used in Byzantium for example.

But AFAIK, no matter if Byzantine, Avar, Hungarian, Proto-turkish or whatever else, sabres of that period wouldn't have nearly as drastic curvature as typical kilij.

So it's not good comparison.

I think this might be the one the story teller is basing things off. He said a sabre would give us a bonus against targets in leather armour but a penalty against ones in metal.

[Spiryt]

EDIT: For unarmed fighting, Kurash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurash) is a traditional Turkic style of unarmed combat.

Interesting.

Wiki when did it orginated.

It's not that important obviously, since some kind of wrestling etc. is given for any kind of martial culture.

Rules look somehow like Greco Roman wrestling but with clothes to grab.

[Galloglaich]

I pretty much agree with everything Spiryt said as usual on the weapons and history stuff.

For your Turkish Vampires in 800 AD, I reccommend Khazars. The Khazars are perfect for your needs and fit perfectly with the time period and are some of the most interesting people amost anyone has never heard of.

http://www.tgorod.ru/contentimage/horse1/khazar09.jpg
This is the only artistic depiction of Khazars I could find on short notice, and should be taken with a grain of salt.

The Khazars were people from a sophisticated but by the 8th Century decadent and somewhat declining Central Asian Empire. They are a Turkic people though the Khazar empire is decidedly multi-ethnic and includes Slavs, people related to Finns, Caucasas mountains people like Armenians, Georgians, plus various Turkic and Asiatic tribes, Persians and so on. Interestingly many of their Aristocracy converted to Judaism in the 8th Century partly as a conscious decision to position themselves between the Christian Europeans and the Muslim Arabs. The rest would be pagan, shamanistic religion.

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

The Khazars had close dealings with the Slavic / Norse Rus Khaganate, who were sometimes their allies against the Stepp nomads, sometimes their enemies. Rus was expanding while the Khazars, once mighty, were declining, but they had powerful sophisticated cities at this time particularly around the Crimea and the Northern shore of the Black Sea. Trade links to basiclaly everywhere of interest, Persia, China, the Carolingians, the Arabs, the Rus of couse, the other Slavs. Also they did have more 'rough' Turkic tribes in their confederation in case that is what you were looking for.

As Spirit said the Killic or yataghan were not really inveted at this point, the only saber really in use at this time would be the basic Chinese Dao and it's variants, like these

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AHAByl7AGzE/Tkm5mWa8DeI/AAAAAAAAACM/TL4k36MuLBk/s1600/dao_02.jpg

But it's actually more likely they would carry daggers and / or swords like this

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Weapons/Negm-ed-Din_Ayyubs_Sword_ISAS_pl.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Weapons/ISAS_pl_80.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/ISAS/ISAS_70.jpg

for some reason it's really important culturally for us to associate curved sabers with the Middle East or anywhere in Asia, so who am I to argue?

Spears or bows are the main weapons anyway.

Khazars could easily be in "Germany" (Germany as a State didn't exist then but the Holy Roman Empire was just forming) either as an emissary from the Khazar Empire or the Rus, or as mercenaries, or merchants. There were also other Central Asian tribes integrated with the Franks (such as the Iranian Alans and Taifals, who were cavalry and settled as Aristocrats in Frankish territory) in case you want to pick out a different tribe. A lot of people think the Franks were a tribe but they were really a Tribal Federation, just like the Ostrogoths, the Visigoths, and most of the others you've heard of from the Migration era.

I wrote a litttle article about that you can read here if you want to read more

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/242110-history-mythology-art-rpgs-25.html#post5345843

G

[Spiryt]

for some reason it's really important culturally for us to associated curved sabers with the Middle East or anywhere in Asia, so who am I to argue?

Well, curved blades most 'popular' came from Asia in one way or another....:smallwink:

It probably appeared in Europe at earliest due to Huns, Magyars, Avars and other people from the steppes.

Byzantines probably had encountered it similarly too, although I'm no expert.

'Purely' European experiments with curved blades generally were pretty limited, or took a form of blades with concave edge, obviously.

But yeah, as far as Islamic world pre ~ 1250 goes, straight swords would be prevalent as well.

