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

[fusilier]

Did some quick research (then had to wait for the database backup to complete), and I found this forum:

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1085443&p=1056771536#post1056771536

That should link to a specific post (post #41 if it doesn't). I think my basic instinct that a inverted grip would cause the arrow to fly off erratically (unless the arrow was nocked to the otherside) is correct. Somebody on that forum noted that happened when they tried it. However, somebody else noted that the Na'vi seem to hold the arrow in place by looping a forefinger around it . . .

Anyway, the particular post linked above explains how it happened. Basically Cameron taught himself a crazy way of using a bow! When he told the archery instructors about it, they told him it wouldn't work, and he apparently demonstrated the technique to them. It doesn't sound like they accepted it as legitimate, but went ahead and worked with the actors so they would look good. The prop bows used had very low draw weights.

Oh, and you may have noticed that the Na'vi are left handed? That's because Cameron is left handed. :-/

[Thiel]

Plus, it's just more comfortable to draw it like that. When drawing a bow thumb up, so to speak, you're rotating your wrist as far as it'll go which can be uncomfortable to the average couch potato. Thumb down on the other hand and you're not rotating your wrist at all.

[Conners]

Anyone know much about double-bladed battleaxes? This guys goes off on a tangent about them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqtp08ZSAYE

However, I'm not so sure he's correct with his assumptions... The fact he described battleaxes in general as being unwieldy is also an odd sign.

[Xuc Xac]

Anyone know much about double-bladed battleaxes? This guys goes off on a tangent about them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqtp08ZSAYE

However, I'm not so sure he's correct with his assumptions... The fact he described battleaxes in general as being unwieldy is also an odd sign.

Watch his follow-up video here:
http://youtu.be/boioSxBIkfk

He's right. Double-bladed battle axes from history are symbolic. You wouldn't use one for fighting any more than you would use a fasces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces) for fighting. I think the problem comes from artists who read about battle axes but didn't look at actual artifacts, then when they illustrated them, they used the wood cutting axes which their only reference.

[Spiryt]

Anyone know much about double-bladed battleaxes? This guys goes off on a tangent about them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqtp08ZSAYE

However, I'm not so sure he's correct with his assumptions... The fact he described battleaxes in general as being unwieldy is also an odd sign.

Don't really listen to YT rants, so I'm not sure what's there but there probably indeed was not many double blades battle axes ever.

Pretty much no point of doing so, instead of wasting material to form to identical, or roughly identical blade, like we see in fantasy & stuff, one could form desired blade, perhaps larger one, maybe with back spike, or reinforced blunt part and so on.

Generaly we have some find of 'double' axes with drastically different heads on each side, which makes sense to add some versatility I guess.


http://www.historycy.org/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=6477


http://www.freha.pl/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=12188

Other than that, we have Persian, Indian and also Ottoman etc. tabars and similar axes that often were double bladed, who had a lot of ceremonial value, most probably - with pleasing symmetric shape, or whatever.

http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/displayimage.php?album=48&pos=170

As far as Avatar bow grip goes -can anybody just post good picture/short video?

From description I can't possibly imagine how reversing drawing hand would make shooting anything else but gimped, and I'm couch potato by most standards.

[Beleriphon]

Plus, it's just more comfortable to draw it like that. When drawing a bow thumb up, so to speak, you're rotating your wrist as far as it'll go which can be uncomfortable to the average couch potato. Thumb down on the other hand and you're not rotating your wrist at all.

People that compete at a high level will use a reverse release, but they also tend to be using mechanical release mechanisms rather than their own fingers. So there are people that shoot reversed, but its almost entirely within competition.

Having done some competition shooting about 15 years ago (in high school) I can attest to firing a bow in different ways. A slight diagonal slant to the bow can make it easy to make any given shot since the arrow tends not to move once nocked, but any good modern bow has some kind of grip and a very light arrow rest.

http://www.martinarchery.com/2012/gailmartinrecurve.php

These folks have some nice examples of traditionally designed recurve bows. They're even wood for the most part, but do include the arrow rest I'm referring to.

[Thiel]

Don't really listen to YT rants, so I'm not sure what's there but there probably indeed was not many double blades battle axes ever.

Pretty much no point of doing so, instead of wasting material to form to identical, or roughly identical blade, like we see in fantasy & stuff, one could form desired blade, perhaps larger one, maybe with back spike, or reinforced blunt part and so on.

Generaly we have some find of 'double' axes with drastically different heads on each side, which makes sense to add some versatility I guess.

I suspect the majority of those axes are work axes. They certainly look a lot like the tools they used when I visited the Oseberg Ship (http://www.osebergvikingskip.no/eng/)

[Spiryt]

I suspect the majority of those axes are work axes. They certainly look a lot like the tools they used when I visited the Oseberg Ship (http://www.osebergvikingskip.no/eng/)

Very possible, it seems that a lot of them (the one on the large picture at least) were being found in warriors graves.

That would be some suggestion for martial use, especially that a lot of them apparently looked like 'standard' czekans (http://znaleziska.org/wiki/images/e/e5/Czekan_Lutomiersk.jpg) only with blunt side flattened into some other blade.

[Roxxy]

Does anyone know precisely how long it takes to get proficient with a longbow (as in, capable of shooting accurately out to 100 feet, which is about what is expected from a 1st level D&D character)? I know it's a very long time, but I need something more specific.

Also, is it possible to mass produce something like D&D style leather or mail (chain or scale) and expect to be able to achieve a reasonable fit? Could it be done with splint mail or lamellar?

[Knaight]

Also, is it possible to mass produce something like D&D style leather or mail (chain or scale) and expect to be able to achieve a reasonable fit? Could it be done with splint mail or lamellar?

Mail was mass produced on several occasions, with the roman military being the most obvious example (after the Maurius reforms). Fit was not an issue. The same thing was seen in China with Lamellar, starting in quantity in the Warring States period (Qin in particular had a full on military industrial complex that was mass producing everything the military needed).

Anyways, question: Is there any basis, whatsoever on the whole "metal shafted polearm" thing (where metal shafted means a hollow metal tube)? I've found absolutely no reliable data that backs it, and it seems absurd. That said, stories about them are fairly old, and I might just have missed some edge case somewhere.

[Autolykos]

Does anyone know precisely how long it takes to get proficient with a longbow (as in, capable of shooting accurately out to 100 feet, which is about what is expected from a 1st level D&D character)? I know it's a very long time, but I need something more specific.Not that hard actually. I could reliably hit the target at 50 feet after only a weekend of practice (the bow only had about 30-35 pound draw though), and I actually found it *harder* to hit at much shorter distances. It probably takes less than a month of *focused* practice to get reasonably accurate at 100 feet. Reliably hitting in the yellow (or even bullseye) at that distance is an entirely different game though.

[Mike_G]

In reality, being a good archer takes training of your muscles and being in good shape, not just getting accurate with the bow. Pulling the heavy bow repeatedly takes a lot of strength and endurance, so it's more complicated t5ahn if you or I were to buy a fairly light bow and see how long until we can hit a target. The heavy pull was necessary to inflict a debilitating wound at range on an enemy who could be expected to have some armor on.

Traditionally, Englishmen were supposed to train every week with the longbow. The fall in popularity wasn't that better weapons came along, so much as fewer archers were trained, so if you could train up a longbowman in a month, I think that would have been done.

[gkathellar]

Anyways, question: Is there any basis, whatsoever on the whole "metal shafted polearm" thing (where metal shafted means a hollow metal tube)? I've found absolutely no reliable data that backs it, and it seems absurd. That said, stories about them are fairly old, and I might just have missed some edge case somewhere.

I've seen a 20 pound steel staff used for training purposes IRL, and I know my sifu uses a 40 pound staff as well. But only for training — the concept at play is training the body to produce so much power that you could hit with a wooden-shafted staff or spear with as much force as a steel one. Actually using a weapon that heavy in combat would be exhausting even if you could move it quickly enough to be functional.

Likewise, I've heard anecdotally that Yang Cheng Fu trained with a 23-pound broadsword, but no doubt if he actually meant to chop someone's head off he would have switched to a normally weighted blade.

[Traab]

I've seen a 20 pound steel staff used for training purposes IRL, and I know my sifu uses a 40 pound staff as well. But only for training — the concept at play is training the body to produce so much power that you could hit with a wooden-shafted staff or spear with as much force as a steel one. Actually using a weapon that heavy in combat would be exhausting even if you could move it quickly enough to be functional.

Likewise, I've heard anecdotally that Yang Cheng Fu trained with a 23-pound broadsword, but no doubt if he actually meant to chop someone's head off he would have switched to a normally weighted blade.

While I agree that it is unlikely people would just randomly make their weapons heavier, that doesnt mean that there werent any heavy melee weapons out there. Ive been trying to track down some numbers on it, but the bardiche, as an example, looks to be heavy as hell, relatively speaking. Its also going to be a question of improved effect versus added weight. If adding metal to the haft of a polearm makes it stronger and less likely to break, that would have to be balanced against the added weight making it harder to use quickly and a decision would have to be made on whether its worth it.

[Spiryt]

Anyways, question: Is there any basis, whatsoever on the whole "metal shafted polearm" thing (where metal shafted means a hollow metal tube)? I've found absolutely no reliable data that backs it, and it seems absurd. That said, stories about them are fairly old, and I might just have missed some edge case somewhere.

There were quite a lot of axes, maces, hammers etc. with at least partially metal shaft.

Some of them were of size that could indicate two handed use, as somehow 'personal' two handed weapon.

Never've seen actual 'polearm' like that though.

I would guess that large lenght wouldn't really work well with it.

Hollow steel tube axe works well due to it's compactness - with 60 cm of lenght pretty thin steel shaft can resist impacts well enough.

[Traab]

You know, this is bugging the hell out of me. Ive been to 10 different sites, all talk about how big the bardiche is, and how it uses the heavy weight of the blade to do its damage, but none will give a range of weight for the damn thing!

[gkathellar]

While I agree that it is unlikely people would just randomly make their weapons heavier, that doesnt mean that there werent any heavy melee weapons out there. Ive been trying to track down some numbers on it, but the bardiche, as an example, looks to be heavy as hell, relatively speaking. Its also going to be a question of improved effect versus added weight. If adding metal to the haft of a polearm makes it stronger and less likely to break, that would have to be balanced against the added weight making it harder to use quickly and a decision would have to be made on whether its worth it.

Right, but on heavier weapons like a bardiche, weight is concentrated at the end of the weapon, near the striking point. If the shaft were made of metal, all you would really be adding is increased lift/swing/thrust difficulty. Remember — heavy polearms can be a lot more taxing than shorter heavy two-handed weapons, because of weight distribution and pounds per square inch.

I'm not saying lighter = better. My experience is actually that weight is good, until you hit a certain threshold. Rattan is better than bamboo because it has a solid core and a heavier weight. Flippy, ultra-light modern wushu swords do everything worse than a proper, solid, heavy blade. But past a certain weight, weapons become impractical.

EDIT: Also note that the Bardiche had a short shaft and used broadly placed hands, mitigating the problems of weight to some extent.

[Spiryt]

Yes, museums have irritating habit of listing a lot of different stuff, but not weight.

And Bardiches are somehow neglected in research, compared to say, swords, like a lot of other polearms.

I however, seriously doubt that most of them was really very 'heavy' at all, compared to other polearms.

They had huge blades, yes, but also thin ones, simply large axe blade "flattened" further to create larger hewing area.

I somehow doubt that they're really weapons to do 'damage' trough weight more than any other axes, rather by large cutting area and usually nicely pronounced point - ideal for some stabbing. Generally for harming something with "weight" one would prefer mass of the steel concentrated more, not 'spread' like in Bardiche.

In this short topic (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=24077&highlight=bardiche) there are some good pictures of blades, as well as complete dimensions of one from Cleveland Museum of Art.

As we can see, it weight 1.66 kg, and that is not really heavy. Haft looks dubious, and is quite probably replacement, so original one might have increased this weight a bit.



EDIT: Also note that the Bardiche had a short shaft and used broadly placed hands, mitigating the problems of weight to some extent.

Depends, many bardiches weren't really short in any way - haft approaching 6 feet weren't that uncommon.

[gkathellar]

Depends, many bardiches weren't really short in any way - haft approaching 6 feet weren't that uncommon.

Wikipedia says they were rarely above 5 feet, but I'll take your word for it.

[Spiryt]

Wikipedia says they were rarely above 5 feet, but I'll take your word for it.

Well, you don't have to: :smallwink:

Here (http://www.muzeumwp.pl/emwpaedia/berdysze-moskiewskie.php) longest one is 181cm, so it give's haft significantly above 5 feet.

Some may come later, but not that much data in the net, unfortunately...

[Roxxy]

I'd like to provide some background for my earlier questions. In my homebrew Pathfinder/D&D 3.5 campaign setting, a magical renaissance has dramatically improved people's lives. The world resembles the modern world in many ways, with urban dwellers outnumbering rural dwellers and agriculture being mostly handled with magitek and no longer the career of the majority of individuals. Military wise, things also look rather modern, even though the weapons and armor are medieval/early renaissance. Thanks to the magical mechanization of agriculture, it is possible to maintain a fairly well sized standing army and navy. As a result, the vast majority of soldiers are trained professionals. Even the part time militias (think modern day military reserves) are fairly well trained.

Feudalism has evolved beyond recognition with the addition of a massive amount of republican systems (that medieval lord sitting in yonder castle was elected by the people) and the rise of urbanization (with so many people in cities and agriculture heavily mechanized, the landholding noble isn't as important as in the past). One of the most telling symptoms of this is the fact that the mass of heavily armed and armored cavalry charging at you is not a group of knights who serve a noble lord and are most likely rich nobility who bought their own horses and equipment, but rather a group of individuals who can be from any social or economic class and who are most likely citizen volunteers who were equipped by the government. In game terms, the warrior class isn't used in this setting. Trained soldiers take levels in PC classes, and militia have a mix of non-warrior NPC class levels and PC class levels.

Magic assisted mass production is how weapons and armor are made. This has made good quality equipment much more easily available, and the government's soldiers are issued fairly good weapons and armor. Even your basic archer or swordfighter has pretty good gear (if from a wealthier country, likely masterwork). Basically, weapons and armor are made in factories, and even masterwork items can be mass produced (though they still cost more).

My questions are whether this mass produced armor would be able to fit (which seems to be quite plausible), and how easy it would be to take a fresh recruit, likely from the city, and train this individual as an archer. I know IRL crossbows were preferred do to the training issue, but armies in this world are much more professional, being long term standing armies, and better training would logically be available do to the fact that most soldiers aren't peasants hurriedly conscripted at the start of a war, but rather professionals or semi-professionals with a fair amount of training. I want to know if that means that I could realistically hand out longbows as the ranged weapon of choice, which is what I want to do.

[Spiryt]

Mail armor has this nice thing that it's 'wearable' even if it's only roughly fit - say, 'M' mail for 170 pounds dude, and 'XL' one for 250 pounds one. :smallwink:

However, for most 'professional' and optimal use it still requires to be fit rather well, so mass producing it without any participation of final wearer won't be ever optimal.


I know IRL crossbows were preferred do to the training issue, but armies in this world are much more professional, being long term standing armies, and better training would logically be available do to the fact that most soldiers aren't peasants hurriedly conscripted at the start of a war, but rather professionals or semi-professionals with a fair amount of training. I want to know if that means that I could realistically hand out longbows as the ranged weapon of choice, which is what I want to do.

In real life the were plenty of professional and seasoned crossbow experts as well. Legend of Wilhelm tell for quick reference of crossbow feats in folklore.

Anyway, there's not easy answer to this question, really.

Getting roughly proficient with a bow isn't really long at all, getting better and better is what simply takes years, so at some point you have solid archers instead of one's who can simply release arrow in enemy direction.

[Roxxy]

What about D&D style leather or lamellar? Is that easier to create a reasonable fit for by mass producing? I know it won't ever be a perfect fit, I'm just looking for something good enough, like modern day military issue body armor.

[Spiryt]

What about D&D style leather or lamellar? Is that easier to create a reasonable fit for by mass producing? I know it won't ever be a perfect fit, I'm just looking for something good enough, like modern day military issue body armor.

Pretty much any armor could have 'reasonable' fit, even if not made specifically for wearer at all.

In 15th century Europe munition grade breastplates were pretty popular choice for many 'cheaper' combatants.

Lammelar would probably be alright as well, wearer would just have to have some well fitting padding and customize fastenings etc. so armor would lie on him well.

[Roxxy]

Awesome! Thanks.

I'll lurk around. Perhaps someone will ask a question I can answer.

[gkathellar]

Well, you don't have to: :smallwink:

Here (http://www.muzeumwp.pl/emwpaedia/berdysze-moskiewskie.php) longest one is 181cm, so it give's haft significantly above 5 feet.

Some may come later, but not that much data in the net, unfortunately...

Right, but is that an average, or an exception designed for an exceptionally tall man?

Since Spiryt is helping you with armor, I'll just give you some other comments on this setting.


As a result, the vast majority of soldiers are trained professionals. Even the part time militias (think modern day military reserves) are fairly well trained.

This was pretty much true even before major urbanization occurred. Really, from the time of Alexander and his professional army (with some exceptions, of course). In fact, my understanding is that having a military class that was too large and too well trained became a real problem in Europe during periods of peace, because they would run around causing trouble. Food for thought — the distinction between modern armies and medieval ones isn't just a question of training, but of the relationship between socioeconomic status and the military.


One of the most telling symptoms of this is the fact that the mass of heavily armed and armored cavalry charging at you is not a group of knights who serve a noble lord and are most likely rich nobility who bought their own horses and equipment, but rather a group of individuals who can be from any social or economic class and who are most likely citizen volunteers who were equipped by the government.

Then you have to think about why these guys in particular have special training and special equipment and special equipment, if there's a standing army that recruits in the same way modern armies do. Knights were elite soldiers, who had access to training and tools that made them juggernauts of destruction on the field. Socioeconomic class is how this was historically determined, often accompanied by training from a very young age — how is it determined now? Are all knights commissioned officers? Do they have to pass special exams — and if so, does this essentially mean that they're all people who had access to training before joining the military?


Magic assisted mass production is how weapons and armor are made. This has made good quality equipment much more easily available, and the government's soldiers are issued fairly good weapons and armor.

Bear in mind that hand-forged weapons are generally better than industrially made ones, as long as the hand that does the forging is skilled. Does magitek allay that problem?


Feudalism has evolved beyond recognition with the addition of a massive amount of republican systems (that medieval lord sitting in yonder castle was elected by the people) and the rise of urbanization (with so many people in cities and agriculture heavily mechanized, the landholding noble isn't as important as in the past).

Depending on how "industrialized" magitek is, this could be very unlikely. Over time, the status of "lord" vanished because it was only a relevant term in land-based economic systems. Once you get a money-based system, the wealthy aren't lords — they're capitalists. Elected governments come into existence for related, but separate reasons.

In Europe's history, the smarter gentry of many countries really "bought in" to the industrial revolution so that the merchants wouldn't render them obsolete. They used their significant resources to invest in industrialization, becoming the first venture capitalists, because they saw that land-ownership was rapidly decreasing in relevancy as the primary form of economic status.

[fusilier]

It's conceivable that mail can be adjusted for fitting purposes, but if it's riveted that's probably more trouble than it's worth.

Basically, when clothing and other garments are mass produced they have several sizes, and they are produced according to a schedule (x small, y medium, z large, etc.). However, in the case of uniforms, the cuffs of tunics may be left unfinished, pants unhemmed, etc., for final finishing by company tailors. So, there is still some hand-finishing required. It might be possible to use a mix of mass production, and local hand-finishing in the manufacture and fitting of armor.

A friend who purchased a reproduction breastplate found it too wide, he modified it by bending the sides in -- I think he had to affix the leather straps himself, so that allowed some more custom fitting too. You won't get something as well fitting as custom made armor, but it will be better than simply wearing what comes out of the factory.

[Roxxy]

Thanks for the responses, guys. I'll be sure to take your advice into account, as some of it seems to be very good.

[Knaight]

I'd like to take a moment to remind everyone of just how bad some sources are. Also, anyone reading this thread will probably find this either hilarious or rage inducing:
A podcast episode on historical knights. (http://podcasts.howstuffworks.com/hsw/podcasts/symhc/2009-02-25-symhc-knights.mp3?_kip_ipx=869435990-1324879775)

Yes, you heard that right. They actually said that armor was invented in Rome.

[Ashtagon]

I'd like to provide some background for my earlier questions. ...

Magic assisted mass production is how weapons and armor are made. This has made good quality equipment much more easily available, and the government's soldiers are issued fairly good weapons and armor. Even your basic archer or swordfighter has pretty good gear (if from a wealthier country, likely masterwork). Basically, weapons and armor are made in factories, and even masterwork items can be mass produced (though they still cost more).