[Galloglaich]

Well, curved blades most 'popular' came from Asia in one way or another....:smallwink:

It probably appeared in Europe at earliest due to Huns, Magyars, Avars and other people from the steppes.

Byzantines probably had encountered it similarly too, although I'm no expert.

'Purely' European experiments with curved blades generally were pretty limited, or took a form of blades with concave edge, obviously.

But yeah, as far as Islamic world pre ~ 1250 goes, straight swords would be prevalent as well.

Actually I think curved swords got really popular in Europe around the same time and for much of the same reasons as in the Middle East. They existed (in various forms of the Dao) in Central Asia from China going back to the early Iron Age, and were popular with cavalry, but strait swords were at least as popular. The saif, shamshir, tulwar etc. were not widespread until the 16th Century from my understanding. Most of the strait muslim swords i linked to above are actually 15th or 16th century weapons from the arsenal at Alexandria. But they remained basically the same for 1,000 years.

Conversely convex curved European blades go way back, I've seen curved small sabers similar to dussack which go back to the La Tene culture in Central Europe, Falchions have a similar very old pedigree and the curved type of messers also go way back. Single edged swords at least as curved as a typical Dao appear in Norway more or less contuniously from the 6th century to the 12th.



I think the conflation is basically one of propaganda: cruciform arming sword looks like a cross, curved shamshir looks like a crescent.


G

[Spiryt]

Fascinating stuff.

I'm aware of different a bit curved seaxes, messers and similar knife like weapons, and they were most probably used trough whole Iron Age.
Have seen mostly straight one though.

http://forums.dfoggknives.com/index.php?showtopic=14821

Fabulous reconstruction of such weapon here with some info (http://www.platnerz.com/platnerz-com/bron/bron[ca].html)

http://www.platnerz.com/platnerz-com/bron/dalej/rzymski_miecz_jednosieczny/f_0.jpg

I dig the look of it.

Never heard about curved swords in Norway though.

Any quick reference?

[Galloglaich]

You see a lot of single-edged swords like this in Norway, not exactly curved but at least as much as a lot of Dao were

Here is a modern reconstruction

http://www.ironagearmoury.com/single%20edge5.JPG

Here are some antiques
http://www.sportsfiske.nu/foto/arkiv/34890/87141_s.jpg
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/download.php?id=28692
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/download.php?id=28691

In Central Europe you see curved knives and short swords like this in the Hallstatt context quite a bit. I think this one is from Bohemia

http://www.royalathena.com/media/Celtic/HMQ27.jpg

You also see a long tradition of curved machete like weapons in your neck of the woods, from Bohemia into Masvoia

http://fencingclassics.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/391b_3-1.jpg

You also have the Dacian / Thracian Falx - Rhomphaia family of weapons

http://www.enciclopedia-dacica.ro/ranistorum/site_eng/Images/falx2.jpg

Which were sometimes sharpened on the inner-edge like a falcata and sometimes on the outer-edge like a saber

Messers of course got pretty curvy sometimes
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Landsknecht_with_Kriegsmesser_1500%27s.jpg

And you see a lot of Medieval hunting knives like this one

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:t5SEGNY5aR-NqM:http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii114/DannyinTexas/Weapons/Hauswehr.jpg

and of course, falchions

http://fitzgreyve3.110mb.com/fitzgreyve/weapons_conyers.jpg

[Galloglaich]

You see a lot of this type of knife (from the site you linked) in auctions and stuff from the iron age into the Medieval period.

http://www.platnerz.com/platnerz-com/bron/dalej/jewellery/f_0.jpg

Some short like that some as large as a dussack, with a lot of the playing round with the tang sometimes folded over like the one on a dusack, sometimes made into rings you could only fit one finger in. I think that is actually the origin of the knucklebow though.

G

[Yora]

That particular knife probably was ceremonial or a scraping tool. With that handle it would be reallyakward to use as a knife.

[Galloglaich]

And yet you see a clear line of development from tools like that (vaguely - that is a rather rough copy of some antiques you see around) to weapons like this

http://www.militiagenavae.ch/images/armes/epee_dussack.jpg

http://www.immerlan.de/waffenartefakte/bilder_waffenartefakte/dussack.jpg

in exactly the same area in Central Europe.

G

[GungHo]

If I were a budding Assamite, I'd probably go the knife/dagger/jambiya route. No one's going to really look at you funny if you have knife. Everyone has a knife. A sword is kind of "high profile" unless you're a nobleman or mercenary. A jambiya is more Yemeni and might not be invented yet, but the concept of "a man's man always has a knife" is pretty general at that time, all the way from the HRE to the Punjab.

[Matthew]

Another interesting thing about the curved sword to Middle East relationship is that the perception is not all one way. Indeed, the scimitar appears on various "eastern" flags, such as that of the Pakistani Army. Sometimes I wonder if the cross/crescent dichotomy has had a subconscious post facto influence on national perceptions.

[Conners]

Was watching an interesting documentary about cybernetics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IshL18Lh64I


Got me wondering... which would be better? Mechanical/robotic cybernetic enhancements, or genetically engineered cloned body parts?

Robot arms are probably too heavy for a human to reasonably carry, if you were going to make them extra-strong and so forth. Whereas, a genetically engineered arm might let you punch like a boxer, while still not being too heavy, clunky, or limited in use.


What are your insights on bio-technology versus robo-cybernetics? Wondering which we'd be more likely to see being used on soldiers in the future.

[Pheehelm]

Steve Dutch says (http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/MovieBiol.htm):
Prosthetics are getting better and better, and I have no doubt they'll eventually be fully functional, even superior to natural body parts.

The problem is that when you mix bionic and natural tissue, the result will only be as strong as the natural tissue. So Jaws in the James Bond flicks, despite his steel dentures, will only be able to bite as hard as his jaws and jaw muscles will allow. He might rival a good bolt cutter, but he won't be able to bite through thick cables. Spider Man may have incredibly strong spider adhesion, but when he hangs from a bridge and holds a cable car in his grip, the part in between is only as strong as Peter Parker's muscles and bones.

It doesn't matter how strong the bionic parts are. If they're connected to normal bone or muscle, the result is only as strong as the weakest component. So when the bionically altered villain in Spider Man 2 stands on his human legs and uses his bionic arms to rip a bank vault door off its hinges, I wonder what steroids he used to beef up his leg muscles, and what's anchoring the bionic parts to his body.

[Traab]

All that being said, bionic parts could still be superior in some aspects to the real thing. As an example, if your forearm and hand are fake, you could have a grip capable of crushing steel without straining your body. Most of the exertion is done by the hand and forearm to clench your fist. So your real muscles would have a minimal effect on your upper limit of grabbing things. LIFTING would still not be greatly boosted, the only benefit is less likelyhood of losing your grip. :p You could probably throw harder, since you can snap your wrist and forearm down harder and faster if they are fakes. Im not talking supersonic speeds or anything, but I bet it would be a damn sight faster than your unaugmented throws.

[Eldan]

Currently, the problem with bionics, as far as I'm aware, is immune rejection.

That said, our real life body parts are pretty amazingly engineered things. We could probably build parts that are better in some ways, but the strength of say our hands is versatility. (And a bit of self-healing, compared to machines)

[Pheehelm]

Don't forget tactile feedback. Even if they manage those other things, it'll probably be awhile before they can make bionic fingertips that can feel the sharpness of an edge, or the heat of an object, or the textures of a significant other's hair/skin/etc. I think that's the part I'd really miss with a prosthetic hand, and come to think of it, it'd probably make simple tasks like typing incredibly difficult if you can't feel what you're doing and always have to look to make sure you're doing it right.

[Joran]

Currently, the problem with bionics, as far as I'm aware, is immune rejection.

That said, our real life body parts are pretty amazingly engineered things. We could probably build parts that are better in some ways, but the strength of say our hands is versatility. (And a bit of self-healing, compared to machines)

With genetic engineering, ideally we'd be able to clone someone's arm to replace one that they lost.