An important question here. Is this post-industrial mass production, where an item of a specified 'fit' can be made to order quickly and cheaply, or is it "make me a thousand size 12 chain shirts" mass production?


My questions are whether this mass produced armor would be able to fit (which seems to be quite plausible), and how easy it would be to take a fresh recruit, likely from the city, and train this individual as an archer. I know IRL crossbows were preferred do to the training issue, but armies in this world are much more professional, being long term standing armies, and better training would logically be available do to the fact that most soldiers aren't peasants hurriedly conscripted at the start of a war, but rather professionals or semi-professionals with a fair amount of training. I want to know if that means that I could realistically hand out longbows as the ranged weapon of choice, which is what I want to do.

Mass produced light and medium armours could be made quite easily (about as easily as regular clothing chain store clothing), abnd fit about as well. Certain types (chain shirts, possibly others) are much more flexible, and can be considered "one size fits all". Heavy armours will typically need to be tailor-made to teh individual to avoid "combat chafing", even though someone of approximately teh same dimensions as the original wearer coudl physically put it on; they could wear it, but would expect constrant chafing which could eventually result in minor cuts in areas where teh armour has to allow movement.

executive summary: chain shirts can be mass produced, and most light/medium armours could too, depending on the size (ahem) of the army.

Weapons: The traditional saying is that to train a longbowman, you start with his grandfather. The truth isn't quite that extreme, but good longbowyers did require a lifetime of training that started in childhood. You simply aren't going to get a recruit trained up to military standards in archery in less than a year (assuming good nutrition too, which is reasonable in your world; RL archers took longer partly because of inadequate nutrition stunted archery muscle development).

While this amount of training is not impossible, it is unrealisitc to expect an army to spend a year on training when they could get an effective soldier in a month by focusing on a different weapon.

[Autolykos]

In reality, being a good archer takes training of your muscles and being in good shape, not just getting accurate with the bow. Pulling the heavy bow repeatedly takes a lot of strength and endurance, so it's more complicated t5ahn if you or I were to buy a fairly light bow and see how long until we can hit a target. The heavy pull was necessary to inflict a debilitating wound at range on an enemy who could be expected to have some armor on.

Traditionally, Englishmen were supposed to train every week with the longbow. The fall in popularity wasn't that better weapons came along, so much as fewer archers were trained, so if you could train up a longbowman in a month, I think that would have been done.
Totally agree with you, but I understand the question differently. "Proficient" in D&D terms (this is how I understood the question) just means "familiar with the weapon and how to use it". Being a good archer takes a lot more (in real life as well as in D&D). That's why I pointed out the low draw weight of the bow I used.

[Daremonai]

This may well be apocryphal, but it was always my understanding that the downfall of the longbow was a political one.

When the first firearms came along, they were initially less effective than the bow, but had two fairly significant advantages - the training period for the gun was significantly shorter than for the bow, and perhaps more significantly, after the war, you could take the guns back.

Longbows are easy enough to craft, and a populace who have years of training in easily manufactured weapons can pose a threat to opressive nobility. A populace who are trained in the use of a weapon that they don't have and can't make is a far lesser threat.

[Conners]

From what I've heard, it turns out the first fire arms were around for a long time, while the longbow was still prevalent. Problem was, the gunpowder they had was very awkward to utilize... so it was rare to have units with gunpowder weaponry (there still were some successful units who did, BTW).
Was surprised when I learnt this.

Your points about why the longbow was replaced are probably correct. It is much faster to teach someone how to use a musket than a longbow.
This also means that you don't need to force people to practice archery (laws were instituted in England to encourage archery, such as the banning of soccer). With archery, throwing spears, etc., you need to keep in practice, otherwise the muscles you use for archery/whatever grow weak, and you need to waste time re-training. With a musket, it won't take much practice before a soldier is back up to speed after civilian life.
---
One thing to also consider, of course, is that muskets were terrifying... They are amazingly loud, give plenty of smoke, and bring invisible death to your enemies.

Very interesting point about how longbows are easy to craft. Not sure if this was the case, but it could've been.

[Incanur]

Early firearms also had the minor advantage of blowing through even the best armor at close range. And they weren't as inaccurate as they're sometimes made out to be. In like fashion, the ease-of-use factor may be exaggerated. Humphrey Barwick, a sixteenth-century military writer, considered good training for gunners essential and thought it would take ten times longer to get a unit of firearms up to snuff than it would for a unit of halberds or pikes. (This could relate to English familiarity with the later weapons and hand-to-hand combat in general.)

[Autolykos]

Very interesting point about how longbows are easy to craft. Not sure if this was the case, but it could've been.Under instruction of someone who knows what he's doing, a group of completely untrained people can make one (each) in about a day. That was with modern tools and materials (but without machines or power tools), so I don't know how well this applies to doing it the traditional way.
EDIT: The expert doesn't have that much to do, he basically tested the bows and told us where to remove more wood every hour or two. Without him, the bows could just be built from written instruction, but probably wouldn't shoot straight. They might still be a servicable weapon for the battlefield, but not accurate enough for target shooting or individual combat.

[Storm Bringer]

another point is the availability of gunpowder. firearms, obviously need gunpowder, and only the Government knew the secrets of making it for a long time (the a nations rescipe was one of it's Big Secrets, and kept well guarded fo a very long time).

once guns replaced bows, one of the critical advantages the government had in any rebellion was it had massive stores of power and shot at hand, plus secure powder factoires to make as much as they needed, and the rebels did not.


case in point the storming of the Bastille in the French Revolution was not a move to free the prisoners of a tyrant and take a fortress of opression, they did it to steal the powder and shot stored inside.

[Conners]

Early firearms also had the minor advantage of blowing through even the best armor at close range. I do wonder about this... One report I heard said this was true, but it seemed that they mightn't be talking about the best armour, in that one. I think I heard something about certain armour being pretty good against muskets at one point... but I can't remember if that source was reliable.

Of course, part of the reason for this, is the random factor.



And they weren't as inaccurate as they're sometimes made out to be. Recently, I think someone mentioned an experiment done with muskets. They were surprised at how inaccurate they were--but I can't remember the details (they used a bed sheet to simulate an enemy formation, and found fewer holes than expected, I think).



In like fashion, the ease-of-use factor may be exaggerated. Humphrey Barwick, a sixteenth-century military writer, considered good training for gunners essential and thought it would take ten times longer to get a unit of firearms up to snuff than it would for a unit of halberds or pikes. (This could relate to English familiarity with the later weapons and hand-to-hand combat in general.) This might explain the poor accuracy in the test I mentioned, since the testers wouldn't be well versed in using muskets.
Still... how sure can we be about Barwick's conviction being optimal? It's hard to imagine musketeers requiring more training than melee troops. This might be because of the wider array of skills a musketeer was expected to have...? Or related to keeping their guns in good condition..?

Not trying to argue--this just seems a vastly different revelation than what I would expect.

[Incanur]

I do wonder about this...

By the late sixteenth century, there's no question. Every period writer agrees that the heavy musket will penetrate any wearable armor and that lighter handheld guns will still pierce the vast majority of armors at close range. Test by Alan Williams and company confirm this.


This might explain the poor accuracy in the test I mentioned, since the testers wouldn't be well versed in using muskets.

Poor accuracy compared with what? That's the question. Of course early firearms look pathetic against modern rifles, but bows and crossbow aren't reliable against individual targets beyond 60-80 yards either. Barwick claimed guns shot better than crossbows, which in turn shot better than the English warbow. While there's less inherent inaccuracy in the bow than the sixteenth-century gun, the gun and crossbow do allow the shooter to aim without the stress of that 150lb draw. In this sense Barwick made a valid point, though other sources - namely Fourquevaux - suggest the crossbow as the most accurate of the lot.


Still... how sure can we be about Barwick's conviction being optimal? It's hard to imagine musketeers requiring more training than melee troops. This might be because of the wider array of skills a musketeer was expected to have...? Or related to keeping their guns in good condition..?

Sixteenth-century matchlocks weren't exactly simple instruments and Barwick expected exemplary performance. Additionally, as I mentioned, the English during Barwick period had considerable experience with the bill/halberd. It was a national weapon almost as much as the bow. The fact Barwick included pikes, however, does complicate things.


Not trying to argue--this just seems a vastly different revelation than what I would expect.

Yeah, it surprised me as well. I'm still trying to figure out what to make of it.

[Autolykos]

Humphrey Barwick, a sixteenth-century military writer, considered good training for gunners essential and thought it would take ten times longer to get a unit of firearms up to snuff than it would for a unit of halberds or pikes. (This could relate to English familiarity with the later weapons and hand-to-hand combat in general.)Could also be related to the fact that pikemen weren't expected to fight very much (that's my interpretation at least, I don't have a reliable source for this). Just go mentally through the units they might encounter on the battlefield:

Cavalry is usually not suicidal enough to charge a well-ordered pike block. To keep them away, the pikemen only need to hold formation. Once the pikemen are disordered, cavalry might charge. But this only emphasizes the importance of formation drills and discipline, while actual skill in using pikes is still futile.

Musketeers won't engage the pikemen in melee, since they aren't suicidal either. And if the pikemen are engaging them, their options are running or getting skewered. No amount of skill allows musketeers (with or without a bayonet) to stand against a well-ordered pike block.

The same goes for Artillery, only stronger. They easily make minced meat out of a pike formation at a distance, but have no way at all to be effective in melee.

This leaves other Pikemen. But no sane commander would expect his pikemen to fight another pike block. He might order the attack and expect the others to break and run, or divert them to charge them in their flanks/back with cavalry, so they run. If the others would stand and fight, the front rows would be dead/disabled within seconds (no armor or shield...), and the next row would soon follow. It is a complete and pointless massacre, and even unskilled pikemen can hit a *whole formation*. Still, formation, discipline and morale is important, but actual skill is not.

The last situation would be a complete Charlie Foxtrot with no clear formations and everyone engaging the enemies with their sidearms. Here, only skill with the sidearm would matter, since nobody uses a pike in such a situation anyway. But that's what you definitely don't want as a commander, so encouraging your troops to do that by giving them a lot of training with their sidearms might even be counterproductive.

Giving your pikemen training to *fight* with a pike only has the advantage of raising their morale and making them less likely to run (which is a good thing), but that doesn't even require the techniques taught to actually work.

My conclusion is, that once your pike block can hold formation and is confident enough not to run away at the sight of the enemy, they can do their job adequately. Everything else might be nice to have, but isn't strictly necessary.

[Roxxy]

Early firearms also had the minor advantage of blowing through even the best armor at close range.Depends on the era. For over a hundred years, armor could stop bullets, and was in fact tested against them to insure this. Eventually, more powerful guns changed this fact, but it took time.

[Spiryt]

When the first firearms came along, they were initially less effective than the bow, but had two fairly significant advantages - the training period for the gun was significantly shorter than for the bow, and perhaps more significantly, after the war, you could take the guns back.

Longbows are easy enough to craft, and a populace who have years of training in easily manufactured weapons can pose a threat to opressive nobility. A populace who are trained in the use of a weapon that they don't have and can't make is a far lesser threat.

I'm afraid that no one was taking away any weapons from anyone, because they were in majority of cases property of shooters, as long as we're not talking about big bombards.

Similarly, being able to use some dangerous weapon alone is not, and never really was deciding factor in starting some revolts or whatever.

Then, a lot of important people were using guns as well, and they're usually the ones most interested in any 'trouble'....

And then comes the fact that really many common handgonners, or whoever were happily serving 'oppressive' nobility in their armies, retinues etc....

So in short, your theory about social control by 'issuing' firearms doesn't really hold any sensible merit I'm afraid. And is rather weird look on Medieval society in fact.


Depends on the era. For over a hundred years, armor could stop bullets, and was in fact tested against them to insure this. Eventually, more powerful guns changed this fact, but it took time.

Armor, even if somebody had weird idea of using ancient one today, still can and will stop bullets.

Obviously though, everything depends on bullet, energy, angle distance and many other things, just like ages ago.

So failure to defend against direct fire from powerful musket from, say 50m, wasn't in most cases any argument against armor, which could still help tremendously in other cases.



another point is the availability of gunpowder. firearms, obviously need gunpowder, and only the Government knew the secrets of making it for a long time (the a nations rescipe was one of it's Big Secrets, and kept well guarded fo a very long time).

Uh.... Maybe very early in European firearm history, but in early 15th century, from Poland to England, there was a;ready a lot of private, or semi private powder mills already....

Black Powder is not exactly recipe on can keep in secret for any reasonable time, and I don't know how one really can suggest keeping it like that.

AFAIR at least from the end of 15th century, general "gunpowdery" was already taught at the univeristies, and the whole science was developing rapidly.

A lot of the time gunpowder was obviously being prepared "at spot" by qualified members of castle garrison, for example. Not secret at all.


once guns replaced bows, one of the critical advantages the government had in any rebellion was it had massive stores of power and shot at hand, plus secure powder factoires to make as much as they needed, and the rebels did not.


case in point the storming of the Bastille in the French Revolution was not a move to free the prisoners of a tyrant and take a fortress of opression, they did it to steal the powder and shot stored inside.

Rebels did not have powder, because it was usually somehow expensive, hard to obtain, store etc. for common people....

I, and pretty much everyone, know pretty well how to create 467 of stuff, even from "How it's made" on Discovery, but it doesn't mean I have equipment, skill or reason to do so....

Similarly, the fact that some peasant straight from the plow couldn't make a powder, didn't mean that only "government" knew it.... :smallconfused:

To vizualize it better, what exactly is government in feudal Europe, anyway, and how could 'it' keep any secret?

All nobles? Kings entourage? All those thousands of people that usually wouldn't have known each other and have different interests?

Here I've found some quick references (http://www.kkr.nsc.pl/artykuly/proch.html) about powder mills - apparently in the 14 th century a lot of powder mills were in fact normal mills were people were milling the grain as welll....

[Roxxy]

Armor, even if somebody had weird idea of using ancient one today, still can and will stop bullets.

Obviously though, everything depends on bullet, energy, angle distance and many other things, just like ages ago.

So failure to defend against direct fire from powerful from say 50m, was in most cases any argument against armor, which could still help tremendously in other cases.
Maybe if it's a fairly low powered gun, a bullet fired from a long distance, or a lucky angle, but I wouldn't want to trust anything other than modern ballistic armor to do so reliably. A suit of mail or a breastplate might stop some rounds if you are lucky, but I wouldn't issue it to modern soldiers.

[gkathellar]

Iron ball bullets != modern rounds. The effectiveness of plate armor against firearms decreased over time, but against early firearms it was reasonably effective.

[Spiryt]

Maybe if it's a fairly low powered gun, a bullet fired from a long distance, or a lucky angle, but I wouldn't want to trust anything other than modern ballistic armor to do so reliably. A suit of mail or a breastplate might stop some rounds if you are lucky, but I wouldn't issue it to modern soldiers.

Well, obviously, but it's not really the point.

Today any partisan from mountains can shoot one high EK bullet after another, from his AK for 100$, that wouldn't leave any chance to even best 16th century mail or plate.

In actual 16th century, such rain of deadly bullets wasn't in fraction as easy to do, so armor was still very useful and it was used up to the end of 17th century, at least by heavy cavalry.

[Spiryt]

Here is some dude having fun with guns and helmet:

http://www.kryminalistyka.fr.pl/praktyka_helm.php

As we can see, even cheapish 1.5mm helmet, that was never really made with repelling bullets in mind, that just lies over there, easily stops majority of lower powered, slower, smaller rounds - and would give reasonable chance fro surviving shot from rather popular pistol in Glock 19.

So modern short arm bullets are not in fact very good at defeating metal armor - which is perfectly obvious, as they were not made for it at all.

Personal weapons for situation were meeting someone in breastplate was close to 0.... Especially since it was 20th century, where metal armor had long fell out of serious use. :smallwink:

[Roxxy]

Well, obviously, but it's not really the point.

Today any partisan from mountains can shoot one high EK bullet after another, from his AK for 100$, that wouldn't leave any chance to even best 16th century mail or plate.

In actual 16th century, such rain of deadly bullets wasn't in fraction as easy to do, so armor was still very useful and it was used up to the end of 17th century, at least by heavy cavalry.Oh, I know that. I thought you were talking about armor against modern guns.

[Roxxy]

Here is some dude having fun with guns and helmet:

http://www.kryminalistyka.fr.pl/praktyka_helm.php

As we can see, even cheapish 1.5mm helmet, that was never really made with repelling bullets in mind, that just lies over there, easily stops majority of lower powered, slower, smaller rounds - and would give reasonable chance fro surviving shot from rather popular pistol in Glock 19.

So modern short arm bullets are not in fact very good at defeating metal armor - which is perfectly obvious, as they were not made for it at all.

Personal weapons for situation were meeting someone in breastplate was close to 0.... Especially since it was 20th century, where metal armor had long fell out of serious use. :smallwink:You wouldn't want to wear that over your chest, though :smallsmile:

[Spiryt]

You wouldn't want to wear that over your chest, though :smallsmile:

Well, if I was from some weird reason pretty damn sure that I'm getting shot I sure as hell would want... There would always be a chance that it would help. And if I was shot from some tiny "under dress" handgun.

Now in more 'real' situation, I keep hearing about soldiers being rather reluctant to wear their armors- but those are obviously causes when they aren't not really thinking they're getting shot. Or at least hope that they won't.

[gkathellar]

Now in more 'real' situation, I keep hearing about soldiers being rather reluctant to wear their armors- but those are obviously causes when they aren't not really thinking they're getting shot. Or at least hope that they won't.

I've heard soldiers and cops complain that all body armor really does is teach your enemies to go around the body armor. They say that knife-proof vests just ensure you'll get stabbed in the throat, and the folks fighting us Americans overseas are becoming really, really good at taking headshots and using explosives because they know the body armor is so good. Particularly in the case of soldiers, some say they would prefer the added mobility and reduced overheating problems to armor that doesn't seem to do all that much.

Honestly, and I say this with the highest respect, I suspect this is a psychological question. Modern warfare is chaotic, and death can come at you out of nowhere. That makes body armor's importance unquestionable. But taking those contingencies against death may make it seem more imminent, and harder to cope with as a result.

[Mike_G]

I've heard soldiers and cops complain that all body armor really does is teach your enemies to go around the body armor. They say that knife-proof vests just ensure you'll get stabbed in the throat, and the folks fighting us Americans overseas are becoming really, really good at taking headshots and using explosives because they know the body armor is so good. Particularly in the case of soldiers, some say they would prefer the added mobility and reduced overheating problems to armor that doesn't seem to do all that much.


OK, been in uniform for a few decades, as a Marine and a paramedic and this is just a stupid attitude. Yeah, people say it, people did take the heavy trauma plates out of their armour to reduce weight, yeah, we all want to be cooler, but this is just insane.

Head shots are tough to make. Body shots are easy, and if you aim at the body and miss high, you get a head shot. you aim at the head and miss high, you get squat. I've know plenty of cops get hit in the vest, and I've worked alongside some who have not made it because they failed to wear a vest the day a guy shot them in the chest. And even outdated body armor that won't stop an AK round works well against fragments from explosives.

A guy who can reliably get a head shot will kill you anyway, so wear the damn armor.



Honestly, and I say this with the highest respect, I suspect this is a psychological question. Modern warfare is chaotic, and death can come at you out of nowhere. That makes body armor's importance unquestionable. But taking those contingencies against death may make it seem more imminent, and harder to cope with as a result.

I say this with no respect for a guy who risks failing at his mission, leaving his buddies shorthanded and his kids orphans because he didn't want to sweat. Yeah, armor is uncomfortable. Digging a proper fighting hole or staying awake on watch is uncomfortable. Do your job. Nobody made you join.

Body armor saves lives. It's like wearing your seatbelt. No it won't make you superman, but it unquestionably turns a lot of would be fatalities into minor injuries, or even nothing injuries.

End rant.

As you were.

[Roxxy]

Mike G pretty much said it all. I was Navy, not Marines, and not for all that long, so I can't agree with him out of experience, but I can agree with him out of pretty much everything on the subject I've read. Shrapnel causes a lot of casualties in modern warfare, and body armor most certainly can stop it a lot of the time. It's even pretty effective against gunfire unless the enemy has a BFG or the armor is badly outdated.

Granted, being somewhat well read pales in comparison to real world experience, but it has to be worth something.

[gkathellar]

I'm not surprised, and I'm glad to have an experienced professional provide clarification. I didn't want to put any judgment calls I'm not qualified to make in my post because I've never been a member of the service.