I'm not a doctor, but I know we can reattached severed arms and hands. There was news recently about a hand transplant. With cloned body parts, we wouldn't have to deal with such things as mind/machine interfaces or immune rejection.

So, it seems to me that cloned body parts is only one step (construct a cloned body part, albeit difficult), while cybernetics would require at least two (construct body part, attach it to body such that brain can operate it).

[Eldan]

I didn't mean that there would be rejection of the clone parts. There is rejection of the cybernetics (no idea why I said bionics instead of cybernetics). It's already a problem with things like pacemakers.

[Joran]

I didn't mean that there would be rejection of the clone parts. There is rejection of the cybernetics (no idea why I said bionics instead of cybernetics). It's already a problem with things like pacemakers.

Right. Plus, Nature already builds working hands all the time...

I suddenly have a very disturbing image of cloned bodies in vats missing hands.

[Eldan]

I didn't mean that there would be rejection of the clone parts. There is rejection of the cybernetics (no idea why I said bionics instead of cybernetics). It's already a problem with things like pacemakers.

[Norsesmithy]

Right. Plus, Nature already builds working hands all the time...

I suddenly have a very disturbing image of cloned bodies in vats missing hands.

A misconception. New hands (or any other part) of your own tissue won't be harvested from some bank of adult clones kept in some island facility, they will be made with rejuvenated adult stem cells harvested from your body fat, and used to refill the intercellular matrix of a cadaver part that has been washed of all its cells.

Eventually, it will probably be a synthetic cellular matrix, printed with some complicated device capable of turning chemical soup into collgen and similar, but for the next 20-50 years, they'll be washed cadaver parts.

[Joran]

A misconception. New hands (or any other part) of your own tissue won't be harvested from some bank of adult clones kept in some island facility, they will be made with rejuvenated adult stem cells harvested from your body fat, and used to refill the intercellular matrix of a cadaver part that has been washed of all its cells.

Eventually, it will probably be a synthetic cellular matrix, printed with some complicated device capable of turning chemical soup into collgen and similar, but for the next 20-50 years, they'll be washed cadaver parts.

Who cares about your reality and "facts" when I'm writing my dystopian, science fiction novel? Adult clones missing parts is such a juicy metaphor for many of societal ills.

Agreed though on not needing actual cloned people to make surplus parts. Also, is this the same process that's used to make artificial meat?

[Pheehelm]

It's the same process used to make artificial organs.

[Norsesmithy]

AFAIK that depends on who's making the artificial meat. I know that one university has made a steak from a pork chop using cow stem cells, and I know that several other places have created undifferentiated lumps of muscle tissue from various animals, but as you can imagine, they're less than appetizing.

No one is currently producing in-vitro meat commercially, but I understand its been offered (to select persons) at several scientific conferences.

[Beleriphon]

Eventually, it will probably be a synthetic cellular matrix, printed with some complicated device capable of turning chemical soup into collgen and similar, but for the next 20-50 years, they'll be washed cadaver parts.

A Virginian university has done this for organs using, get this, a bubble jet printer that was modified to print cellular membrane one layer at a time. Its a 3D printer that makes organs!

I heard an interview on the CBC's White Coat/Black Art where they already made bladders and other relatively simple organs, and the next one they want to see if they can produce is a human heart. Total time frame for this is between three and nine weeks.

If you want to see the effects of cybernetic enhancements for legitimate use I expect bone reinforcements or chemical filters instead of gas masks, as opposed to entirely replacement limbs. Full replacement limbs for damage or loss that are as functional as an original limb are becoming more and more or a reality.

[Conners]

How far is it, till we can start making improved cloned limbs? Example: Your genetics effect how capable you are of being a professional boxer--some people can just naturally punch harder than others.
Would it be possible to clones arms then make them better for boxing, weight lifting, or just generally stronger than most normal arms?

[Aux-Ash]

How far is it, till we can start making improved cloned limbs? Example: Your genetics effect how capable you are of being a professional boxer--some people can just naturally punch harder than others.
Would it be possible to clones arms then make them better for boxing, weight lifting, or just generally stronger than most normal arms?

Somewhere between never, very far off and We're there already.