[jaybird]

Early firearms also had the minor advantage of blowing through even the best armor at close range. And they weren't as inaccurate as they're sometimes made out to be. In like fashion, the ease-of-use factor may be exaggerated. Humphrey Barwick, a sixteenth-century military writer, considered good training for gunners essential and thought it would take ten times longer to get a unit of firearms up to snuff than it would for a unit of halberds or pikes. (This could relate to English familiarity with the later weapons and hand-to-hand combat in general.)

I think what everyone's forgetting here is just how much of a PAIN it is to reload a musket. Even with the pinnacle of musket development, the flintlock, one shot every thirty seconds was considered par for European armies, and one of the things the British were notable for then were volleys 50% faster then everybody else's. Compare this to pike drill - "stand there, look scary, poke people". Loading a musket is the main issue, not firing it.

[jaybird]

Wow. 10 minutes between double posts. That's a first, even for this crappy connection.

[fusilier]

Firearms
I have a matchlock arquebus, although so far I've only used blanks. Matchlocks require a considerable amount of drill to use --safely. In one hand you have a lit, smouldering match cord, and with the other you are handling loose powder! The cord is constantly ashing, which can set things on fire if you don't manage it.

However, the processes are simple and require little finesse - you can learn it through drills, and be reasonably effective. A bow doesn't really require drills to learn how to use it, but requires much practice and finesse to use well. Compared to a bow most early firearms shoot relatively flat, and fit in with mass fire at mass targets. It makes more sense to compare early firearms to crossbows, as they filled similar niches (and were used in similar ways). Then compare longbows to crossbows and firearms.

Pike drill is simpler than arquebus or matchlock drill: a few carrying positions, a special attack step, some formation marching. With half-an-hour I get a squad of pikemen maneuvering well. I don't know how much actual hand-to-hand training was expected, but due to the nature of pikes they might not have been given any.

Firearm accuracy

The accuracy of a smoothbore weapon can be highly variable, as it is dependent on several factors (most of which can affect armor penetration as well). The period sources can be all over the map because of this, and modern tests can be faulty or misleading, due to a failure to understand the complexities.

Basically, in the period we are talking about, soldiers could, and did, carrying loose or tight fitting ammo. Tight fitting bullets in a smoothbore weapon can be surprisingly accurate at good ranges, but would take longer to load. Loose fitting ball could sometimes just be dropped down the barrel, speeding up the rate of fire but decreasing accuracy.

When close range volley fire became the dominate tactic, speed became more important than accuracy, although the ramrod was still used (usually). Most tests use information from this later period; because it is accessible and standardized. Fundamentally smoothbore weapons over the centuries are the same, as is their ammo, but the customary usage and options changed.

Decline of the bow
Bows require a "bow culture", in England that culture was on the decline as firearms were being introduced there. The Ottoman Empire could draw upon horse archer populations, well into the 17th century, although their large, diverse empire meant they fielded a variety of troops. The venetians were so impressed by Ottoman recurve bows, that they instituted a training regime, which was succesful, at a time when firearms were in their ascendency, but didn't last for too long. So it was possible to train forces with bows when a "bow culture" wasn't present but must have been difficult or not very practical.

[Incanur]

Could also be related to the fact that pikemen weren't expected to fight very much (that's my interpretation at least, I don't have a reliable source for this).

In Barwick's day, there might be an element of truth in this. He wrote about how the extended melees of old didn't happen anymore because of the deadliness of gunpowder weapons. Various military writers wrote similar things. Close combat still mattered a great deal, but guns encouraged folks to avoid the press.


Cavalry is usually not suicidal enough to charge a well-ordered pike block. To keep them away, the pikemen only need to hold formation. Once the pikemen are disordered, cavalry might charge. But this only emphasizes the importance of formation drills and discipline, while actual skill in using pikes is still futile.

What do you mean by actual skill outside of formation drills and discipline? The ability to make powerful and accurate thrusts? Without this, you almost have a unit of show pikes. While that could work in many situations, aristocratic heavy cavalry sometimes approximated the suicidal mentality and might call the bluff.


This leaves other Pikemen. But no sane commander would expect his pikemen to fight another pike block.

Pikemen did this all the time during sixteenth century, particularly in the first half. They weren't just there to look pretty and scare horses. The Swiss made a career out of the swift and relentless advance. In the melee, soldiers dropped their pikes and fought with swords.


If the others would stand and fight, the front rows would be dead/disabled within seconds (no armor or shield...), and the next row would soon follow.

Well, we know from period sources that casualties for the foremost ranks did reach as high as 95%. They didn't prevent folks from coming to the push of the pike.


Still, formation, discipline and morale is important, but actual skill is not.

Again, I don't think these things are separate as you do. Each tends to support the others. You can't even make a pike formation look decent without considerable handling skill from the pikemen. Those suckers are awkward and heavy! Individualistic dueling skill doesn't matter much if you adopt the aggressive approach advocated by John Smythe and others, but that tactic requires utter commitment and its own brand of prowess.


Here, only skill with the sidearm would matter, since nobody uses a pike in such a situation anyway. But that's what you definitely don't want as a commander, so encouraging your troops to do that by giving them a lot of training with their sidearms might even be counterproductive.

Despite what you might expect, folks fought in loose formation and even dueled with pikes. As far as I can, sixteenth-century military writers assumed every soldier would know how to fight with a sword.


My conclusion is, that once your pike block can hold formation and is confident enough not to run away at the sight of the enemy, they can do their job adequately. Everything else might be nice to have, but isn't strictly necessary.

This sounds about right for the late sixteenth century and beyond, but dubious for earlier times and especially the Swiss model. When melees decided battles, you wanted the toughest customers you could find to populate your ranks.


Depends on the era. For over a hundred years, armor could stop bullets, and was in fact tested against them to insure this. Eventually, more powerful guns changed this fact, but it took time.

According to Fourquevaux, handheld guns could pierce the best armor by the middle of the sixteenth century.


So failure to defend against direct fire from powerful musket from, say 50m, wasn't in most cases any argument against armor, which could still help tremendously in other cases.

Sure; the aforementioned Fourquevaux recommended armor as highly as anybody. However, by the late sixteenth century, armor that gave significant protection from anything more powerful than a pistol became excessively heavy and typically more trouble than it was worth.

[fusilier]

In Barwick's day, there might be an element of truth in this. He wrote about how the extended melees of old didn't happen anymore because of the deadliness of gunpowder weapons. Various military writers wrote similar things. Close combat still mattered a great deal, but guns encouraged folks to avoid the press.
. . .
Pikemen did this all the time during sixteenth century, particularly in the first half. They weren't just there to look pretty and scare horses. The Swiss made a career out of the swift and relentless advance. In the melee, soldiers dropped their pikes and fought with swords.

Even into the 1600s, battles would come down to the "push of pikes" with opposing pike formations engaging each other, although some battles were being settled in the late 16th century through use of firearms alone.

The Swiss in the 15th and early 16th centuries appear to have a more complicated pike drill (with different combat positions based upon rank) -- it became more simplified. By the end of the 16th century (and my guess is actually by the middle of the century, but I'm not certain), there was one attack pose, and one for defense against cavalry. This pose involved thrusting with the legs, and the only arm movement being for parries. There is an excellent scene in "Alatriste", of two pike formations engaging at the Battle of Rocroi, and the "clacking" of the pike shafts. In the case of pikemen being attacked by light infantry: I would imagine that the pike was kept in hand as long as practical, and swords not being drawn until absolutely necessary -- hoping the pikes of the rear ranks dealt with any light infantry that got through the first rank of pikes.

Anyway, I think the simple physical presence of pike was a good part of its effectiveness as a weapon, but I agree that there was more to one than simply holding it.

[Incanur]

There is an excellent scene in "Alatriste", of two pike formations engaging at the Battle of Rocroi, and the "clacking" of the pike shafts.

From the clips I've seen, that movie shows pike-dueling method of engagement Smythe complained about in the late sixteenth century. He argues that the first four or five ranks should advance and make single thrusts in rapid succession in order to break the opposing formation. If the other side holds, they proceed into a melee with their swords and dagger as well as halberdiers coming up from behind. While back-and-forth sparring between the front rank or two appears in both sixteenth- and seventh-century sources, I suspect Smythe's technique resembles the Swiss style and would prove the most effective. It also would require steadfast resolve, iron discipline, and almost suicidal courage from soldiers.

[fusilier]

From the clips I've seen, that movie shows pike-dueling method of engagement Smythe complained about in the late sixteenth century. He argues that the first four or five ranks should advance and make single thrusts in rapid succession in order to break the opposing formation. If the other side holds, they proceed into a melee with their swords and dagger as well as halberdiers coming up from behind. While back-and-forth sparring between the front rank or two appears in both sixteenth- and seventh-century sources, I suspect Smythe's technique resembles the Swiss style and would prove the most effective. It also would require steadfast resolve, iron discipline, and almost suicidal courage from soldiers.

I would be interested to hear more about it, I'm not sure if Smythe's suggestions were ever put into practice. He may have been trying to combine different techniques, that were usually handled by different troops. There were light infantry, under various guises, whose job it was to try get under the pikes and attack the pikemen with swords. The Landsknecht "doppelsoldaten" had a similar function (although they were expected to attack the pikes themselves first), but they were somewhat more easily countered. I had assumed that attacking pike formations with sword/buckler men, or similar troops had fallen out of favor by the end of the 16th century, but I discovered that was not the case. Sword and buckler men were still being assigned to pike formations and leading assaults during the Thirty Years War (see Men-At-Arms, Imperial Infantry in the 30 yrs. war). So it looks like the standard response was to have soldiers specialized in one form or the other (sword/buckler or pike). It sounds like Smythe was suggesting that pikemen themselves be able to do both.

As for the Swiss, I'm not too sure. I'm under the impression, that they would mix forces together -- adding some halberdiers to their pike formations. The halberdiers could deal with light infantry that attempted to dive under the pikes. Once somebody gets pass the point of the pike it is very difficult to do anything about it. A rear rank pikeman would probably have trouble depressing the point of his pike to attack someone on the ground. A halberd could be swung down on someone, but I'm not terribly sure how they would, or if they needed to, make a gap (my guess is that they would simply manhandle friendly soldiers out of the way).

[Incanur]

I would be interested to hear more about it, I'm not sure if Smythe's suggestions were ever put into practice.

Smythe wrote from experience, of which he had plenty. He fought in France, the Low Countries, and Hungary (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Smith,_John_(1534%3F-1607)_(DNB00)).


So it looks like the standard response was to have soldiers specialized in one form or the other (sword/buckler or pike).

How do figure? What evidence do you have for targetiers as a standard element mixed with pikes in European armies during the sixteenth century? My understanding is that their employment varied considerably by country. Certain writers - like Machiavelli - favored the shield; Spanish targetiers made a name for themselves at a number of battles. However, the Swiss and Germans formations used such troops rarely if ever.


It sounds like Smythe was suggesting that pikemen themselves be able to do both.

No, that would be Fourquevaux wanted. He literally assigned a shield to each pikeman and expected him to turn into a targetier in the press or any other time the situation demanded. Incidentally, Fourquevaux recommended using targetiers - with grenades - as an advance force in the fashion you mention. Note that friendly pikes came right behind them.


As for the Swiss, I'm not too sure. I'm under the impression, that they would mix forces together -- adding some halberdiers to their pike formations.

Pretty much everyone mixed halberds with pikes until the late sixteenth century.


Once somebody gets pass the point of the pike it is very difficult to do anything about it.

Pikemen carried swords for a reason. See the blog I'm starting (http://artmilitary.wordpress.com/) for a few choice primary-source quotations on pike combat. Machiavelli, Fourquevaux, and Smythe all show the importance of swords in the melee that follows the first thrust (or thrusts).

[fusilier]

Smythe wrote from experience, of which he had plenty. He fought in France, the Low Countries, and Hungary (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Smith,_John_(1534%3F-1607)_(DNB00)).



How do figure? What evidence do you have for targetiers as a standard element mixed with pikes in European armies during the sixteenth century? My understanding is that their employment varied considerably by country. Certain writers - like Machiavelli - favored the shield; Spanish targetiers made a name for themselves at a number of battles. However, the Swiss and Germans formations used such troops rarely if ever.

I do not have complete information, so I am surmising based upon what I do know. The Spanish introduced targetiers fairly early (either early 16th, or late 15th century), they were copied to some extant by other nations. The same basic idea was present in the mid 17th century among Imperial armies. These troops were mostly German, so they were using such troops, but possibly at a later date after the Landsknecht formations had basically ceased.

Machiavelli's ideas were generally not put into practice. We shouldn't be too dismissive of him, but for the most part his tactical ideas were ignored.


No, that would be Fourquevaux wanted. He literally assigned a shield to each pikeman and expected him to turn into a targetier in the press or any other time the situation demanded. Incidentally, Fourquevaux recommended using targetiers - with grenades - as an advance force in the fashion you mention. Note that friendly pikes came right behind them.

This is exactly how Targeteers were being used in 17th century in the Imperial German armies (minus the grenades!). They seemed to have been considered part of the pike formations.

It sounds like the only difference between John Smythe's approach, and Fourquevaux was that Fourquevaux assigned shields to pikemen. However, I think they were both attempting to achieve the same goal -- pikemen that can take on the role usually assigned to lighter, sword armed forces. When the need arises, they would drop their pikes, draw their swords, and work their way past the enemy pikes; transforming, as they were, from pikemen to swordsmen (of some variety).

Do you have any evidence that this was done, or was it just being suggested? I don't doubt that these men had military credentials, but to suggest something is not the same as it having been implemented.



Pikemen carried swords for a reason. See the blog I'm starting (http://artmilitary.wordpress.com/) for a few choice primary-source quotations on pike combat. Machiavelli, Fourquevaux, and Smythe all show the importance of swords in the melee that follows the first thrust (or thrusts).

Yes. But dropping your pike prematurely, could leave you open to the enemy pikeman that's backing up the swordsman coming at you. I believe that dropping the pike in a "push of pikes" was usually done when there was literally no option left.

Thank you for the link, you have put together an impressive collection of period sources. And you seem to have done a decent job of identifying "long s's" (although occasionally an "f" appears there instead). They are always a pain! ;-)

----

Fourqueveaux, seems to agree that dropping the pike is a bad idea -- because it leaves the pikeman defenseless against the enemy pike ("naked" is his term). This is why he suggests further burdening pikemen with a shield, so that they can drop their pikes and have defense against the enemy pike. This may have been tried: at some point, many years ago, I formed the opinion that some pikemen carried shields strapped to their arms (in such a way that they wouldn't interfere with using the pike) in the early 16th century. But I do not know where that idea came from, and haven't found any evidence for it . . .

Smythe, describes the situation more fully: If pikemen give themselves enough room to maneuver their pikes for repeated blows, they will be driven from the field by pikemen who close ranks (and files) tightly, and press into them (scattering them like a flock of geese). However, if the pikemen do bunch together tightly, then they don't have room to maneuver their pikes for repeated blows. They basically have one attack, then they will be in a kind of deadlock. At this point, Smythe claims, they could drop their pikes, but that would be of no use. Instead, he suggests they throw their pikes at the enemy formation, hoping to cause enough confusion and shock that they have time to draw their swords (and daggers), and throw themselves at the the enemy pikemen.

I interpret this, as follows:

I think both Smythe, and Fourquevaux, have noticed a similar problem with pike vs. pike combat -- it reaches a kind of stalemate situation. There's not enough room to properly maneuver the pike for many attacks, and the rear ranks can't get involved in the fighting easily. At the same time, it's dangerous to simply drop the pike -- it's the only thing protecting you from your enemy's pike!

I would argue that they were both attempting to overcome this problem. That two writers separated by nearly half-a-century noted the issue, would imply that this was a fundamental problem with pike combat that was not easily solved. Fourquevaux noted that other troop types were mixed in, but felt that it wasn't sufficient. Given that Imperial Pikemen a century later, were placing targeteers at the front of pike formations, in an attempt to break up and disrupt enemy pike formations, probably indicates two things:

1. The problem still hadn't been solved, and

2. Relying upon pikemen to drop their pikes and perform this function had not been adopted as a successful tactic.

Didn't mean to be quite so long winded. Again, that's an excellent webpage of period sources.

[Autolykos]

Again, I don't think these things are separate as you do. Each tends to support the others. You can't even make a pike formation look decent without considerable handling skill from the pikemen. Those suckers are awkward and heavy! Individualistic dueling skill doesn't matter much if you adopt the aggressive approach advocated by John Smythe and others, but that tactic requires utter commitment and its own brand of prowess.Okay, we seem to mean something entirely different with "skill". My point is that the training required for becoming a credible threat with a pike doesn't even come close to what is required for a sword.


Sure; the aforementioned Fourquevaux recommended armor as highly as anybody. However, by the late sixteenth century, armor that gave significant protection from anything more powerful than a pistol became excessively heavy and typically more trouble than it was worth.That's another important distinction. Armor completely changes the game - it allows pikemen to fight other pikemen and survive to tell the tale. Without armor, this would be a last resort at best, and stupid otherwise. Still, stupid commanders were (and probably still are) quite abundant.

[Seharvepernfan]

Have spiked chains ever been used in combat in real life? I don't think I have ever seen or heard of them outside of D&D.

A lot of people say that double weapons (like the orc double axe) are unrealistic, and I agree. However, if we were to take the dire flail and remove the wood handle, leaving just a length of chain connecting two flail heads, would that be a realistic weapon? More or less so than a spiked chain?

[gkathellar]

Have spiked chains ever been used in combat in real life? I don't think I have ever seen or heard of them outside of D&D.

A lot of people say that double weapons (like the orc double axe) are unrealistic, and I agree. However, if we were to take the dire flail and remove the wood handle, leaving just a length of chain connecting two flail heads, would that be a realistic weapon? More or less so than a spiked chain?

Spiked chains and dire flails are absurd. There are, however, some close real-world equivalents. The Japanese have the manriki-gusari, which is a length of chain with a weight at either end - although for most purposes, you only use one end at any given time. The Chinese have the nine-section whip (a short length of nine metal rods designed to move really, really fast) and the rope dart/meteor hammer (a rope or cord with a dart of weight at the end, intended as a medium-distance weapon).

[Autolykos]

Note that (at least to my knowledge) nobody ever used such weapons on the battlefield or even in practical self-defense situations. They are mostly dueling or showcase weapons (and these categories contain a lot of flashy but impractical stuff). They do work as weapon, but a simpler weapon would usually be more effective and/or versatile with the same amount of training. They might be really good at one specific thing (like providing a lot of range or being very hard to block), but are usually one-trick-ponys at best.

[Incanur]

The Spanish introduced targetiers fairly early (either early 16th, or late 15th century), they were copied to some extant by other nations.

That's a odd to way to describe a fighting style that dates back to before the Roman Republic. :smallamused: Nobody considered the sword and shield a new development; it was Spanish valor and success that got their targetiers noticed. Machiavelli's discussion provides much insight in the area. He liked shields but gave armor equal or greater importance. His point was well-armed soldiers would survive the first thrust of the pike and have an advantage in the press against partially armored or unarmored pikemen.


The same basic idea was present in the mid 17th century among Imperial armies. These troops were mostly German, so they were using such troops, but possibly at a later date after the Landsknecht formations had basically ceased.

I'd be interested in hearing more about how this played out in the seventh century. I don't know of any account of German targetiers during the sixteenth century, though they do appear in the artwork.


Machiavelli's ideas were generally not put into practice. We shouldn't be too dismissive of him, but for the most part his tactical ideas were ignored.

Other military writers, including folks like Fourquevaux who lead soldiers in the field, drew heavily on Machiavelli and so attest to his enduring influence. I suspect the fact that few if any sixteenth-century armies employed targetiers in the numbers Machiavelli desired comes primarily from their ability to stand against cavalry. Most everyone agreed that targetiers did well in an infantry melee.


However, I think they were both attempting to achieve the same goal -- pikemen that can take on the role usually assigned to lighter, sword armed forces.

I think you're interpreting the sixteenth century based on the seventeenth. I doubt such a role generally existed when Fourquevaux and Smythe wrote. Machiavelli specifically placed pikemen in front of the targetiers; he wanted the latter for the melee, and wanted them well-armored rather than light. The same goes for Fourquevaux, though he did briefly recommend something akin to how you say targetiers functioned in Imperial armies. Spanish targetiers did best when supported by friendly pikemen. Against Swiss pikes at Seminara in 1495 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Seminara), a force of targetiers lost miserably.


When the need arises, they would drop their pikes, draw their swords, and work their way past the enemy pikes; transforming, as they were, from pikemen to swordsmen (of some variety).

In the sixteenth century, at least, every soldier was a swordsman by default. Smythe invoked the sword's status as backup weapon as the reason for its social importance. While you would typically begin the battle with lance, pike, halberd, bow, or gun, if it was hard-fought then you won with your sword or dagger in hand.