To elaborate:

The principal problem is that boxing isn't a inherent trait. It's a trained ability. Which is beyond the scope of genetical manipulation. You would be able to create the hands he'd have if he was never a boxer, hypothetically, but not be able to create the hands he as sculped with extensive training.
So even if you can create his hands, you won't be able to duplicate what experience has made to them. Moreover, he probably started very young. Which means that you have to give these arms to someone of the same age as he was when he started to be able to duplicate them in full. Once the body is fully grown, the ability to significantly alter them is lost.

The second problem lie in altering the nucleic acids (the DNA). We have a very large DNA but comparatively few genes. Many of whom are reused for a number of proteins. However, this means that altering a few genes for a benefit risks altering more than you knew. What this means is that there is a chance you alter the structure of the surface proteins on some cells. If this happens prior to the development of the immunesystem, then these cells will be flagged as invaders and the body will reject them.
Moreover, growing them outside the body is doable. But if they have a distinct genetic material. Then once they're in the body there's no knowing what will happen. Our bodies are very regulated by hundreds if not thousands of factors. Far beyond the scope of our laboratories today. A single mistake and that grafted arm could essentially be told by the body to start undergoing hyperduplication (ie. become tumors).
So in this area we need lots more research.

But if you're talking gene therapy, the altering of the genetic material of a fetus. We're there already. It's already being used to treat people with rare and deadly metabolic disorders to allow them to live a normal life. It's still in it's early stages, but certainly works. However, they more or less only work on treating disorders with a mendelic (mono-genetic) inheritance.

[Eldan]

Who cares about your reality and "facts" when I'm writing my dystopian, science fiction novel? Adult clones missing parts is such a juicy metaphor for many of societal ills.


I know at least three books with that premise, so yeah :smalltongue:

[Spiryt]

How far is it, till we can start making improved cloned limbs? Example: Your genetics effect how capable you are of being a professional boxer--some people can just naturally punch harder than others.
Would it be possible to clones arms then make them better for boxing, weight lifting, or just generally stronger than most normal arms?

No, not in any way I can imagine.

Some people naturally punch harder, because their muscles naturally move differently, in more violent way, their skeleton is adapted to it, their brain just covers it all better etc.

Arm alone won't change much at all.

If you just "paste" more 'boxing' arm, with bigger bones, wrist, more resilient hand, more explosive muscles etc. it will most certainly just cause a lot of problems, being different from the rest of the body....

Not to mention than arm alone won't make very strong punch, no matter how big and powerful it is.

[Conners]

I can see the problem inherent, unless one wants to change the entire body...


OK, let's try this one: Let's say ten years from now, some bio-technology scientists get a human, whom they're allowed to edit how they please (they can replace anything they want). How much could they improve said human's performance, through bio-technology?
Could they make a regular sort of guy into an athlete?

[Spiryt]

I don't think so....

But anyway, they can do it right now trough more indirect science - good diet chosen perfectly for one individual, well chosen steroids and other PEDs + a lot of hard work under good trainer....

And that's how do you receive athletes.

There's no good way, and I don't think it will be in any foreseeable future, to "break into" this fascinating brain, eyes, touch, balance + nerves, tissue, muscle, tendons, and to change much in it as far as performance in something goes.

Only thing that can really do it so far is training organism towards something.

And of course inborn/acquired capabilities.

[Norsesmithy]

Theoretically if you had a consenting patient who was a good healer and tolerated procedures well, you could, assuming the ability to "write" good intercellular matrix and other proteinate and mineral structures with a 3 dimensional printer, add significant raw physical ability to that individual, and even "pre-train" the new muscles with electrostimulation prior to installation.

BUT without building the mental and neural pathways needed to make effective use of the added power, speed, flexibility, etc, the gains will not be effective or efficient in actual use, until such time as the subject manages to train their brain to control their improved form effectively.

[Conners]

That sounds typical of a super-hero or science fiction story, where they start off unable to control their new strength but master it with practice.

By the method suggested by Norse, or some other method, do you think a person could be given inhuman levels of strength?