Do you have any evidence that this was done, or was it just being suggested?

Certain documents describe pikemen with shields, but only occasionally. I imagine the burden alone would have made Fourquevaux suggestion difficult to adopt. Sixteenth-century soldiers had already begun abandoning armor in his day because of its weight and dubious utility against firearms.


I believe that dropping the pike in a "push of pikes" was usually done when there was literally no option left.

As Smythe wrote, an aggressive strategy makes it impractical to continue fighting with the pike after its first thrust. Machiavelli noted the same dynamic from the opposite perspective: soldiers intent on close combat need only worry about the first push. There's some evidence to indicate that pikemen wielded their pikes as bludgeons after the battle joined; that's about all you could reliably do with pike in the press.


Fourqueveaux, seems to agree that dropping the pike is a bad idea -- because it leaves the pikeman defenseless against the enemy pike ("naked" is his term). This is why he suggests further burdening pikemen with a shield, so that they can drop their pikes and have defense against the enemy pike.

I believe you're misinterpreting the text. Fourquevaux presented dropping the pike as an inevitability - "Pikes may serue no turne after that the rankes are preassed together." The nakedness refers to the danger a soldier faces from swords in the press more than pikes.


At the same time, it's dangerous to simply drop the pike -- it's the only thing protecting you from your enemy's pike!

How so? Once you pass the point, you've only got to fear getting beaten down by the shaft. I guess keeping hold of the pike yourself might help against this attack, and as I wrote above some accounts and artwork suggest pike combat turned into pummeling contests.

However, other sixteenth-century sources show how deadly the clash of pike blocks could be. The first rank of landsknecht pikemen at Novara (http://books.google.com/books?id=RtkePoWkij8C&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=florange+%2B+pike&source=bl&ots=cNR9n_2ao0&sig=J8JLGQYrHxxiFhNSsMWotfq4kWo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DRb7Tv6iKYnW0QG53pi7Ag&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=florange%20%2B%20pike&f=false) suffered a 97-99% casualties. We know from Monluc that the Swiss method matched Smythe's in its aim of aggressively closing distance and breaking apart enemy formations. The nearly complete slaughter at Novara stands entirely consistent with this technique.

[gkathellar]

nobody ever used such weapons on the battlefield

This is correct. For a variety of reasons, these weapons are best-suited for civilian combat.


or even in practical self-defense situations..

This is false.

Manriki-gusari were used by castle guards for disabling and capturing intruders without killing them, and honestly "hit him with a length of chain" isn't all that odd or impractical a technique.

Nine-section whips can be stored in the sleeve and drawn into a strike in less than a second by someone familiar with their use. And again, "hit him with fast-moving metal" is quite practical if you have the training for it.

Rope Darts are tricky, and you would have wanted a back-up weapon for close combat, but they move fast and hit hard and are very difficult to defend against without armor or a shield. And again: a small storage space makes for a good surprise weapon.

[Incanur]

That's another important distinction. Armor completely changes the game - it allows pikemen to fight other pikemen and survive to tell the tale. Without armor, this would be a last resort at best, and stupid otherwise. Still, stupid commanders were (and probably still are) quite abundant.

Pikemen almost always had armor. Even the Swiss fielded men in half or three-quarters harness for the front ranks. As mentioned, though, this didn't prevent the 99% death rate at Novara in 1513.

[Autolykos]

Manriki-gusari were used by castle guards for disabling and capturing intruders without killing them, and honestly "hit him with a length of chain" isn't all that odd or impractical a technique.

Nine-section whips can be stored in the sleeve and drawn into a strike in less than a second by someone familiar with their use. And again, "hit him with fast-moving metal" is quite practical if you have the training for it.

Rope Darts are tricky, and you would have wanted a back-up weapon for close combat, but they move fast and hit hard and are very difficult to defend against without armor or a shield. And again: a small storage space makes for a good surprise weapon.At least the point for the Manriki-Gusari is not a self-defense situation, it's a extremely niche application - and probably not the most efficient solution to the problem at hand. If I wanted my guards to capture intruders alive, I'd issue them batons and some training in whatever local flavor of wrestling is available.
And the other stuff are even worse examples IMHO. The nine-section-whip only becomes a viable option once you aren't allowed to openly carry a weapon - and even then a staff is probably a better choice. Gives about as much reach, is a lot easier to use, can be found in any better forest and only sucks against enemies in armor or with shields - but then you're in serious trouble anyway, and any other fancy toy won't do much good either. Same for the rope dart, only more extreme.

[gkathellar]

At least the point for the Manriki-Gusari is not a self-defense situation, it's a extremely niche application - and probably not the most efficient solution to the problem at hand. If I wanted my guards to capture intruders alive, I'd issue them batons and some training in whatever local flavor of wrestling is available.

Local flavor of ... you mean jujutsu? Castle guards would almost certainly have been trained in such, as would almost all warriors. That doesn't rule out the usefulness of a fast, flexible weapon that can be easily concealed and is difficult to account for.

My point is: the weapon was actually used in a non-battlefield combat context, which is at least some demonstration of its effectiveness. And frankly, a weighted chain is quite a weapon if you know how to use it, with utility in disarming, tying and choking an opponent even beyond the "wow that piece of metal is moving really fast I don't want to get hit by that" factor.


The nine-section-whip only becomes a viable option once you aren't allowed to openly carry a weapon - and even then a staff is probably a better choice. Gives about as much reach, is a lot easier to use, can be found in any better forest and only sucks against enemies in armor or with shields - but then you're in serious trouble anyway, and any other fancy toy won't do much good either.

Depending on how you use the staff it can offer noticeably more reach, and is a far better defensive weapon. It can't strike at the same angles, however, or strike with the same mix of speed, force and surprise as the whip does in skilled hands, and it lacks the grappling options of a nine-section whip. Neither is an objectively superior weapon — both have their uses.


Same for the rope dart, only more extreme.

Not really comparable. Rope darts aren't close-range combat weapons. They're meant to strike an opponent between ten and twenty feet away, depending on the length of the cord and the skill of the wielder. In single combat, an accurate rope dart expert has a wide radius around him that is simply unattractive to enter. Once you close, the rope dart becomes largely useless, but closing is really the issue.

[fusilier]

That's a odd to way to describe a fighting style that dates back to before the Roman Republic. :smallamused: Nobody considered the sword and shield a new development; it was Spanish valor and success that got their targetiers noticed.

I'm not going to debate this, I'm just going to point out that similar armament doesn't necessarily mean that they had the same tactical application (it may mean that they "could" have the same tactical application).



I'd be interested in hearing more about how this played out in the seventh century. I don't know of any account of German targetiers during the sixteenth century, though they do appear in the artwork.

Look for the Men-At-Arms book by Osprey. There's not too much detail, but basically they were put in front of the pikemen (probably so that the pikes could cover them against cavalry), and would rush forward in an assault against other pike formations, in an attempt to disrupt that formation before the pikes came together.




Certain documents describe pikemen with shields, but only occasionally. I imagine the burden alone would have made Fourquevaux suggestion difficult to adopt. Sixteenth-century soldiers had already begun abandoning armor in his day because of its weight and dubious utility against firearms.

There's something related to this, that I was just wondering about. I was reading a brief account of the Battle of Campaldino in 1289. The author used the term pikemen to describe some of the militia infantry involved. But most of what I've read of infantry in this period, describe them as using a long spear and shield. I wonder if the terminology is inconsistent?



I believe you're misinterpreting the text. Fourquevaux presented dropping the pike as an inevitability - "Pikes may serue no turne after that the rankes are preassed together." The nakedness refers to the danger a soldier faces from swords in the press more than pikes.

I quote Fourquevaux:
". . . the Pike being abandoned they should be naked: for which cause I have giuen them Targets to couer themselues from blowes"

The Pike isn't defending the pikeman from sword blows -- it's defending the Pikeman from other pikes and/or keeping the enemy swordsman at bay. -EDIT- that's how I interpreted this.

Fourquevaux thinks it necessary to give a soldier a shield to close with an enemy pikeman to deliver a sword blow -- Smythe recommends chucking the pike at the enemy. The problem is the first person to abandon their pike is at a disadvantage, they now have to work their way past the enemy pike heads, which I don't think is trivial.


How so? Once you pass the point, you've only got to fear getting beaten down by the shaft. I guess keeping hold of the pike yourself might help against this attack, and as I wrote above some accounts and artwork suggest pike combat turned into pummeling contests.

I'll see if I can explain this better. From what I've read, it seems like you cannot get pass the point of the enemy pike, until after you have dropped your own pike? That seems implicit in what Fourquevaux and Smythe are discussing.

So once you drop your pike, you then have to work your way through the enemies' points. You are at a disadvantage, because the enemy has a longer reach weapon than you do. Until you pass those points, you have no defense against them. Fourquevaux wants to give pikemen shields for this reason, and Smythe suggests doing something that is at least distracting to the enemy pikemen.


However, other sixteenth-century sources show how deadly the clash of pike blocks could be. The first rank of landsknecht pikemen at Novara (http://books.google.com/books?id=RtkePoWkij8C&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=florange+%2B+pike&source=bl&ots=cNR9n_2ao0&sig=J8JLGQYrHxxiFhNSsMWotfq4kWo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DRb7Tv6iKYnW0QG53pi7Ag&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=florange%20%2B%20pike&f=false) suffered a 97-99% casualties. We know from Monluc that the Swiss method matched Smythe's in its aim of aggressively closing distance and breaking apart enemy formations. The nearly complete slaughter at Novara stands entirely consistent with this technique.

In the early days of pikes, they were seen primarily as an "immobile" screen to protect cavalry forces while they reformed. The Swiss were noted for being more aggressive, and offensive with their pikes.

I'm not arguing that pike battles weren't bloody, I observed that the writers of the time, seem to think that they could reach a kind of stalemate, that was tricky to resolve. In fact it looks like the resolving of this stalemate was the key to victory. The suggestions of Smythe and Fourquevaux imply that it was necessary to abandon the pike, but at the same time that was risky. Perhaps the troops to first drop their pikes, usually, got the worst of it? Their recommendations, therefore, suggest some alternative to merely dropping their pikes.

Also, we have to be careful about how chroniclers reported what other nations were doing. Military tactics evolved rapidly during this period. But written information could often be outdated. The Swiss had a successful technique in the 15th century, which left a considerable imprint. I doubt that the Swiss were using the same Pike techniques by the middle of the 16th century, however. The tactics had evolved (other nations were using pikemen effectively), but the old techniques were still "in the books" in a manner of speaking.

A better example of this would be English accounts of Spanish Tercio formations. Well into the 17th century, they were still describing them as the large, deep formations of pike (25+ ranks deep), that they had been in the first half of the 16th century, even though the Spanish had long abandoned such deep formations of pike.

Finally, as for other military writers referencing Machiavelli: his work was widely known, and one of the first works of that type. It drew heavily upon ancient/classical ideas, which were always popular, and referencing them provided an air of authority. But his tactical formations were generally deemed impractical, and do not appear to have ever been implemented.

[Roxxy]

Does a brown bess musket fire a supersonic round or a subsonic round?

If a weapon itself makes little noise but the round is supersonic (such as with many suppressed weapons), how loud is the crack from the round, and how far away can one hear it?

[Raum]

If a weapon itself makes little noise but the round is supersonic (such as with many suppressed weapons), how loud is the crack from the round, and how far away can one hear it?Supersonic rounds are loud. Don't know how far the sound would carry but you'd typically put a flash suppressor on something using supersonic ammunition, not a sound suppressor.

[fusilier]

Does a brown bess musket fire a supersonic round or a subsonic round?

If a weapon itself makes little noise but the round is supersonic (such as with many suppressed weapons), how loud is the crack from the round, and how far away can one hear it?

Subsonic. Civil War era muskets like the M1861 Springfield, and the M1853 Enfield, were in in the "sonic" range, but were still subsonic.

The boom of the gunpowder itself is actually pretty loud. How far away you can hear it will depend upon local atmospheric conditions, and the nature of the terrain. From experience at reenactments, your own musket isn't that loud to you -- the barrel is long and it is projecting away from you. Other peoples muskets around you can make a lot a noise though.

[Spiryt]

Slightly supersonic velocities are attainable even with pretty damn primitive gunpowder weapons:

http://www.musketeer.ch/blackpowder/handgonne.html

And here some quotation from Gratz Museum tests:


The best recent controlled study of early modern firearms was carried out in 1989-89 by the staff of Steiermarkiches Landeszeughuas in Graz, Austria. The early weapons were fired of total 325 times... with weighed charges of standardized modern gunpowder made for gun collectors.3 The guns were mounted on rigid frames, sighted on target, ignited electrically, and measured electronically. For comparative purposes, some 60 shots were fired and tracked in the same manner from a series of four production-model Austrian military assault rifles and pistols/ In all cases, electronic measurements of the bullets were taken at 8.5 meters and 24 meters from the muzzle, and muzzle velocities were calculated from these data. The exact weight of the powder charge was determined to be approximately one-third of the ball weight, but this varied from piece to piece; in each case the optimal charge was determined experimentally, and results are reported for the optimal charge.
Muzzle velocities for the early modern weapons from the Graz collection were surprisingly high. They averaged 454 m/sec (1,490 ft/sec). The fastest was 533 m/sec (1749 ft/sec), while the slowest was a pistol made circa 1700, with a muzzle velocity of 385 m/sec (1,263 ft/sec). These average velocities fall within a surprisingly narrow range. Ten of thirteen average muzzle velocities were between 400 m/sec and 500 m/sec.5 By way of comparison, the two modern Austrian assault rifles tested had muzzle velocities of 835 m/sec and 990 m/sec (3,248 ft/sec), respectively, and the 9 mm pistol tested at 360 m/sec (1,181 ft/sec). Among modern North American weapons, the rated muzzle velocity of a standard-issue Smith and Wesson police .38 revolver is 290 m/sec (950 ft/sec), whereas a Colt .357 Magnum is rated at approximately 400 m/sec (1,300 ft/sec). The muzzle velocities of these early guns are quite remarkable. They compare favorably with modern sidearms. Even the muzzle velocities of modern assault rifles, beneficiaries of more than three centuries of technical development, were only double those of the early muskets. The bullets of all the early weapons moved at supersonic speeds when they left the barrel. (Sound travels at approximately 330 m/sec [1/100 ft/sec] at 20°c at sea level.)
The Austrian figures are higher than other sources might lead one to expect, but not astoundingly so. The Austrian tests by necessity used finely grained modern gunpowder, which doubtless is more powerful than an equal weight of eighteenth- or nineteenth-century powder. An eighteenth-century French fusil is said to have had a muzzle velocity of only 320 m/sec. J. G. Benton rated several mid-nineteenth-century military small arms, all of them rifled, reporting muzzle velocities of 292-232 m/sec (960-760 ft/sec) for several rifled muskets and pistols. Like many early rifled firearms, these used rather small charges equaling only about 11 percent of the bullet's weight. On the other hand, Benjamin Robins, the pioneering student of ballistics and inventor of the ballistic pendulum, reported in 1742 an average of 1,670 ft/sec (509 m/sec) at a distance of 25 feet from the muzzle. Robins charged his test musket with "about half" the ball's weight in powder.7
The differences between the muzzle velocities reported by Robins and Benton are due mainly to differences in charge weights and reflect differing practices in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Benton also provides an example of a high-performance firearm of his period: a James's sporting rifle could reach a muzzle velocity of 579 m/sec (1,900 ft/sec) but used a charge equal to 46 percent of ball weight.8 Further comparative data, although less consistent, are found in the work of A. R. Williams, who produced a series of test barrels roughly equal to a pistol's length (about 50 cm) and fired them.9 Measuring only those bullets in his test that pierced their 31.5 mm (1/10 in) mild steel target, he found that the majority (16 of 21) were moving more than 250 m/sec (833 ft/sec). What is most astounding, however, is the variability in Williams' data; the upper range of muzzle velocities he achieved measured over 600 m/sec (1/968 ft/sec) (Williams did not follow early modern practices with respect to gunpowder formulation, granulation, or charge weights, however.)


Majority of bullets were probably somehow slower though.

Still, as mentioned, even with subsonic velocities, the firing itself was pretty damn loud in these cases.


Graz tests and results had quite a few inconsistencies, visible even by reading this stuff, but still provide some interesting data.

[fusilier]

@Incanur

I was thinking about the discussion about pikes that we've been having, and I was wondering if there isn't a fundamental disagreement of the facts.

I interpret Fourquevaux, and Smythe especially, as giving suggestions for how to drop (or throw) your pike, while your enemy still has their pikes! However, if you interpret it as what to do after the enemy has dropped their pikes, then that would be a whole different logic.

What conditions do you envision them dropping their pikes? (As described by Fourquevaux and Smythe)

[Incanur]

There's something related to this, that I was just wondering about. I was reading a brief account of the Battle of Campaldino in 1289. The author used the term pikemen to describe some of the militia infantry involved. But most of what I've read of infantry in this period, describe them as using a long spear and shield. I wonder if the terminology is inconsistent?

For historical weapons and warfare, it's always safe to assume terminology is inconsistent. :smallannoyed: This goes double for translations.


The Pike isn't defending the pikeman from sword blows -- it's defending the Pikeman from other pikes and/or keeping the enemy swordsman at bay. -EDIT- that's how I interpreted this.

I can see how you might understand it that way. I find text ambiguous. Have you read Machiavelli's The Art of War (http://books.google.com/books?id=-okcGdIHquQC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=machiavelli+%2B+art+of+war+%2B+shield&source=bl&ots=oqD1h4lG8S&sig=KCR58prtXNG9tn6JP9IhKiK-ijQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=op77TqHTM8Lh0QGQyJGSAg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=snippet&q=pike&f=false)? That informs my interpretation of Fourquevaux. Machiavelli explicitly mentioned the sword as useless to an unarmored or poorly armored pikeman forced to fight a well-protected opponent. As both Machiavelli and Fourquevaux wrote, the pike doesn't pose a threat in the press.


Fourquevaux thinks it necessary to give a soldier a shield to close with an enemy pikeman to deliver a sword blow

Now you're just ignoring the context. Fourquevaux instructed pikemen to turn to their swords and shields once pikes become impossible to wield in the press "because that the Souldiers are then as it were one in anothers necke." With this in mind, closing makings no sense; there's no distance left to close. Fourquevaux wanted pikemen to have targets in order to better defend themselves during the melee. For an example of how tight things got, one late sixteenth-century military writer claimed that the humble dagger often proved the most effective weapon once pike blocks clashed.


-- Smythe recommends chucking the pike at the enemy.

At the enemies feet, so that the shaft might hinder them. This makes sense but sounds challenging to pull off in practice.


The problem is the first person to abandon their pike is at a disadvantage, they now have to work their way past the enemy pike heads, which I don't think is trivial.

No, both Fourquevaux and Smythe instructed pikemen to drop their pikes only after they'd passed opposing points. Once you're within sword range of the first enemy rank, only an opposing pikeman in the fifth or six rank would have any hope of hitting you. But, as Smythe mentioned, he'd risk striking an ally if he attempted such a thrust.


In the early days of pikes, they were seen primarily as an "immobile" screen to protect cavalry forces while they reformed. The Swiss were noted for being more aggressive, and offensive with their pikes.

When? The canonical narrative says the Swiss (re)introduced the pike in the fifteenth century. That's not necessarily the most reasonable way to categorize things; as noted above, terminology remains a persistent problem.


The suggestions of Smythe and Fourquevaux imply that it was necessary to abandon the pike, but at the same time that was risky.

I don't see that anywhere. Both authors - and Machiavelli, and various other sixteen-century military writers - considered dropping the pike simply necessary.


But his tactical formations were generally deemed impractical, and do not appear to have ever been implemented.

The force Gonzalo de Córdoba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzalo_Fern%C3%A1ndez_de_C%C3%B3rdoba) commanded after Seminara roughly matched Machiavelli's troop proportions, though The Great Captain's tactics didn't. Gonzalo de Córdoba almost certainly inspired Machiavelli's recommendations. They differed from later armies primarily in their high proportion of targetiers. If you're hellbent on winning the infantry melee, this makes sense; Smythe went the same route, though he favored halberdiers. The thing is, sixteenth-century European warfare became more about defending and assaulting fortifications than winning infantry melees in pitched battles. You could argue Machiavelli, Fourquevaux, and Smythe all erred in overemphasizing this one aspect of combat.

[fusilier]

Have you read Machiavelli's The Art of War (http://books.google.com/books?id=-okcGdIHquQC&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=machiavelli+%2B+art+of+war+%2B+shield&source=bl&ots=oqD1h4lG8S&sig=KCR58prtXNG9tn6JP9IhKiK-ijQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=op77TqHTM8Lh0QGQyJGSAg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=snippet&q=pike&f=false)? That informs my interpretation of Fourquevaux. Machiavelli explicitly mentioned the sword as useless to an unarmored or poorly armored pikeman forced to fight a well-protected opponent. As both Machiavelli and Fourquevaux wrote, the pike doesn't pose a threat in the press.