[fusilier]

A few years ago there was an article in Scientific American about genetic muscular enhancement. Basically there were two ways of doing this -- one was to add more free nuclei around the muscle cells, which could be accomplished by direct injections into a particular muscle area, or by a general body wide delivery mechanism (pills I think). The other method involved suppressing the gene that causes muscular atrophy, which could have obvious benefits to astronauts and people undergoing surgery, but also allows muscle to be built-up much more quickly. At the time the research had been completed in mice, but I haven't heard much more about it in recent years. Interestingly the Scientific American article was very positive on the subject, and noted it's safety (certainly compared to steroids) and potential health benefits. Other articles around the same time were primarily concerned with genetic "doping" in athletic events.

So genetic enhancements may be feasible in the near future, at least in the realm of building muscule.

[Hawkfrost000]

By the method suggested by Norse, or some other method, do you think a person could be given inhuman levels of strength?

Steroids... Adrenaline overdose... A loved one in mortal danger...

But the first two burn you out fast if you want the levels of strength we are considering here, and the third one is exceedingly unethical and only has a certain number of possible uses.

Of course once you elevate an inhuman to that amount of strength, it becomes human level. :smalltongue:

DM

[Yora]

Since it's again riot time around here:

Is there riot gear for horses?

Or is it unneccessary because people don't want to hurt the poor animals?
Or are they actually so scary that nobody ever tries attacking horses?

[Storm Bringer]

Since it's again riot time around here:

Is there riot gear for horses?

Or is it unneccessary because people don't want to hurt the poor animals?
Or are they actually so scary that nobody ever tries attacking horses?

i quick google search turns up this image, plus others:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/tehgipster/2801287739/
http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/1325/1325,1211600111,20/stock-photo-equestrian-police-with-full-riot-gear-12955651.jpg


it appears that the horses wear a leather "helmet" with a large plastic eye shield. no form of barding is apparent in any of the photos, so i assume that deliberate attacks on the horse are very rare, and the protection is intended to keep the horse safe form rocks and such aimed at the rider that come in too low.


thinking about it, the flanks of a horse would not need too much protection, as you would be meeting any rioters head on, in close formation, where anyone unlucky enough to get between the horses would be in arms reach of two or three coppers.

I think a lot of rioters would, when conforted with an armed police officer on horseback, would be looking to keep out of reach of the cop with his beat stick, not attack the horse.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Horses are big scary animals. People don't want to get close to a horse.

[Norsesmithy]

Since it's again riot time around here:

Is there riot gear for horses?

Or is it unneccessary because people don't want to hurt the poor animals?
Or are they actually so scary that nobody ever tries attacking horses?

Mobs HAET mounted police who work as a squadron, especially when well supported.

Undisciplined infantry have been easy meat for cavalry throughout time, and the types of improvised bludgeons available to your average mob are poorly suited to harming horses, what with their strong bones, well protected organs, and high altitude brain cases. Now, if a mob is well disciplined (and therefore not actually a mob), and equipped with the kinds of cutting and piercing weapons that can either reach a horse's vitals or damage tendons and ligaments in the horse's legs, horses are not capable of working with impunity in crowd control situations. But when they aren't, you've got an officer with a 4 foot baton up where he's hard to hurt, and a thousand + lbs of fast and dangerous to back him up. As seen in the St. Paul RNC riots, even when the psychological factors don't divert the intentions of the rioters, they just can't stand up to officers riding into the crowd, and if they try to rush the officer, the horse will deliver a beating the cop can't hardly match. In the absence of spears and blades, eye protecting is just about all the horse should need.

Of course, my favorite set of images from that series oi incidents was when the St. Paul bike cops rode out in front of a march that was rapidly devolving into a riot, dismounted, picked up their bikes, and took a blocking position on an overpass, using their bikes as shields, and forming a testudo, stopping the riot cold (which was then broken up by the mounted police). The bicycles were shockingly effective at shielding the officers from thrown bricks and rocks (but less so at protecting them from thrown glass bottles of urine).