I have read Machiavelli's "Art of War" -- the commentary on it was not very kind (even I took exception to the commentary at times). He lacked military experience. The translator noted that there was one occasion he tried to get the militia to create one of his formations. After spending hours trying to get them into the right formation, one of the experienced captains, remarked to a friend that they would never get to break for lunch at this rate. He apprehended what Machiavelli was trying to do, took command, and in a few minutes had everybody properly formed. :-)

His ideas weren't entirely unworkable -- troops could be formed in the way he suggested, but there's no evidence that they were actually used.



Now you're just ignoring the context. Fourquevaux instruct pikemen to turn to their swords and shields once pikes become impossible to wield in the press "because that the Souldiers are then as it were one in anothers necke." With this in mind, closing makings no sense; there's no distance left to close. Fourquevaux wanted pikemen to have targets in order to better defend themselves during the melee. For an example of how tight things got, one late sixteenth-century military writer claimed that the humble dagger often proved the most effective weapon once pike blocks clashed.

I'm not ignoring the context -- "because that the Souldiers are then as it were one in anothers necke." - I interpreted this as the pikes (i.e. their points) were at each others necks (a good place to strike with a pike). I can see what you are saying though, but if that's the case, his line about abandoning the pike, leaving the troops "naked", doesn't make much sense.




No, both Fourquevaux and Smythe instructed pikemen to drop their pikes only after they'd passed opposing points.

I'll reread the passages, but I don't recall seeing that explicitly stated.



When? The canonical narrative says the Swiss (re)introduced the pike in the fifteenth century. That's not necessarily the most reasonable way to categorize things; as noted above, terminology remains a persistent problem.

Yeah, and I'm starting to get the feeling that the Swiss innovation with the pike was more one of mobility and not simply the introduction of the weapon. Even then, there was a tactic developed in Italy (John Hawkwood seems to have been responsible for its promulgation), of dismounting men-at-arms, and having two of them carry a large lance -- originally this was just a ploy to provide a screen for cavalry to cover, but it looks like Hawkwood started using these forces in a more offensive manner. This would have been in the second half of the 14th century.

The Milanese defeated the Swiss pikemen in 1422, by dismounting their men-at-arms and repeatedly attacking their pike square.




I don't see that anywhere. Both authors - and Machiavelli, and various other sixteen-century military writers - considered dropping the pike simply necessary.

I see it as implicit in their arguments. If merely dropping the pike wasn't a problem, then why not just say so? Why does Fourquevaux deem it necessary to add shields, and Smythe want his soldiers to relieve themselves of the pikes in an unusual (and probably impractical) manner?



The force Gonzalo de Córdoba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzalo_Fern%C3%A1ndez_de_C%C3%B3rdoba) commanded after Seminara roughly matched Machiavelli's troop proportions, though The Great Captain's tactics didn't. Gonzalo de Córdoba almost certainly inspired Machiavelli's recommendations. They differed from later armies primarily in their high proportion of targetiers. If you're hellbent on winning the infantry melee, this makes sense; Smythe went the same route, though he favored halberdiers. The thing is, sixteenth-century European warfare became more about defending and assaulting fortifications than winning infantry melee in pitched battles. You could argue Machiavelli, Fourquevaux, and Smythe all erred in overemphasizing this one aspect of combat.

Something that should be remembered is that the nature of warfare was changing, and changing fairly rapidly. It was mostly new ground, in many different respects (including fortification). So there was a fair amount of experimentation at the time, and even experienced soldiers were looking for better ways of doing things.

[Incanur]

I'm not ignoring the context -- "because that the Souldiers are then as it were one in anothers necke." - I interpreted this as the pikes (i.e. their points) were at each others necks (a good place to strike with a pike).

At a pike's length and in the press are two rather different things. Fourquevaux made it clear that pikes couldn't used in the situation he was describing - "Pikes may serue no turne after that the rankes are preassed together" - so it's bizarre to interpret that as meaning with pikes positioned for an ideal thrust.


I can see what you are saying though, but if that's the case, his line about abandoning the pike, leaving the troops "naked", doesn't make much sense.

In the melee, a swordsman without a shield might as well be naked compared with a targetier.


The Milanese defeated the Swiss pikemen in 1422, by dismounting their men-at-arms and repeatedly attacking their pike square.

I've always read that halberdiers made up the majority of the Swiss force at Arbedo. The Milanese dismounted and used their lance to form something similar to a pike block. So each side in that contest wielded a combination of long spears and short weapons.


If merely dropping the pike wasn't a problem, then why not just say so? Why does Fourquevaux deem it necessary to add shields, and Smythe want his soldiers to relieve themselves of the pikes in an unusual (and probably impractical) manner?

I suspect Fourquevaux's shields come partially from a desire to imitate Rome and Machiavelli. Smythe identified simply dropping the pike as the default option.


Something that should be remembered is that the nature of warfare was changing, and changing fairly rapidly. It was mostly new ground, in many different respects (including fortification). So there was a fair amount of experimentation at the time, and even experienced soldiers were looking for better ways of doing things.

I read them all correct to point. Targetiers could do well against pikemen in an extended slugfest or as an advance guard. Halberdiers were deadly in a melee. The longbow had certain advantages over the gun in pitched battle. It's just targetiers and to lesser extent halberdiers tended to fold against cavalry. Machiavelli, Fourquevaux, and Smythe each focused on winning the grand melee at at time when - as Smythe's contemporary and opponent Humphrey Barwick wrote - that form of combat was on the decline. Hand-to-hand struggle at length still mattered for centuries to come, but gunpowder had fundamentally changed military dynamics.

[fusilier]

At a pike's length and in the press are two rather different things. Fourquevaux made it clear that pikes couldn't used in the situation he was describing - "Pikes may serue no turne after that the rankes are preassed together" - so it's bizarre to interpret that as meaning with pikes positioned for an ideal thrust.

Smythe gives more detail as to what happens when pikemen clash. In his description it looks like the pikemen get locked up, not really having passed the points (it sounds to me like the are basically at the points). At that distance you cannot thrust, and cannot back up to get room to thrust.

--EDIT--

Either way (they have passed the points, or are at them), the pikeman's pike is no longer capable of attack -- It may still be capable of some defense, but probably very limited. Abandoning the pike at that point makes sense, but you still have the problem of passing the points of the rear ranks. Re-reading Smythe, he doesn't say (here) to throw the pike at the enemies' feet, he says to throw it as far into the formation as possible:

"throw them as farre forward into & amongst the ranks of their enemies as they can, to the intent by the length of them to trouble their ranks,"

This might disturb the rear ranks, and allow time to draw a sword and bypass the rear ranks pikes. However, it's not clear if Smythe is saying that closing so close as to the make it impossible to wield the pike always happens in pike combat. Just that if it does happen, the pike must be abandoned -- which makes sense.

I noticed that some nations preferred longer or shorter pikes. Perhaps this indicates a different preference for tactics, where opposing pikes were of different lengths: longer pikes get to strike first, but shorter pikes get to strike more often?

[fusilier]

Apparently, deciding what pikemen should do when they got too close also spawned some other ideas:


In his book, published in 1616, Wallhausen suggests that when at less than a pike's length the pikemen are to grasp the pike about the middle in the left hand and jab with the point whilst trying to break their opponents pike with their sword.

Wielding both pike and sword at the same time? :-)

From this website:
http://www.marquisofwinchesters.co.uk/Ecwr-Guidelines/Guidelines-pikefighting.html

It has many of the same sources as Incanur's blog.

I've found another reference to mixing halberdiers and sword/buckler men in with Landsknechts, but it didn't list a source. I still contend that mixing troops types was usually preferred to trying to get the pikemen to have a second specialization. That's not to say that the pikemen didn't draw their swords when necessary, instead it wasn't always necessary for the first rank of pikemen to draw their swords.

[Incanur]

In his description it looks like the pikemen get locked up, not really having passed the points (it sounds to me like the are basically at the points).

Smythe gave two options: either pikemen fence at length or aggressively attack in unison with the intent deeply penetrating and disrupting the opposing formation. The stalemate you mention, while it may have happened, isn't described by Smythe. Interesting, Monluc mentioned effectively the same two options.


Abandoning the pike at that point makes sense, but you still have the problem of passing the points of the rear ranks.

In Smythe, the first rank has already done this once by the same the fourth rank gives their thrust. They don't drop or throw their pikes before this time. Now, I agree getting through so many enemy pikes remains a problem. Smythe's technique would require tremendous courage and discipline. I suspect soldiers would tend toward the first option of thrusting at length with their pikes against a single foe. The sounds far safer, at least for the short term, than rushing headlong into four or five points.


Re-reading Smythe, he doesn't say (here) to throw the pike at the enemies' feet, he says to throw it as far into the formation as possible:

Pikes were fifteen to eighteen feet long and weighed at least eight to ten pounds - possibly as much as sixteen. I doubt Smythe envisioned soldiers throwing this weapon terribly far. Because of gravity, they'd end up either on top of the enemy or at their feet.


However, it's not clear if Smythe is saying that closing so close as to the make it impossible to wield the pike always happens in pike combat.

He was completely clear on this point. Ideally, the first thrust in rapid succession breaks the opposing formation and a rout ensues. This resembles how the Swiss so often rolled over enemy infantry. In case, there's no need to drop pikes and draw swords.


I noticed that some nations preferred longer or shorter pikes. Perhaps this indicates a different preference for tactics, where opposing pikes were of different lengths: longer pikes get to strike first, but shorter pikes get to strike more often?

Perhaps. The Spanish supposedly used sixteen-foot pikes compared with the English standard of eighteen feet. In practice, length varied somewhat and soldiers might even lop off a foot or two to lighten the burden. Smythe demanded standardization as I imagine most commanders did.


I still contend that mixing troops types was usually preferred to trying to get the pikemen to have a second specialization.

If you mean halberdiers, then yes, most everyone used them. It's actually quite reasonable to group halberdiers and targetiers together under the banner of short weapons, as contemporaries often did. But neither Fourquevaux nor Smythe were asking for a second specialization - whatever that means. Both in fact assumed halberdiers would advance and bear the brunt of fighting during the melee.

[Joran]

Does a brown bess musket fire a supersonic round or a subsonic round?

If a weapon itself makes little noise but the round is supersonic (such as with many suppressed weapons), how loud is the crack from the round, and how far away can one hear it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSfoJkAq--k

This seems relevant to your concerns.

If a supersonic bullet passes close to you, you hear the whizz of the bullet, followed by a crack. I'd assume the crack of the bullet is about the same volume as a bullwhip cracking, but it's not based on any real world experience (thank god).

For a rifle that fires a supersonic round, a suppressor won't really make the gun quiet, it'll only change it from ear-damagingly loud to maybe ear-safe. It's still going to be extremely loud, on the order of a vacuum cleaner.

[Norsesmithy]

But more importantly, the crack sound of a supersonic projectile propagates at right angles to the bullet path, not from the muzzle of the weapon, so sound suppressors can still be used to obfuscate the location of the rifleman.

[gkathellar]

But more importantly, the crack sound of a supersonic projectile propagates at right angles to the bullet path, not from the muzzle of the weapon, so sound suppressors can still be used to obfuscate the location of the rifleman.

This. Anecdotal, but I remember a comment by a military sniping instructor about how suppressors do more to hide your position than they do the sound of the shot: "Silencers don't make a sniper silent, but they do make him invisible."

[Trufflehound]

How long of a range can you give a hand crossbow without making it too powerful to draw?

These last few weeks I made a few small pistol crossbows, with 10" wooden bows. They have 3.5"-4" draw lengths, so they are handy for one hand. And they are just weak enough that I can draw them with my right hand while holding the crossbow still with my other hand. I don't know what the draw weight is yet, as my scale is still being shipped from Hong Kong. And they shoot twenty-five to thirty yards, if you aim up at forty degrees.

I know you can add some strength if you make a compound bow, and you can add draw weight by using steel bows. You can't put much of a lever on a hand crossbow. With a fairly optimized bow how much of a range can you get without sacrificing easy loading?

[fusilier]

Smythe gave two options: either pikemen fence at length or aggressively attack in unison with the intent deeply penetrating and disrupting the opposing formation. The stalemate you mention, while it may have happened, isn't described by Smythe. Interesting, Monluc mentioned effectively the same two options.

Yeah, I had to read the accounts several times: the old translations and the fact that Smythe doesn't believe sentences can be too long, does make it difficult to tell what exactly they are talking about. :-)

In doing some more research, it looks like it is an open question as to what actually happened when two pike formations came together --> the opinion seeming to be that there are at least two options, possibly three.

[Spiryt]

How long of a range can you give a hand crossbow without making it too powerful to draw?

These last few weeks I made a few small pistol crossbows, with 10" wooden bows. They have 3.5"-4" draw lengths, so they are handy for one hand. And they are just weak enough that I can draw them with my right hand while holding the crossbow still with my other hand. I don't know what the draw weight is yet, as my scale is still being shipped from Hong Kong. And they shoot twenty-five to thirty yards, if you aim up at forty degrees.

I know you can add some strength if you make a compound bow, and you can add draw weight by using steel bows. You can't put much of a lever on a hand crossbow. With a fairly optimized bow how much of a range can you get without sacrificing easy loading?


If you're talking about small 'portable' crossbow that can be shot with one hand etc. then both modern and antique examples from all over the world have some kind of more or less tricky spanning devices involved.

Bow of that size spanned by hand pretty much wouldn't be very useful - small draw weight together with extremely small powerstroke and certain inefficiency of such small device would make energy gathered in the prod pretty minimal, and energy transferred to the bolt even smaller.


See this topic for some examples etc (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=19163&highlight=ballestrino)

As far as steel goes, it probably isn't very optimal for such a small bow at all, as mentioned, it's hard to gather a lot of energy, and then movement of heavy weight steel prod devours a lot of that precious energy.

Still they were probably being made all-steel because it was very hard to make it other way, and any wooden, or horn, sinew wood composite prod of that lenght was probably prone to breaking.

[Conners]

Was discussing medieval warfare and such on another forum. There was a disagreement, where I thought knights were common and battles organized with banners and coloured clothes, and soldiers who were trained. However, the other person insisted on their point...

I'm not a skilled nor trained historian. Could you please tell me how it actually is, so that I won't be confused? Here is what the other fellow said. Don't believe that what he is saying is the case... but honestly don't know for certain. How does it sound to you?


As I said, early in the middle ages there was pretty much no identification between friend and foe. Tabards and banners and such where added when large scale warfare between different countries were implemented. The majority of the fighting in the early middle ages was between different segments of the same country. In Britain at least it was split into about 6 different "kingdoms" with each one trying to out do the other. Eventually though one side gained the upper hand and the vikings were finally defeated completely and merged with the now once again ruling Saxons, and the first of the true saxon kings came into power. Then you have the Normans and Vikings once again coming over when the king of England dies and there are three claims to the throne.

This is the very early middle ages, at this point soldiers for the most part did not get formal training unless they were part of the nobility. After William the Conquerer takes the throne he goes about splitting the country up between his French pals and they each have about 4 - 6 knights each (who are essentially lieutenants at this time) who look after their lands for them.

Big leap toward the hundred years war and the battle for agincourt and things have significantly changed. We now see formally trained soldiers, even the peasantry brought along have some form of training and standardised equipment. This is also the time where we see soldiers dressing in coloured tunics and having lots of motifs and identifiers. British longbowmen are notable in the battle of Agincourt because they actually had training with the weapon and pretty much religiously practiced the usage of it. Knights are now no longer lieutenants but a professional military force on each side of the war who have the best equipment and the best training, they are however all members of noble families and as such tended to have their own heraldric symbols on display as well as the heraldry of their kings.

[Incanur]

I'm not sure about the exact history of identification and colors in battle, but the quotation looks generally reasonable to me. It's definitely a common narrative about the evolution of warfare from the earlier period of diffuse feudalism to the later rise of powerful monarchs and states.

[Spiryt]

What this guy had written is pretty bastardized, ultra short, but roughly correct summary of some changes in military from 9th to 14th century...


There was a disagreement, where I thought knights were common and battles organized with banners and coloured clothes, and soldiers who were trained. However, the other person insisted on their point...

It really all depends on context....

Sometimes, there were a lot of trained combatants, sometimes not.

As far as "colored clothes" go, then knights retinues etc. usually would be bearing some sign of their lord, but keep in mind that this all kicked in pretty much towards end of medieval period.

[Conners]

Hmm... now that you mention it, that doesn't seem a bad line of argument. Was thinking more about his earlier comment, that soldiers were brought to war drafted and untrained, and how most/all battles ended up as slaughters for one or both sides. He also reckoned that troops would often kill their friends by accident, in the confusion of things.

Not sure if any of that is correct, but his later statement seems good.

[Incanur]

Was thinking more about his earlier comment, that soldiers were brought to war drafted and untrained, and how most/all battles ended up as slaughters for one or both sides. He also reckoned that troops would often kill their friends by accident, in the confusion of things.

That sounds exaggerated at the least. To my knowledge, completely unskilled troops rarely fought in the Middle Ages. Warrior aristocrats and semi-professional commoners did the bulk of the service. The notion of untrained peasant levies with pitchforks is mostly a myth.

[Matthew]

As Spiryt notes, it is a huge oversimplification of what was going on. I would imagine "blue-on-blue" incidents were not unheard of, but that could happen even in the later Middle Ages. The best modern books to get hold of on the subject for an overview are:

Warfare and Society in the Barbarian West, 450-900 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0415239400/)
Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades, 1000-1300 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1857284674/)

It is worth bearing in mind that a lot of people know just enough about medieval warfare to be contentious without actually being right. :smallbiggrin:

[Spiryt]

Hmm... now that you mention it, that doesn't seem a bad line of argument. Was thinking more about his earlier comment, that soldiers were brought to war drafted and untrained, and how most/all battles ended up as slaughters for one or both sides. He also reckoned that troops would often kill their friends by accident, in the confusion of things.

Not sure if any of that is correct, but his later statement seems good.

Level of 'training' didn't really change much since Dark Ages, it actually might have get worse, since in more tribal structures pretty much every free man was supposed to be at least able with some weapons.

Later feudal peasants - not so much.

And no matter of period, medieval battles rarely ended with big casualties.

[Yora]

I am always a bit in doubt, when it comes to reports about some ancient battles. I think Hanibals third battle in italy and the Varus battle reportedly ended with the roman forces being completely annihilated to the very last man with pretty much no survivors at all.
Roman historians are not exactly known for providing accurate numbers.

[endoperez]

As Spiryt notes, it is a huge oversimplification of what was going on. I would imagine "blue-on-blue" incidents were not unheard of, but that could happen even in the later Middle Ages. The best modern books to get hold of on the subject for an overview are:

Warfare and Society in the Barbarian West, 450-900 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0415239400/)
Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades, 1000-1300 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1857284674/)

It is worth bearing in mind that a lot of people know just enough about medieval warfare to be contentious without actually being right. :smallbiggrin:

Oh man, this thread. It always keeps surprising me.

That second link? Just reading the two reviews/summaries crushed my image of Europe around 1200s, after I had spent a week or so reading about specific details of life around then. Gotta love this thread. :smallbiggrin:

Does "Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades, 1000-1300" cover the Eastern or Northern Europe too? Say, Poland, Novgorod, Danes, Swedes?
Any good sources would be appreciated, but since this is for fun, articles and essays have a better chance of getting read than whole books.

[fusilier]

I don't know about the development of banners, but uniforms were certainly slow in catching on. During the Thirty Years War, I believe it was Count Tilly who had a saying like: "a ragged soldier, and a bright musket" -- referring to the lack of uniform clothing, especially when compared to the Swedes who were starting to issue uniforms.

However, my understanding is that there tended to be "uniforms" of sorts during that period. First, if the unit is at least semi-permanent (i.e. not simply a levy or militia for very short term use), then the clothing for the unit might be purchased in bulk by the captain. In that case the clothing would typically be of the same color, or colors, and similar cut; at least for a company, if not for a larger organization (regiment, tercio, etc.). This meant, however, that a particular color was associated with a unit, not an army, and units on opposing sides of a war could be clothed in the same colors.

Second, certain nations or states had preferential colors, at various times, and those could be employed as a matter of national pride -- purchased individually, with individual variations and style, if not due to a common purchase. Sometimes troops would try to wear something that identified their side, a red sash, etc.

That's all information from the late Renaissance, and I'm not sure how much of this carried back into the Middle and Dark Ages. You could expect something like a royal guard to have similar uniforms and dress, and maybe common tabards for knights?

I would guess that as most feudal service did not require much time in the field (i.e. in the course of a year), clothes that had been brought from home didn't wear out, and therefore, purchasing uniform clothing in bulk wasn't really necessary. I was just reading something about when Venice was in trouble, and needed to maintain a large force (or larger than usual) on the mainland, they employed the citizen militia on weekly rotations. When a company of mercenaries got out of hand passing through Florentine territory, they called out some militia and peasant levies for 15 days service. Admittedly, these are small states dealing with a border, or internal problem, but it still indicates that service wasn't intended to last for very long.

[Galloglaich]

Oh man, this thread. It always keeps surprising me.

That second link? Just reading the two reviews/summaries crushed my image of Europe around 1200s, after I had spent a week or so reading about specific details of life around then. Gotta love this thread. :smallbiggrin:

Does "Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades, 1000-1300" cover the Eastern or Northern Europe too? Say, Poland, Novgorod, Danes, Swedes?
Any good sources would be appreciated, but since this is for fun, articles and essays have a better chance of getting read than whole books.

Generally speaking, no. There is a big difference between Central Europe (northern Italy, the Holy Roman Empire, Poland, Switzerland, Bohemia, Hungary, Flanders) and the West. This is a source of probably most of the confusion in US pop culture (and therefore the world) about Medieval Europe. In the period roughly 1100 - 1500, Western Europe is mostly rural and feudal, and relatively undeveloped. Central Europe by contrast, has several distinct zones which are relatively urban. This was the origin of the 'Renaissance'.

If you look at this map for example of the spread of printing in the late 15th Century, you notice there is a distinct concentration in the Center of Europe.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Printing_towns_incunabula.svg/554px-Printing_towns_incunabula.svg.png

Catalonia and the Basque country in Spain (Spain as a region) were also part of this network of towns, as well as parts of Southern France and a few towns in England that were linked to the Hanseatic League, like York and London. But most of England was a rural backwater in the Middle Ages.

In Central and Northern Europe the cities had pretty well-armed populations, because most of the larger ones were independent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_imperial_city) and had to field their own armies. So for example while in Medieval France society is divided only into 3 estates: the Clergy, the Aristocracy, and the Peasants, in Sweden their are four: the Clergy, the Aristocracy, the Burghers (town citizens), and the Peasants.

As for Poland, which has a very interesting history, the State of the Teutonic Order, Novgorod, Denmark and the other Baltic countries, there are some of those Osprey military books. This one (http://www.amazon.com/Teutonic-Knight-1190-1561-David-Nicolle/dp/1846030757/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325399756&sr=8-1) is good on the Teutonic Order in the Baltic Crusades and this one (http://www.amazon.com/Hussite-Wars-1419-36-Men-at-Arms/dp/1841766658/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1325399794&sr=1-1) is good on the Hussite Crusades, and this one (http://www.amazon.com/Scandinavian-Baltic-Crusades-1100-1500-Men-at-Arms/dp/1841769886/ref=pd_sim_b_2) covers the Northern Crusades from the point of view of the Scandinavians. There are also some pretty good academic books on the Northern Crusades, this one (http://www.amazon.com/Teutonic-Knights-Military-History/dp/1853675350/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1325400138&sr=1-2) and this one (http://www.amazon.com/Northern-Crusades-Second-Eric-Christiansen/dp/0140266534/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1325400169&sr=1-1) are probably the most significant modern works (I found the second one a better read). This (http://www.amazon.com/Chronicle-Livonia-Records-Western-Civilization/dp/0231128894/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1325399835&sr=1-1) is a gripping first hand account of the early phase of the Northern Crusade which I couldn't put down for four days. You can read some excerpts here (http://hemaalliance.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1696). Regarding the Polish miltary directly there are a few books in Polish and German but very little in English that I've been able to find.

I do not know of any good overview of the whole region yet, though not to be crass I wrote a book on the subject of the Medieval Baltic myself, I think it's one of the few historical overviews available in English.

Here is an excerpt from the Chronicle of Henry of Livonia, for your amusement:


In the seventh year [1205], about Lent, when these tribes are more accustomed to engage in war, the Lithuanians moved against Esthonia with a force of almost two thousand men. They descended along the Dvina and passed by the city [the at that time - very small town of Riga, little more than a fortified trading post] A certain one of them, a rich and very powerful man named Svelgate, turned aside to the city with his companions. The men of the city went out to meet them in peace, and a certain citizen named Martin offered them a honeyed drink. When he finished it, Svelgate followed the army which was going ahead, and spoke as follows to his companions: "Did you not see the Germans offering us mead with a trembling hand? They had known of our arrival from fama volante [rumor / reputation] and the fear which then struck them still causes them to shake. At the moment, however let us defer the overthrow of this city, but if we conquer the places to which we are going, let us destroy this town and capture and kill its men. For the dust of this city will scarcely satisfy the fist of our people." After a few days, Viesthard, a noble of the Semgals [another Baltic tribe which was at this time allied with the Germans], hearing about the Lithuanian expedition, came hurriedly to Riga and spoke in admonition to the Germans for having permitted the enemy to cross their boundaries peacefully. For now that they had learned the location of the place, they might possibly in the future destroy the city with it's inhabitants. "

[the Germans and Semgalls then make preparations for war... which I've skipped for brevity]

"At length the Lithuanians returned with numerous captives and indescribable booty in flocks and horses, entered Livonia, and proceeded gradually from village to village. At peace of the Livoniains, spent the night among them. The scouts of the Germans and Semgalls inquired discreetly about their return and announced this to their own army."

[The Lithuanians, with over 1000 Estonian prisoners in tow, sense danger and combine into a single group. The Germans and Semigalians wait in ambush, but the Germans are few in number and the Semigalians are fearful. The Lithuanians are by far the dominant tribe in the region and very tough, unaccustomed to challenge let alone defeat. But they have never encountered German armor before]

"When the Semgalls saw their great multitude, many of them trembled and, not daring to fight, wished to seek safer places. Thereupon certain of the Germans approached the knight Conrad and begged insistently that they go first into battle with the enemies of Christ. [It's not entirely clear here but I believe these Germans in question are members of the fanatic military Order of the "Sword Brothers" who were referenced a bit earlier in the text. Conrad is probably a Free Knight or a Crusader / mercenary] They asserted that it was better to go to death gloriously for Christ than, to the confusion of their tribe, to take flight dishonorably. Conrad, with his horse and himself well-armored, like a knight, attacked the Lithuanians with the few Germans who were on hand. But God sent such fear into the Lithuanians and they were so dazzled by the brightness of the German arms that they turned away on all sides. The leader of the Semgalls, percieving that the Lithuanians were so terrified through the mercy of God, exhorted his men bravely [!] into batttle with them. Thus the army was assembled and the Lithuanians were dispersed on all sides of the road like sheep. About twelve hundred of them were cut down by the sword.

A certain member of the bishop's household, Theodoric Scilling, came upon Svelgate, who had said that he would overthrow the city of God, saw him sitting in a cart and pierced his side with a lance. Certain of the Semgalls saw him quivering, cut off his head, and put it on one of their wagons which they had loaded only with the heads of Lithuanians, and went into Semgallia. They killed a great many of the Esthonian [Estonian] captives with the sword, since they too were enemies, working at all times against the cultivators of the Christian name. Thus the Christians, joined with the pagan Semgalls, obtained a full victory over both countries, namely Lithuania and Esthonia.

After the slaughter of the Lithuanians and Esthnosians, the Germans and the Semgalls turned to the spoils of each tribe. They took untold loot, both in horses and flocks, likewise in clothing and arms, and then all returned to their homes safe and unharmed, and having been saved through the grace of God, they blessed God. A certain priest named John who at that time was held captive in Lithuania reported that fifty women had hanged themselves there because of the deaths of their husbands, without doubt because they believed that they would rejoin immediately in the other life."

G

[fusilier]

Generally speaking, no.

. . .

If you look at this map for example of the spread of printing in the late 15th Century, you notice there is a distinct concentration in the Center of Europe.

. . .
G

Thanks for pointing that map out, I had never seen it before. It illustrates your point very well.

[Dervag]

Level of 'training' didn't really change much since Dark Ages, it actually might have get worse, since in more tribal structures pretty much every free man was supposed to be at least able with some weapons.

Later feudal peasants - not so much.

And no matter of period, medieval battles rarely ended with big casualties.Well, remember to ask- why would an army led by professionals even bring a bunch of untrained peasants onto the field? Moving layers of ablative meat aren't that helpful in a fight.

If peasants had no skill at fighting in battles, it was probably because they didn't fight battles, or weren't supposed to. A stereotypical serf stays on his land and farms, and if the noble from the next valley over conquers his land in battle with his own overlord, he changes hands just like anything else on the land does.

If your overlord really wants to raise troops, it won't take him that much extra effort to equip and train them to some minimal standard of proficiency with relatively cheap and simple weapons like spears or other polearms. And if he doesn't do that, well, he risks losing a significant chunk of the able-bodied men on his estates, which will hurt him economically, so there's an incentive for him to make sure anyone in his army is equipped well enough to defend himself.

If peasants are taking up arms in large numbers, it's probably because there's a revolt going on.

[Spiryt]

Well, remember to ask- why would an army led by professionals even bring a bunch of untrained peasants onto the field? Moving layers of ablative meat aren't that helpful in a fight.

If peasants had no skill at fighting in battles, it was probably because they didn't fight battles, or weren't supposed to. A stereotypical serf stays on his land and farms, and if the noble from the next valley over conquers his land in battle with his own overlord, he changes hands just like anything else on the land does.

If your overlord really wants to raise troops, it won't take him that much extra effort to equip and train them to some minimal standard of proficiency with relatively cheap and simple weapons like spears or other polearms. And if he doesn't do that, well, he risks losing a significant chunk of the able-bodied men on his estates, which will hurt him economically, so there's an incentive for him to make sure anyone in his army is equipped well enough to defend himself.

If peasants are taking up arms in large numbers, it's probably because there's a revolt going on.

Obviously, completely clueless people would rarely fight seriosuly, majority of lower 'quality' infantry etc. would still have some skills on their own behalf.

Still the original post was about bringing peasants to 'training' etc. and in such case in pre-feudal times, average low born would generally be somehow more familiar with weapons and violence than in 14th century for example.

[endoperez]

Thanks for the info, Galloglaich. I looked into David Lindholm's books, and found a series of illustrated books explaining the warriors of a specific area in certain centuries, like the quite interesting (for me) Medieval Scandinavian Armies 1100-1300. Ordered a few books now, and the series seems to cover quite a lot of European history, so if I'm left wanting for more now I know where to look. Thanks a lot!

[Conners]

How much extra weapons and armour did/do armies bring with them? Medieval knights, I imagine, can generally afford only one suit of plate, with no spares--though they'd probably have a replacement weapon or two? For soldiers in general... did they keep a stock of chain armour and the like, to replace damaged suits? I also imagine that there would be a smith on hand to try and patch up damaged armour. Surely they'd keep some extra weapons for them?

With the modern military, what is their method for replacing damaged vests? And damaged guns?

[Ashtagon]

How much extra weapons and armour did/do armies bring with them? Medieval knights, I imagine, can generally afford only one suit of plate, with no spares--though they'd probably have a replacement weapon or two? For soldiers in general... did they keep a stock of chain armour and the like, to replace damaged suits? I also imagine that there would be a smith on hand to try and patch up damaged armour. Surely they'd keep some extra weapons for them?

With the modern military, what is their method for replacing damaged vests? And damaged guns?

For modern armour, they are designed to break in the process of saving their wearer. The reasoning is that the energy spent in breaking the armour is energy not spent in knocking the wearer over or pushing through the wearer. Once modern armour has done its job, it should under good resupply conditions be discarded and replaced. In poorer resupply conditions, a piece of armour that has only suffered slight damage may continue to be used for a while.

Medieval armies would have carried spares of standard rank and file armour (and a smaller number of spares of 'knightly' armour) in the baggage train, along with smiths able to repair suits of armour. If the king's armour was sufficiently damaged, however, he would need to don one of the spares from the baggage train.

[Dervag]

One big difference is the nature of damage.

Damage to medieval armor would usually involve big dents or small holes in a steel plate, either of which can be repaired without weakening the plate much. So fixing them is way more cost-effective than making new ones.

Modern body armor consists of elaborately interwoven synthetic fibers and brittle ceramic plates; when they are shot with high velocity bullets they tend to shatter and tear. And repairing them in the field would be practically impossible, so you just replace the ceramic insert plates and the armor is right as rain again.

[Spiryt]

Due to nature of most even late medieval armies, any theoritical "spare" armor would depend on exact capabilities of particular supply combatants could have with them.

Assuming some more wealthy retinue, with solid provision, spare horses etc. some 'spare' armor is definitely possibility, although I cannot recall any sources about it at the moment.


While in case of some less rich yeoman, or some townsfolk with spear and shield - they will be carrying all their stuff on their own backs, so spare armor would be extremely unlikely, even if they could afford it somehow.

[GnomeFighter]

Obviously, completely clueless people would rarely fight seriosuly, majority of lower 'quality' infantry etc. would still have some skills on their own behalf.

Still the original post was about bringing peasants to 'training' etc. and in such case in pre-feudal times, average low born would generally be somehow more familiar with weapons and violence than in 14th century for example.
That depends on when and where. Don't forget that in england from 1363 practice of archery was obligatory for most men between the age of 15 to 60.

[Storm Bringer]

How much extra weapons and armour did/do armies bring with them? Medieval knights, I imagine, can generally afford only one suit of plate, with no spares--though they'd probably have a replacement weapon or two? For soldiers in general... did they keep a stock of chain armour and the like, to replace damaged suits? I also imagine that there would be a smith on hand to try and patch up damaged armour. Surely they'd keep some extra weapons for them?

With the modern military, what is their method for replacing damaged vests? And damaged guns?

as others have said, with modern equipment, the balistic plates that proivde the main protection are designed to be easily replaceable, and spares are kept in a sercure location (like the units FOB/Patrol Base). replacing the plates on a british Osprey vest can be done in 5 mins, assmuing you have the plates at hand (new plates are just sent though the supply chain likee any comsumeable..

for guns its a little harder, as guns are not interchangeable between users, due to the need to "zero"* the weapon to its owner. thus, if a soldier breaks his gun, he will need to spend some time, and ammuniton, zeroing to a new gun

*everyone holds a rilfe slightly differently, and so holds thier head in a slightly different location relitive to the sights. thus, two people, looking though the same sights, would actaully be aiming at two different point (both may think they are aiming at the centre of thier targets chest, but one may actually be aiming above his right shoulder and another into thsi left hand side of his stomach). Thus, you need to adjust those sights so that when you look down the sights, you bullets will land where you were aiming.

[Matthew]

Due to nature of most even late medieval armies, any theoritical "spare" armor would depend on exact capabilities of particular supply combatants could have with them.

Assuming some more wealthy retinue, with solid provision, spare horses etc. some 'spare' armor is definitely possibility, although I cannot recall any sources about it at the moment.

The ordinances of Charlemagne condemn anyone who fails to bring any spare armour with them, and (from what I recall) implies that such armour would be distributed to those without for the duration of the campaign. The merchants and artisans who followed medieval armies on campaign probably had stores of gear, which I suspect were frequently picked clean. The reports of knights on the first crusade selling their arms and armour during difficult marches on account of the burden spring to mind (their animals having been lost).

[Conners]

*everyone holds a rilfe slightly differently, and so holds thier head in a slightly different location relitive to the sights. thus, two people, looking though the same sights, would actaully be aiming at two different point (both may think they are aiming at the centre of thier targets chest, but one may actually be aiming above his right shoulder and another into thsi left hand side of his stomach). Thus, you need to adjust those sights so that when you look down the sights, you bullets will land where you were aiming. Wow, never knew about that. Worth remembering.


In very ancient time, pre-Roman, how different was warfare from the middle ages?

[Roxxy]

Does anyone know where I could find a breakdown of how much each item a modern and/or WW2 paratrooper carries weighs, and the maximum weight a military style parachute (as in, a circular chute, not a rectangular one) could logically carry? Explanation of why I need this info:

You know how wars are fought in my Pathfinder medieval fantasy campaign setting? Surprisingly similar to modern day tactics. This is because a classic medieval formation would be vulnerable to spellcasters, which my campaign setting has in larger numbers than most campaign settings, including Eberron. With so many casties around, a big formation is simply way too big a target for all sorts of nasty stuff. A better solution is to break up into small squads (similar to how soldiers do things today), and fight that way. Instead of a large scale shoving match, it'd be a rapidly moving fight. An infantry squad would have an archer or crossbow user or two, a couple people with swords, axes, or hammers, and a soldier or two with a polearm. Cavalry would be mostly light cavalry, and would be sort of like a modern armored vehicle: dangerous to infantry and useful for many things, but possible to be defeated by infanty and not a war winner all by itself.

This campaign setting also has airships. This gives me an idea. If you can build and fly an airship, you can make a parachute. If you can make a parachute, you can have medieval paratroopers. With wars fought by staggered squads instead of ordered formations, this sort of tactic has merit. Airborne won't win fights all by itself, as it would lack cavalry and artillery and have limited supplies and troop numbers, but it would be excellent as a rapid reaction force (when you need some troops somewhere RIGHT NOW, call in the airborne), raiding force, flanking force, first attack wave (send them to hold an area until land based reinforcements arrive when their isn't time to let the land based troops go in first), supporting force (drop them behind enemy lines before an attack to damage artillery), and a multitude of other things.

I need to know how much weight these medieval jumpers could carry. I know they can carry armor and weapons and still be slowed by a parachute (I'm pretty sure even full plate isn't too heavy for a parachute), but that stuff is heavy, and parachutes do have weight limits, so I need to assess all the other equipment they would need to carry to see how much weight is there. A parachute can support someone in full plate, but can it support someone in full plate carrying a whole bunch of other supplies? Once I know what, I can assess the maximum armor and weapons weight that they can carry, and decide what armor to hand out.

[Raum]

Does anyone know where I could find a breakdown of how much each item a modern and/or WW2 paratrooper carries weighs, and the maximum weight a military style parachute (as in, a circular chute, not a rectangular one) could logically carry? We routinely drop tons of supplies up to and including light tanks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50cpPAVoxJQ).

Parachutes loads are limited by their area which is limited by the strength of the material. You'll use a different sized parachute for a man than you will for a pallet load of equipment. And, when you start approaching your material's limits, you can use multiple chutes. The real limit is going to depend on how many chutes you can put around an object you're dropping without causing problems.

[Roxxy]

We routinely drop tons of supplies up to and including light tanks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50cpPAVoxJQ).

Parachutes loads are limited by their area which is limited by the strength of the material. You'll use a different sized parachute for a man than you will for a pallet load of equipment. And, when you start approaching your material's limits, you can use multiple chutes. The real limit is going to depend on how many chutes you can put around an object you're dropping without causing problems.Lets assume a single silk or linen chute designed to carry one soldier ranging from 4 to 6 1/2 feet tall and average weight, depending on race (human, elf, orc, and so on) and gender. I know it's possible to paradrop thousands of pounds, but at the moment I'm interested solely in dropping soldiers.

[Wardog]

In very ancient time, pre-Roman, how different was warfare from the middle ages?

That depends massively on which pre-Roman culture you are comparing to which bit of the middle ages.

Pre-Roman Britain (and most of NW Europe as well, I think), was broken up into lots of small tribes and petty kingdoms, where most conflicts would probably be small-scale raiding (or defense aginst such) by a small warrior elite (or single-combat between tribal champions). At least, thats what archeologists have concluded, but these were pre-literate (and hence essentially prehistoric) societies, so there is only so much that can be known about them.

On the other hand, places like Greece, Anatolia (Hittites), Mesopotamia (Sumeria, Babylon, Assyria), Egypt, etc had proper civilizations with written history and major empires going back to the iron and even bronze age.


And as people have said in the other posts about the middle ages, the "middle ages" covers a large range of time periods, places, and societies. Britain and NW Europe in the couple of hundred years after the collapse of the (Western) Roman Empire (which may count as middle ages depending on how you define it) may have been somewhat similar to pre-Roman warfare (small-scale raiding by warrior bands, with little in the way of centralized authority to direct or oppose them), and entierly different to central Europe in the 14th or 15th centuary.

[Raum]

Lets assume a single silk or linen chute designed to carry one soldier ranging from 4 to 6 1/2 feet tall and average weight, depending on race (human, elf, orc, and so on) and gender. I know it's possible to paradrop thousands of pounds, but at the moment I'm interested solely in dropping soldiers.Parachute area needed = (2gm)/(pCV^2)
Where g=acceleration due to gravity, m=mass of person/object, p=density of air at sea level, C=Coefficient of drag, and V=safe velocity. Purely talking about flat parachutes (wing type chutes work differently). Here's a discussion on building parachutes for model rockets (www.rocketshoppe.com/info/The_Mathematics_of_Parachutes.pdf).