WRT "inhuman strength" I think, ignoring methods that will destroy the subject in the short term, that it might be possible to bring an average man to the level of the sorts of guys who participate in the World's Strongest Man competitions, but I am less sure that we could enhance that sort of individual much past where they are, and still have them be able to function in any way that isn't a feat of strength.

At least, that is, without re-engineering several parts of us that are much better designed for hominids in the 40 kilo range than hominids in the 150 kilo range. Knees, ankles, etc.

[Fhaolan]

I've been involved with training police horses, so I can speak to some of this.


Is there riot gear for horses?

Yes, but it's hideously expensive, relatively.


Or is it unneccessary because people don't want to hurt the poor animals?

Or are they actually so scary that nobody ever tries attacking horses?

Nope. Three things get used here.

One, horses usually only wade into the mobs once teargas comes out. Police horses that are used for riots are normally exposed to teargas as part of their training. Due to their mass and non-human physiology, they are not as affected by teargas as humans. So the mob is already in chaos and are having difficult times resisting once riot cavalry gets involved. Until then, you normally see the horses behind the riot infantry, backing them up with mass and presence.

Two, horses are tough. They can take a beating and keep going. Their legs are relatively vulnerable, but still fairly tough. It's not as easy to disable a horse as the movies make it. Racehorses break legs, but that's when they are under maximum strain, pushing to their limits. During riots the horses are not moving anywhere near those speeds. It's not like they're charging into the mob full tilt, they're at best trotting forward.

Three, horses are cheaper than people, and they are working animals not pets. If a horse gets shot, the police as an organization look at it as being unfortunate but a calculated risk. The mounted officer himself may have bonded with the horse and be more cautious because of that, but many police cavalry units trained for riot work, rotate horse and officer pairings to prevent it. Yes, it's cold. This is a police unit, not a petting zoo. This is one of the reasons why I'm *not* involved with training police horses anymore. I couldn't disconnect enough to view the horse as equipment.

[Yora]

Okay, those scenarios are way more extreme than the one I was thinking of.

It's the anual "farmers and townspeople standing in the way of an atomic waste transport with a bunch of anarchists there for fun".
Since it's for a great part a tiny rail track going through the middle of a forest, I think the horses also double as transportation.

http://cdn.spiegel.de/images/image-287224-galleryV9-dddr.jpg

By the way, love this picture (http://cdn.spiegel.de/images/image-287222-galleryV9-jnvk.jpg): Three anarchists and four reporters, plus the one making that picture. :D

I also have another question: Why did swords with an inward curved blade like a kopis come out of fashion? From descriptions they sound really effective and nasty, but at some point they just seem to disappear with only kukris remaining, because they alsp double as effecive tools.

[Bhu]

Hi all I had a question and got directed here. Im making a PrC that allows for the creation of d20Past weapons

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12030179&postcount=198

You'll note there's a list towards the bottom and one column in the table is creation time (ignore the various numbers they're just placeholders). Aside from the weapons im just making up, I need some idea of the time necessary to create the various d20 weapons on the list. I was told 3-4 days was probable for most muskets/riffles but would like some confirmation.

[fusilier]

Hi all I had a question and got directed here. Im making a PrC that allows for the creation of d20Past weapons

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12030179&postcount=198

You'll note there's a list towards the bottom and one column in the table is creation time (ignore the various numbers they're just placeholders). Aside from the weapons im just making up, I need some idea of the time necessary to create the various d20 weapons on the list. I was told 3-4 days was probable for most muskets/riffles but would like some confirmation.

I think this is going to depend upon a lot of factors:

1. What methods are employed.

2. How familiar the particular craftsman is with constructing weapons of that type.

3. How polished the final product will be.

4. If the components to assemble the product are in stock.


If the answer to 1. is factory like methods (and machines), then 2. is basically irrelevant. However, there are examples of specialization even in pre-industrial (or pre-factory) settings. As early as the late 16th century, some Italian gunsmiths didn't make gun-stocks -- they were made by specialists, with the final fitting and inletting performed by the gunsmith. I think this was sometimes true of barrels as well.