[fusilier]

*everyone holds a rilfe slightly differently, and so holds thier head in a slightly different location relitive to the sights. thus, two people, looking though the same sights, would actaully be aiming at two different point (both may think they are aiming at the centre of thier targets chest, but one may actually be aiming above his right shoulder and another into thsi left hand side of his stomach). Thus, you need to adjust those sights so that when you look down the sights, you bullets will land where you were aiming.

The other option, is to adjust the sights at the factory (or a depot), and have the soldier learn how the gun shoots -- i.e. to adjust his aim, once he has figured out the sights. I suspect this was done more with conscript armies, and would reflect a rather different approach.

Modern armies would have "depots" where guns can be replaced, repaired, or sent back to arsenals for major repairs, or refurbishment.

In medieval armies, I would suspect most well armored soldiers would have their own retinue and baggage. Any spare armor would be carried there, but it's also possible that they had armorers that could repair armor on campaign (at which point they will need a supply of raw materials, but that might be easier to "forage").

[Mike_G]

The other option, is to adjust the sights at the factory (or a depot), and have the soldier learn how the gun shoots -- i.e. to adjust his aim, once he has figured out the sights. I suspect this was done more with conscript armies, and would reflect a rather different approach.




Once the rifle became the standard arm, pretty much all had adjustable sights, and the user would be expected to set them to his own zero. You can't just easily change the way you shoot, if we're talking about hitting a man at a few hundred yards. With muskets, sure it was just point and shoot, but I don't know of any army after the mid 19th century that proposed "Just use the factory settings."

[GungHo]

Question: Given what happens to rifle rounds when they hit water, can you shot guns through windows or does the glass render a bullet ineffective?
Glass doesn't render a bullet ineffective. However, depending on the type of glass, mass of the round, and the angle of impact, the path of the bullet might be deflected away from the intended path. Auto glass, for instance, can be a problem.


Now in more 'real' situation, I keep hearing about soldiers being rather reluctant to wear their armors- but those are obviously causes when they aren't not really thinking they're getting shot. Or at least hope that they won't.
Dude, some people complain about the M-16 having too much recoil. Some people are just freaking babies. They don't want to be uncomfortable on their way to get their college money. Generally, they get sorted out by recruit training and the infantry schools, but some guys weasel past. Don't ever give those guys anything to do. Don't ever let them be anywhere you can't see them at all times. You can joke about driving off and leaving the guy, but that's the guy that will get everyone hurt trying to save him.

[Joran]

Once the rifle became the standard arm, pretty much all had adjustable sights, and the user would be expected to set them to his own zero. You can't just easily change the way you shoot, if we're talking about hitting a man at a few hundred yards. With muskets, sure it was just point and shoot, but I don't know of any army after the mid 19th century that proposed "Just use the factory settings."

Does the military still force everyone to shoot right-handed?

I remember watching a show where someone wanted to switch their AR-15 from right-handed to left-handed and the owner of the store said something to the effect of, "In the Marine Corps, we learned to shoot right-handed and that was it. Tell him to suck it up."

Of course, the conversion took something like 5 minutes and they did it anyway, so it was easy money.

[GnomeFighter]

The other option, is to adjust the sights at the factory (or a depot), and have the soldier learn how the gun shoots -- i.e. to adjust his aim, once he has figured out the sights. I suspect this was done more with conscript armies, and would reflect a rather different approach.


The problem with that is that ever gun and sight will shoot diffrently off the production line, never mind once logistics have kicked them around, squadies have had there hands on them, they have been used in +40c and 90% humidity, then -40c cold weather training etc. They need to be zeroed on a regular basis. You can't just adjust a gun without shooting it.

It's not too much of a problem for the average infantry man to do, and dose not take than much time to get it "good enough" for them. A good zeroing will take longer, but the better trained will want to take the time (and take more care in the first place.)

[Wardog]

Does the military still force everyone to shoot right-handed?

I remember watching a show where someone wanted to switch their AR-15 from right-handed to left-handed and the owner of the store said something to the effect of, "In the Marine Corps, we learned to shoot right-handed and that was it. Tell him to suck it up."

Of course, the conversion took something like 5 minutes and they did it anyway, so it was easy money.

The SA80 (standard rifle of the British Army) has to be used right-handed, because otherwise it would eject the cartridges into your face. I've no idea what the regiments or militaries that don't use it do though.

[fusilier]

Once the rifle became the standard arm, pretty much all had adjustable sights, and the user would be expected to set them to his own zero. You can't just easily change the way you shoot, if we're talking about hitting a man at a few hundred yards. With muskets, sure it was just point and shoot, but I don't know of any army after the mid 19th century that proposed "Just use the factory settings."

Ok, before responding I took some time to check this against somebody who would know better (rather than just speculating), and this was his response:

Bear in mind, that during WW1, Italian and French soldiers got 3 weeks of basic training, British four (I think), and I doubt the Germans got any more.


Rifles are boresighted at the factory before they are accepted. This takes out the left-right error in most cases. Hold, sight picture, trigger squeeze and wind account for 95-98% of deflection error. These are training issues. The more training, the better the shooter.

What most countries understood is given the normal amount of training (plus
the associated limits of ammo availability/usage for training), you can't
make a soldier into a good marksman at long range. You can get a soldier to
hit fairly well at closer ranges. Given the high velocities (and the
resulting flat trajectories) of the modern rifles, a fancy adjustable sight
wasn't necessary to hit at combat ranges (200-400 meters). You teach the
soldier one sight picture (low on the body) and the round will likely hit
the enemy somewhere if the range is under 400 meters.

So now cost and simplification. For 90% of the soldiers, a fancy adjustable
sight is a waste of money. Save money and simplify rifle production. The
Italians did in 1891 with their battlesight what the US did in 1960 with the
M16.

[fusilier]

The SA80 (standard rifle of the British Army) has to be used right-handed, because otherwise it would eject the cartridges into your face. I've no idea what the regiments or militaries that don't use it do though.

An anecdote: I have a left handed friend, who uses a bolt-action Lebel left-handed. He has trained himself with the weapon where he can work that bolt surprisingly fast.

As for ejecting cartridges into your face, could a deflection plate be fitted? I think I've heard of such things on other weapons.

[Norsesmithy]

If one were to redesign the SA-80, one could put a deflection plate on it.

But as the rifle is currently configured, it would be quite hard to put on a deflector that wouldn't damage the functionality of the rifle, yet would still allow the rifle to be used left handed in anywhere resembling a comfortable shooting position.

WRT rifles with arsenal fixed sights and telling the soldier to just deal with it, the Swedish Mausers model 96, 96/38, and 38 were sighted from the arsenal, had their (drift) adjustable front sights peened in place, and had elevation adjustable rear sights.

When Sweden changed the bullet used in their infantry rifle ammunition, instead of re-sighting in all their rifles, they inlet every stock for a small brass disk, test fired each rifle with the new ammo, and stamped, on the disk, the bore condition and necessary aiming correction for use with the new ammo.

[Mike_G]

Does the military still force everyone to shoot right-handed?

I remember watching a show where someone wanted to switch their AR-15 from right-handed to left-handed and the owner of the store said something to the effect of, "In the Marine Corps, we learned to shoot right-handed and that was it. Tell him to suck it up."

Of course, the conversion took something like 5 minutes and they did it anyway, so it was easy money.

No, they don't force you to shoot righty, at least by 1986 in the Marines.

If you do shoot lefty, you will often get hit in the face with ejected brass, which sucks. The M16A2 had a brass deflector built in, so as to throw the brass sideways, not straight back at a left hander.

Most weapons are designed to be shot right handed. It's easier to reach the magazine release, work the bolt and so on for a right handed shooter.



Rifles are boresighted at the factory before they are accepted. This takes out the left-right error in most cases. Hold, sight picture, trigger squeeze and wind account for 95-98% of deflection error. These are training issues. The more training, the better the shooter.

What most countries understood is given the normal amount of training (plus
the associated limits of ammo availability/usage for training), you can't
make a soldier into a good marksman at long range. You can get a soldier to
hit fairly well at closer ranges. Given the high velocities (and the
resulting flat trajectories) of the modern rifles, a fancy adjustable sight
wasn't necessary to hit at combat ranges (200-400 meters). You teach the
soldier one sight picture (low on the body) and the round will likely hit
the enemy somewhere if the range is under 400 meters.

So now cost and simplification. For 90% of the soldiers, a fancy adjustable
sight is a waste of money. Save money and simplify rifle production. The
Italians did in 1891 with their battlesight what the US did in 1960 with the
M16.



The M16 has always had adjustable sights, so I have no idea what this guy is talking about. And he's nuts if he thinks it's easy to hit a man at 400 yards by just "aiming low on the body" with a factory zeroed rifle. Most rounds fired by average troops miss at less than half that.

Sure, they do boresight at the factory, so it will shoot kinda sorta where you aim, but I've never seen a rifle without an adjustable sight so a shooter could set his own zero. It takes five minutes at the range for you to zero a rifle. Way quicker than you learning to shoot my zero if you're much taller or more nearsighted or whatever.

I spent three weeks on the rifle range at Parris Island before I even got out of recruit training. Plotting shots, adjusting for windage and elevation, and learning the fundamentals of shooting. All Marines got that, even if they went to Cooks and Bakers School. Infantry schools has lots more shooting.

So, I've adjusted the sights on a crapload of M16s. I'd hate to have a guy in my squad who didn't know how to zero his weapon, and it wouldn't happen in the Corps.

[Storm Bringer]

it can be done for a bullpup rilfe, as the steyr AUG proves (they have interchangeable parts that can be flipped around to eject left instead of right. But it needs to be built into the rifle at the design phase. as the L85/SA-80 is laid out now, it'd very very hard to design in to be changable to left hand firing, and you'd basically have to insert a brand new set of working parts to do it (at which point you may as well cough up for new rilfe design form scratch)

[Yora]

Which brings up a short question: Do soldiers each have their "own" rifle or are they stored "in a big box" at camp and handed out randomly when needed?
I vaguely remember seeing some movie scenes in which guns are handed out from lockers, but I think in those cases it was sailors and base personel, who wouldn't be expected to get into firefights.
Having every soldier know the quirks of his gun seems a lot more reasonable. Or would any kind of unusual behavior be reason to have it immeidately replaced?

[Galloglaich]

Thanks for the info, Galloglaich. I looked into David Lindholm's books, and found a series of illustrated books explaining the warriors of a specific area in certain centuries, like the quite interesting (for me) Medieval Scandinavian Armies 1100-1300. Ordered a few books now, and the series seems to cover quite a lot of European history, so if I'm left wanting for more now I know where to look. Thanks a lot!

Those are the Osprey books, they can be a little hit and miss but generally quite good, kind of a 'cliff notes' introduction to a given historical era with plenty of (usually pretty good, though they are also hit and miss) illustrations, photographs of period artefacts, passages from period documents, and a good bibliography. Lindholm is a good researcher generally speaking, he has also done some HEMA translations. I wasn't a huge fan of that particular book you mention above (I have it) but it has some good stuff in it. Generally speaking I reccommend the series for gamers and anyone else interested in getting up to speed on combat in a given historical period quickly.


If peasants are taking up arms in large numbers, it's probably because there's a revolt going on.

Regarding the peasants in armies, I think this is missing the point somewhat.

First, people who fought in armies in Medieval Europe generally had at least some of their own arms and armor. This was taken as a sign that you knew how to use them and could fight. There were really no State armies as we think of them today. A guy who shows up with a warhorse and a lance and some armor will fight as a knight. A guy who shows up with a halberd and a sword and some armor will fight as a footman, a guy who shows up with a crossbow fights as a marksman and so on.

I think I already pointed out some historical facts about the urban militias, but there were a lot of very well-armed, well-trained, and militarily effective peasant militias in the Medieval period. People you really didn't want to mess with. Lindholm describes some of them in the Scandinavian context, other notable ones were the Saxons of the Dithmarschen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dithmarschen), the Swiss of course, the Bohemians, and the Flemish. Most of Spain had very well armed peasants. Most of the Landsknechts of the Renaissance era were just peasants from Swabia and a few other regions.

The point is that those who could fight did fight, had their own gear, had some training with their neighbors, and thereby kept their rights. Those who couldn't were made into serfs and they rarely if ever fought on their own behalf or anyone elses after that happened. Sometimes relatively non-militarized poor-peasants or serfs had uprisings, which usually failed (like the Jacquerie in France) but the zones where the peasants were tough stayed that way, and those were the people who were often recruited as mercenaries to fight in other places.


How much extra weapons and armour did/do armies bring with them? Medieval knights, I imagine, can generally afford only one suit of plate, with no spares--though they'd probably have a replacement weapon or two? For soldiers in general... did they keep a stock of chain armour and the like, to replace damaged suits? I also imagine that there would be a smith on hand to try and patch up damaged armour. Surely they'd keep some extra weapons for them?

Medieval Armies tended to carry a lot of gear with them. Here is an example from one of those Osprey books, "German Medieval Armies", on the equipment and supplies of a small force from the town of Regensburg in 1431 AD:

The force consisted of 73 horsemen, 71 crossbowmen, 16 handgunners, and a mixed group of smiths, leatherworkers, a chaplain, pike-makers, tailors, cooks, and butchers, for 248 men in total.

They brought 6 cannon, 300 lbs of cannonballs and 200 lbs of lead shot. Forty one wagons carried powder and lead, 6,000 crossbow bolts, 300 fire-bolts, 19 handguns, cowhides, tents, and horse fodder for six weeks. Supplies for the 248 men included ninety head of oxen, 900 lbs of cooked meat, 900 lbs of lard, 1200 pieces of cheese, 80 stock-fish, 56 lbs of uncut candles, vinegar, olive oil, pepper, saffron, ginger, 2 tuns and 73 “kilderkins” of Austrian wine, and 138 “kilderkins” of beer. The total cost of this campaign was 838 guilders

G

[Galloglaich]

Which brings up a short question: Do soldiers each have their "own" rifle or are they stored "in a big box" at camp and handed out randomly when needed?
I vaguely remember seeing some movie scenes in which guns are handed out from lockers, but I think in those cases it was sailors and base personel, who wouldn't be expected to get into firefights.
Having every soldier know the quirks of his gun seems a lot more reasonable. Or would any kind of unusual behavior be reason to have it immeidately replaced?

Both. You are assigned a weapon (or more than one in many cases, you might have a sidearm, a grenade launcher, a rifle or carbine, and also be assigned to a crew-served weapon like a light or heavy machine-gun, a mortar, an anti-tank rocket or an automatic grenade launcher) and you have to clean it and take care of it, but it's kept in the armoury when you are in the barracks. At least this is the way it was done in the US Army when I was in. When you are 'deployed' in the field, you carry your weapon with you.

They are also very careful and 'anal' about issuing ammunition. Even the brass is carefully accounted for at the range. Probably not in a war-zone I don't know I was never in combat.

G.

[Storm Bringer]

Which brings up a short question: Do soldiers each have their "own" rifle or are they stored "in a big box" at camp and handed out randomly when needed?
I vaguely remember seeing some movie scenes in which guns are handed out from lockers, but I think in those cases it was sailors and base personel, who wouldn't be expected to get into firefights.
Having every soldier know the quirks of his gun seems a lot more reasonable. Or would any kind of unusual behavior be reason to have it immeidately replaced?

each soldier has his "own" rifle. it may not be the same rilfe thoughout thier career (I've had a new rifle in basic, specialist training, and in my unit, and i expect to get a new rifle when i go to my next unit), but thier will be a rilfe in the armoury that is "Private Smith's rifle", that was zeroed to pte Smith, and will be the rifle he collects when he needs one.

as said, the military is very reluctant to let you have ammunition expect when you need it. In a peacetime situation, rounds are counted out, and unused rounds counted back in (if you have any. generally, on a rilfe range you get the exact number of rounds for the next shoot, and shoot them all). the collection of brass (spent cases) in peacetime is a cost saving mesure, as a case can be refilled and reused MUCH more cheaply than making a new one form scratch.

they are "anal" about it because they don't want thier troops running around with loaded guns and causing trouble (i.e. robbing people). same goes with the rifle, which is kept under lock and key in a armoury on base, and then given the to soldier when he needs it (rifle range, exercise, deployment, etc).

collecting brass in a warzone is something you may do if in a defensive location (ie. a FOB/PB), where doing so is easy and safe. you wouldn't go "outside the wire" to collect spent cases.

[Joran]

No, they don't force you to shoot righty, at least by 1986 in the Marines.

If you do shoot lefty, you will often get hit in the face with ejected brass, which sucks. The M16A2 had a brass deflector built in, so as to throw the brass sideways, not straight back at a left hander.

Most weapons are designed to be shot right handed. It's easier to reach the magazine release, work the bolt and so on for a right handed shooter.


Ah, so the Marines allow you to shoot left-handed but don't adjust the rifle to a left-handed conversion?

[fusilier]

The M16 has always had adjustable sights, so I have no idea what this guy is talking about. And he's nuts if he thinks it's easy to hit a man at 400 yards by just "aiming low on the body" with a factory zeroed rifle. Most rounds fired by average troops miss at less than half that.

Sure, they do boresight at the factory, so it will shoot kinda sorta where you aim, but I've never seen a rifle without an adjustable sight so a shooter could set his own zero. It takes five minutes at the range for you to zero a rifle. Way quicker than you learning to shoot my zero if you're much taller or more nearsighted or whatever.

He's talking about battle-sights. As I'm not familiar with the M16, I can't go into any more detail on it, but I am familiar with the M91 Carcano (which is why he mentioned it).

It does not have any adjustments for rear-sight, other than elevation for range. The front sight can only be adjusted using a special tool, that was not issued to the men (and I believe only left to right). The rear-sight can be adjusted from 450 meters to 2000 meters, using a simple rotating leaf sight. However, the elevating rear-sight can be rotated 180 degrees forward to rest in a notch in top of the stock above the barrel, removing it from the line of sight. Doing so reveals a second rear-sight. That rear sight is the "battle sight" and cannot be adjusted at all. It is sighted for about 300 meters. A low aiming point, should produce a hit with that sight, at ranges up to 300 meters (probably out to 350 meters). To the best of my knowledge no other nation was using a battle-sight prior to WW1.

The flat shooting nature of these 20th century military rifles, meant that adjustable sights weren't necessary for common ranges. In the 1938 models, the Italians ditched the adjustable rear-sight altogether.

While other nations had sights adjustable for windage in addition to elevation, they didn't all keep them. The British dropped windage adjustments after the start of WW1 to simplify production. It was a cost saving measure, as the troops were not receiving the training to use them properly. Norsesmithy already pointed out the Swedish Mausers only had adjustments for elevation, and they didn't even bother to change the sights when they introduced new ammo (a related issue happened when the Italians reverted to 6.5mm from 7.35mm).

[Mike_G]

He's talking about battle-sights. As I'm not familiar with the M16, I can't go into any more detail on it, but I am familiar with the M91 Carcano (which is why he mentioned it).


The M16 has always had windage and elevation adjustments on the sights. On the early models, windage was on the rear sight and elevation on the front sight post. With the M16A2 (mid 1980's-- when I went to Boot Camp) you could adjust both windage and elevation on the rear sight, with big jumps in elevation on the front sight post.

We set "battlesight zero" by zeroing the rifle for 300 yards. The assumption being that such a setting would work more or less fine for most expected distances, but each Marine set his own battlesight zero by firing actual rounds into an actual target and adjusting the sights to bring the group into the black.

I've never seen a rifle with fixed sights. I've fired everything from the 1903 Springfield through the M1 Garand, the M14 and the M16A2. Never seen a machine gun or grenade launcher without adjustable sights either.

Submachineguns, yes, and that was a modification during WWII to speed production, but those are close range weapons and you don't really expect to make accurate long distance shots with a Tommy Gun.


Ah, so the Marines allow you to shoot left-handed but don't adjust the rifle to a left-handed conversion?


No. There is one configuration, but the brass deflector solves much of the problem. The charging handle to pull back the bolt is centered, not on the side, so it's pretty ambidextrous already, and you can load a magazine with either hand. I know plenty of left handers who like the weapon fine.

[fusilier]

It wouldn't surprise me if US weapons typically had windage adjustments, as the US (and the UK) have not historically had the national service models, that were common on the continent. The US has been able to rely upon oceans to give it more time to train an army. So while the UK had to decrease basic training to four weeks, and simplified its rifle sights, US troops in WW1 still got months of training. Like I said in my original response, this represents a fundamentally different approach.