The other questions are all relevant in just about any case. But there's a series of complex actions. Does your gunsmith live in a 16th century Italian town, where rough gunstocks are made by another craftsman? If so, does he have any gunstocks on hand? Otherwise, does he have wood for stock blanks on hand -- or does he need to go to lumber mill? -- or to the forest and chop down a tree?

Then there's the metal barrels and hardware, including things like locks that must be hardened, and springs that must be tempered. Certainly a factory that makes Dreyse needle rifles could be expected to have parts in stock, and then the issue of making is really one of assembling and fitting (and there could be a fair amount of hand fitting in factories of that time). But a generic "gunsmith" being asked to build a needle-rifle, might have to make a lot of custom parts, or order them from specialists.

There are people who start from iron-ore and felled trees to make a gun: they're not going to produce one in 3-4 days! There are others who get lumber from a mill to cut stocks, and metal castings from a foundry. In a well appointed workshop, they might be able to crank out a standard weapon in 3-4 days - with little frills - if they don't have to order any parts from the foundry!

[Norsesmithy]

The complexity of the weapon will also be an influence. An "arsenal grade" smooth bore match lock with plain lever actuation (IE no springs, no secondary moving parts) could probably be made in 2 work days from ingots and rough hewn boards, or even faster if you've got good assistants, assuming you have all the right tools and knowledge.

[Yora]

If you mean by arsenal grade standard military issue, keep in mind that this means mass produced for use by large units. It's not a seal of quality.
Hunters (or later rangers) were elite units, because they were people who used their own personal hunting rifles, which were real high quality equipment.

[Bhu]

This will be a standard dnd world where this specific prestige class is require for gunmaking.

In other words you might be able to leave the woodcarving to others to get parts, but you're the one who knows how to make the gun.

[fusilier]

This will be a standard dnd world where this specific prestige class is require for gunmaking.

In other words you might be able to leave the woodcarving to others to get parts, but you're the one who knows how to make the gun.

Ok. So here's the issue -- does the gunsmith have assistants, or can call upon other craftsman, that can do some of the work? I think traditionally, the craft could be broken up into three categories -- a stock carver, a barrel maker, and then the gunsmith himself. The gunsmith would create and assemble the lock, (often times gunsmiths were also locksmiths), and then assemble the rest of the weapon doing whatever final fitting and inletting.

Old barrels had tapered sides, often octagonal and tapered, and really old ones (and some old fashioned ones) have heavily "swamped" barrels. "Swamped means that the barrel tapers from the breach, but then has a reverse taper (expands) toward the muzzle. Carving the barrel channel for a tapered/swamped barrel is considered to be very time consuming among modern gunsmiths. (Although perhaps if they did it all the time, they would get used to it). The point is, that even the final finishing of the stock, could be very time-consuming.

Assistants could do some of this work -- while the master is creating the lock, an assistant could be carving the barrel channel.

A gunsmith will need to know some blacksmithing -- for casting and finishing the hardware. Again, assistants can take up some of the tasks.

[Bhu]

well assume he can have assistants in the lab and time is for assembly

that having been said ive pulled numbers from the air and edited them into the table

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12030179&postcount=198

lemme know what u think

[Autolykos]

I've been involved with training police horses, so I can speak to some of this.Is that level of training comparable to what a medieval warhorse would get? I suppose you train them to somewhat ignore fire - happens all the time at riots. But would they move into a hedge of pointed sticks (made impromptu from breaking a few banners), or is that case (rioters acting as somewhat organized infantry) so rare that it doesn't matter in training?

[Yora]

Once again there was an old world war 2 bomb found in Germany, but the term "Air Mine" (Luftmine) confuses me. What kind of explosive device could that be?

That bastard is huge, estimated at 1,8 tonnes. Removal is planned for Sunday with an evacuation radius of 2 kilometers, which affects 45,000 people. To make things worse, the extreme low level of the Rhine has also revealed other old bombs in the area as well.
We find old bombs around here all the time, but this thing is just huge. What kind of device is it? What I could find out so far is that it is a brittish bomb that was probably dropped in late 1944 or 1945, and one article says it has three "head-fuses" (Kopfzünder), whatever that is supposed to mean.