My suspicion is that most European military rifles, for the first half of the 20th century (Lebel, Gewehr98, Mosin, etc.) did not have windage adjustments, but I don't have that information at hand.

[Conners]

How much did race and/or skin colour cause war or general violence, in earlier ages? Europeans knew about the Arabic nations for a long time, but they seemed to prefer fighting other European nations (being closer, after all). In Rome, a some foreigners were well-to-do, since their masters released them and they were able to start up businesses.

[Ashtagon]

How much did race and/or skin colour cause war or general violence, in earlier ages? Europeans knew about the Arabic nations for a long time, but they seemed to prefer fighting other European nations (being closer, after all). In Rome, a some foreigners were well-to-do, since their masters released them and they were able to start up businesses.

Not much really. Historically, "foreigner" originally meant "someone who lives in the next village", then gradually went on to mean "beyond that great unbridgeable river", and only after that did it imply someone from another country. Racism as we understand it today (discrimination based on skin colour rather than specific place of birth) is a relatively modern invention. It certainly did exist back then, but was simply a small subset of localism rather than a phenomenon in itself.

[Partysan]

If someone in generic medieval times had a good warbow (not so much english longbow, more like mongolian composite bow) which was not used for a long time, how would they keep it? Obviously the bow would be destringed, but how would it be kept? Would it be wrapped in something and placed in a chest? What would it be wrapped in? Would it require regular maintenance and what kind?

[Spiryt]

Any 'traditional' bow, no matter if it's selfbow, wooden composite/laminate or horn sinew and wood composite generally must avoid moisture, as well as rapid temperature/moisture changes.

Too dry environment isn't too good either, probably.

So all in all 'details' like chest etc. aren't probably as important appropriate storage place conditions.

[Matthew]

How much did race and/or skin colour cause war or general violence, in earlier ages? Europeans knew about the Arabic nations for a long time, but they seemed to prefer fighting other European nations (being closer, after all). In Rome, a some foreigners were well-to-do, since their masters released them and they were able to start up businesses.

It is a point of academic debate at the moment. The general consensus at the moment is that "racism" was less prevalent in the medieval world, as compared to for instance the early modern, but just how prevalent is being challenged. It is probably true to say that the role of race has been under-emphasised in modern scholarship. Medieval European people were aware of other races, and the idea of external colour as a signifier of internal morality was by no means beyond their notice. Still, religious affiliation was viewed as a much more important indicator of superiority or inferiority.

[Galloglaich]

Religion and Language mattered, race not so much.

A lot of people could cross the language barrier and lived in many places including outside of Europe, which allowed them to blur these lines considerably.

Journeymen among the common artisans went on the road for 3 years minimum, so they tended to be multi-cultural, merchants considerably more so as they might live in a foriegn city for years on end. Danzig merchants lived in Portugal, Flanders, and England. Genoese lived in the Crimea, Persia and China, Venetians in Damascus and Alexandria and Baghdad, and so forth. Aristocrats married across racial lines all the time for political reasons, intermarriage was common in Spain between Christians and Moors, and in Outramer and the Levant during the time of the Crusader kingdoms.

In Poland-Lithuania, where they had religious tolerance laws, Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox, Jews, even Muslims were able to co-habitate peacefully and do a lot of business together, and fight side by side.

On the flip side, the Ottomans and Mamelukes captured or purchased tens of thousands of European children and made them into concubines and special types of soldiers (Janissaries and Mamelukes) who in turn invaded Europe and captured more slaves and so on. These people were ethnically European but were considered more foreign than say, a Coptic Christian.

In the Medieval fencing manuals, there are Jewish Masters, there are women fighting, and you see West African, Ethiopian, Turkish, and Arab men depicted training with Europeans. It was a much more multi-cultural world than most people realize.

G.

[Spiryt]

St.Maurice sculpture from Magdeburg Cathedral, also famous for one of the earlier depictions of coat of plates:

http://www.themcs.org/armour/knights/Germany%20Magdeburg%20Cathedral%20St%20Maurice%201 250%20small%20171.JPG

And generally St.Maurice is interesting thing to look up here, together with a lot of Maur and African heroes of Charlemagne/Roland legends.

And nice bow video just because (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWrBfJyBCwQ&context=C32dec0eADOEgsToPDskI8ngmchj8kPiE1tzIPGQk3 )

[GungHo]

The SA80 (standard rifle of the British Army) has to be used right-handed, because otherwise it would eject the cartridges into your face. I've no idea what the regiments or militaries that don't use it do though.
Depends on when the rifle was developed. A lot of companies that are releasing "modern" bullpup designs have the ejection ports placed in different places (e.g. FN-P90) or they eject forward rather than backward (e.g. FN F2000) or they have multiple ejection plates so the rifle can be easily reconfigured (IMI Tavor), though often that change has to be made by disassembling the rifle.

For older rifles, some of them can be changed, but it requires an armorer/access to different parts because the extractor is on the bolt rather than on the rifle (Steyr AUG). For the SA-80, there is no way to make the change the gun... it's just not engineered for that.

For the AR-15, the change the guy was requesting on Sons of Guns (I watch the show) is also quite simple in practice. The gunsmith was being cheap/lazy and didn't want to change the bolt and upper receiver (may not have thought he had the lefty parts on hand, either). While the brass deflector on his upper (assuming he didn't have something from the 70s... didn't look like he did) should have taken care of the guy's issues, I can understand why the brass moving around in front of you is a little disconcerting.... I practice weak-side at times as well, and having the brass fly around in front of your face takes some getting used to.

That being said, I've never been hit with brass from an AR-15/M16... not with slow fire, not with rapid fire, not with automatic fire. The brass deflector is a wedge of aluminum that sits just behind the ejector port. Even if the extractor was screwy, it's not going to come back on you, unlike you might experience with a Glock or other weapon that has nothing physical between you and the ejection port. On the off chance that the guy actually had an A1, he might have more of an issue, but the guys who are still running around with A1s usually have wherewithall to do their own mods.


Ah, so the Marines allow you to shoot left-handed but don't adjust the rifle to a left-handed conversion?
No. The Marines are cheap. They're not going to buy/maintain lefty uppers and bolts for people when they don't perceive a need. If you want someone to cater to you, Go Army Strong.

[Mike_G]

No. The Marines are cheap. They're not going to buy/maintain lefty uppers and bolts for people when they don't perceive a need. If you want someone to cater to you, Go Army Strong.

Huh. Didn't realize the Army stocked lefty parts. But, like you said, the brass deflector should take care of most lefty issues.

Army. We spend more before 9 AM than most people spend all day.

[Roxxy]

Parachute area needed = (2gm)/(pCV^2)
Where g=acceleration due to gravity, m=mass of person/object, p=density of air at sea level, C=Coefficient of drag, and V=safe velocity. Purely talking about flat parachutes (wing type chutes work differently). Here's a discussion on building parachutes for model rockets (www.rocketshoppe.com/info/The_Mathematics_of_Parachutes.pdf).Could I get some help understanding this?

[Storm Bringer]

just plugging a few numbers in that i know off the top of my head, assuming your world is like earth unless stated otherwise:

g= 9.8 m/s
g: 9.8 m/s m: how heavy the person is, in kilos
p= 1.225 kg/m3.

c= varies by shape, not sure what it would be for a parachute.
V= not sure.

[Norsesmithy]

Anything faster than 9 meters per second (vertical) is dangerous, though people have done faster. If you're running an aerofoil chute, you can generate horizontal speed to increase your velocity (re the equation) without increasing your actual vertical speed. Of course, once you get the ground speed so high you can't swing your legs fast enough to keep from wiping out, you're not going to do yourself much good.

[deuxhero]

!:Is there any reason for or against storing arrows on the hip vs storing them on the back? Is it for separate types of bow/arrow?

2:What would you do with a bow when you would "holster" or "sheathe" a weapon the 2 terms are applicable for?

[Ashtagon]

!:Is there any reason for or against storing arrows on the hip vs storing them on the back? Is it for separate types of bow/arrow?

It's purely a comfort issue, depending on whether you are happier with a hip quiver slightly getting in the way of walking, or a back quiver being slightly harder to reach. In game terms, it doesn't have enough effect to matter at the level of granularity that D&D offers.


2:What would you do with a bow when you would "holster" or "sheathe" a weapon the 2 terms are applicable for?

All bows should typically be unstrung if you don't expect any fighting within the next half hour. A bow that is kept strung unnecessarily is in a constant state of tension, which will eventually force the string to be replaced. In times of war, an archer might typically have a few spare strings, replacing them when the string's tension is gone or if the string snaps.

Modern composite bows will typically be disassembled into the component parts (arms are detachable) and placed in a storage box for carrying if available. Alternately, they may be left on a storage rack (conceptually similar to a gun cabinet) assembled but unstrung.

Fantasy suggests they may be strapped to the back, unstrung, and possibly under waterproofed leathers, when marching. I've yet to find historical confirmation (or denial) of this. Modern bows will typically be placed in their carrying biox-cases for transport.

[Aux-Ash]

Could I get some help understanding this?

g is the gravitational acceleration, or how fast an object accelerates due to the gravitational pull. Varying between 9,81 and 9,82 meters/second(squared) depending on where on earth you are.

m is the mass of the object in fall. The whole object. Including the chute itself. Expressed in kg.

p (or actually rho) is the density of the air. Just how much mass of air there is in every cubicmeter. Expressed in kilograms/cubicmeter.

C is the drag coefficient, which is to say a number representing how efficient the shape of the chute is to produce airresistance (which will slow you down). It's a fix value depending on the shape.

V is the maximum velocity you wish your object to fall with. Expressed in meters per second.

You then plug the numbers in.
You multiply the mass with the gravitaional constant (this equals Force) and then double the product. And then divide with the density of air multiplied with the drag coefficient and the square of the maximum tolerated velocity.
(2*m*g) / (p*C*V^2) = a.

The answer will be the surface area of the chute expressed in squaremeters.

(kgm/s^2) / (kg/ms^2) = m^2

[Knaight]

p (or actually rho) is the density of the air. Just how much mass of air there is in every cubicmeter. Expressed in kilograms/cubicmeter.

Note that this is usually a derived figure based on temperature and altitude.

[Yora]

It's purely a comfort issue, depending on whether you are happier with a hip quiver slightly getting in the way of walking, or a back quiver being slightly harder to reach. In game terms, it doesn't have enough effect to matter at the level of granularity that D&D offers.
When possible, military archers apparently prefered to stick their arrows into the ground in front of them for even easier access. With a quiver you always have some fumbling around to get a hold of one and with longer arrows it might even be a bit cumbersome to get them all the way out in a quick motion. If speed while firing is crucial and you have a few moments to prepare, sticking them in the ground would likely be preferable in most situations.

[Ashtagon]

Re Bows

It takes a couple of seconds (move action) to unstring a bow (not that you would in any situation where action economy matters).

Stringing a bow you are able to wield effectively takes a few more seconds (call it a full-round action, can provoke aoo). If you are not strong enough to wield the bow in question (ie. composite bows you would take a penalty on), it would probably take a minute or more to get right.

[Spiryt]

All bows should typically be unstrung if you don't expect any fighting within the next half hour. A bow that is kept strung unnecessarily is in a constant state of tension, which will eventually force the string to be replaced. In times of war, an archer might typically have a few spare strings, replacing them when the string's tension is gone or if the string snaps.



It should be also noted, that string is really a lesser problem here - but any bow that's made of "traditional" material, constant tension will eventually cause the bow to yield, taking a set, so it's energy storage and efficiency will obviously suffer.

So should be rather avoided.

[Conners]

It's interesting how the Aztecs and Native Americans had fairly primitive weapon technology. The Aztecs did some really impressive stuff with their obsidian usage, but it was still pretty primitive compared to the rest of the world.

What is it, that causes some cultures to advance incredibly past others, and some to lag behind?

[Yora]

As always, evolution. And evolution does not aim to develop an optimal form, but the very minimum that is needed for survival.

What the atztecs had was good enough to fight against their neighbours. When someone showed up with much more advnaced equipment, they disappeared very quickly.

[Incanur]

What the atztecs had was good enough to fight against their neighbours. When someone showed up with much more advnaced equipment, they disappeared very quickly.

That's a wild oversimplification of what happened during the Spanish conquest of Mexico. The Mapuches (http://rehue.home.xs4all.nl/art/far1.html), who had similar military technology as the Aztecs, resisted the Spanish for hundreds of years and defeated Spanish armies in the field. While horses, steel, guns, and crossbows did give the Spaniards an edge, it was the political structure of the Aztec empire that enabled Cortés and company. They wouldn't have gotten anywhere without Amerindian allies.

[gkathellar]

It's interesting how the Aztecs and Native Americans had fairly primitive weapon technology. The Aztecs did some really impressive stuff with their obsidian usage, but it was still pretty primitive compared to the rest of the world.

What is it, that causes some cultures to advance incredibly past others, and some to lag behind?

The Americas are unusual in that throughout most of the two continents there were literally no animals suitable for both labor and domestication. In parts of South America, you had the llama, but otherwise that's it. For reference, there are only 11 of these animals worldwide, and most of them come from the Middle East and Central Asia. The presence or absence of domesticated work animals changes everything: the availability of mass-scale agriculture, human exposure to disease, the percentage of the population likely to become sedentary, etc. Any comparison between the Americas and the rest of the world must account for the absence of domestic work animals on the American landmass.

Did this affect the development of metalworking and other technologies that affected armament and warfare? Almost certainly. For example: one of the best reasons to develop iron and steel-forges was to create a more effective plow. Without labor animals, plows are of limited utility. Think about how much dependence early cultures had on their labor animals, and then think about how remarkable the massive, sophisticated civilizations of the Americas are in the absence of that resource. The Americas lagged behind because of their environmental resources, and not for any other reason.

Also, next time you see a labor animal, thank it. Its ancestors created everything you have today.

EDIT: Also, cereal grains. Native americans spent a disproportionate portion of their history breeding corn to the point that it could support large civilizations. This was a project that set them back thousands of years compared to the Middle East and Europe (wheat, oats and barley), East Asia (rice and millet) and Africa (more grains than you can count on your fingers and toes). They started the technology race late because it took them longer to work up to the baseline for entry.

[fusilier]

I think gkathellar is correct. You should take a look at Guns, Germs, and Steel for a good overview of how societies developed, and why some advanced more quickly than others. The Americas had a lot going against it. The lack of large domesticable animals is one factor. The lack of easily cultivated grains (corn), is another which is compounded by the North-South layout of the Americas (briefly, crops spread easily East-West, due to similar climate zones).

Aztecs, and Incas, did have some copper weaponry and tools, so they weren't entirely unfamiliar with metalworking.

[Incanur]

I think it's perhaps more amazing that indigenous peoples in the Americas used such similar weapons as warriors in the Old World. European accounts said many groups were familiar with everything aside from the gun and crossbow. Mesoamericans wore cotton armor and wielded obsidian-edged swords that cut well enough to decapitate a horse with a single blow. The Mapuches fought as close-order pikemen and wore thick leather armor. In spite of limited metalworking, equivalent arms and formations appeared in both worlds.

[gkathellar]

You should take a look at Guns, Germs, and Steel for a good overview of how societies developed, and why some advanced more quickly than others.

This is indeed a fantastic book if you're looking to understand how technology, geography and cultural progress impact one another.


I think it's perhaps more amazing that indigenous peoples in the Americas used such similar weapons as warriors in the Old World.

Hey, what works, works. Where technological developments don't parallel each other, you can usually find a cause in geography or culture.


wielded obsidian-edged swords that cut well enough to decapitate a horse with a single blow.

I've heard this before, but it's probably apocryphal, or a single incident. No matter how sharp your sword is, you'd need to be unbelievably strong to behead a horse.

[Galloglaich]

I think it's perhaps more amazing that indigenous peoples in the Americas used such similar weapons as warriors in the Old World. European accounts said many groups were familiar with everything aside from the gun and crossbow. Mesoamericans wore cotton armor and wielded obsidian-edged swords that cut well enough to decapitate a horse with a single blow. The Mapuches fought as close-order pikemen and wore thick leather armor. In spite of limited metalworking, equivalent arms and formations appeared in both worlds.

Even a relatively slight edge in technology can make a big difference, I don't think we should unerestimate it. When the Crusaders arrived in the Baltic in the 12th and 13th Century, the locals already had steel, iron-armor including at least some mail, swords, spears, bows, horses, warships like Viking ships, and reasonably good fortifications. The Crusaders had better trained warhorses, armor for horses, head-to-toe personal body armor including some plate armor, crossbows, trebuchets, Cogg ships, and the ability to build stone castles. And marching music and certain musical instruments.

These seem like incremental advantages at best but they all made a huge difference in battle after battle. Crossbows trumped bows again and again, small groups of armored heavy cavalry and heavy infantry broke very large formations of very brave pagan warriors over and over. Wooden fortifications were destroyed easily whereas the stone forts of the Crusaders were virtually invulnerable. Cogg ships routed fleets of longships. Music turned the tide of several battles.

But when the technological edge slipped a little, things changed fast. Estonians from the island of Saaramia learned how to make Trebuchets from some Christianized cousins, copied the weapons and immediately made several copies... a few weeks later they had destroyed the Danish Crusader castle on their island. Not long after that they wiped out another Swedish castle nearby.

Eventually the Lithuanians picked up enough of the Latin technology and that of the Mongols to their East to hold their own, stopping the Crusader advance cold. They hired fort builders to upgrade their forts, they captured a German crossbowman and made him teach them how to make the weapon (lucky for him he knew how), they bought Western armor and warhorses, and learned how to make Mongol style recurve bows. They adjusted their tactics to cope with the very dangerous enemies they faced on either side and adapted to their new technological tools. The result was disaster for the Crusaders and for the Mongols as well on more than one occasion.


Jared Diamond... I'd skip it, personally. I don't like his answer to this particular "big question" or that of his rival Victor Davis Hansen of Carnage and Culture fame. Both authors, in my opinion, are more about politics, specifically the current US domestic politics, than history.

If you want to know what really happened, go to the primary sources. Read Bernal Diaz, read Henry of Livonia. Read Tacitus and Herodotus. Read De Joineville and Usamah Ibn Munquidh, Josephus and Procopius. It's all vastly more accessible now than it ever was before. You don't need a filter.

G

[Spiryt]

I've heard this before, but it's probably apocryphal, or a single incident. No matter how sharp your sword is, you'd need to be unbelievably strong to behead a horse.

Sharp is really secondary here, and strenght too, to degree - I find horse decapitation somewhat amazing feat due to nature of 'blades'.

With actual cutting sword, one can have dense, flat blade to shear trough flesh.

In case of Macuahuitl one has a bit of sharp, yet not very dense material, that can slice something, and then inevitably a lot of wood that obviously not very good at slicing trough stuff at all.

It would probably get stuck quick in most cases against any more resistant target.

Although it obviously depends on design a lot too.

Anyway, military and technological differences were obviously only icing on the cake as far as annihilation of American civilisations went.

Differences in mentality, culture, military customs, social structures etc. were decisive.

[Incanur]

I've heard this before, but it's probably apocryphal, or a single incident. No matter how sharp your sword is, you'd need to be unbelievably strong to behead a horse.

Looking at the original text from Bernal Díaz again, it may not have been in a single blow. While I can see the potentially difficulty of completely severing a mare's neck with a maquahuitl because of the wooden core, the notion stands fully consistent with the cutting performance of steels swords across the world. Horse's necks aren't terribly thick; even single-handed swords could cut humans entirely in half according a solar mass of historical sources. Japanese swordsman supposedly cut as many as five people in twain with a single stroke to test blades.


Crossbows trumped bows again and again, small groups of armored heavy cavalry and heavy infantry broke very large formations of very brave pagan warriors over and over.

I suspect these dynamics came from skill and organization of the crusaders in question more than form their weapons. In other cases, such as the Hundred Years War, bows seemed superior to crossbows. The same goes for heavy cavalry against infantry. It depends on the humans involved. Technology matters, but not nearly as much as standard narrative of ancient and medieval warfare assumes.

[gkathellar]

Jared Diamond... I'd skip it, personally. I don't like his answer to this particular "big question"

Well, remember that he's a world history guy, so he's trying to tie the threads together — and his stuff about agricultural history and its broader implications are fantastic. Everyone would do well to remember the lesson of the Aztecs: sometimes all it takes to conquer Central America is to have your tribe driven into the wetlands, where they discover hydroponic corn farming, allowing them to devote an abnormally large portion of the population to military pursuits.


Horse's necks aren't terribly thick; even single-handed swords could cut humans entirely in half according a solar mass of historical sources. Japanese swordsman supposedly cut as many as five people in twain with a single stroke to test blades.

Necks are strong. They have thick bones, tons of cartilage, piles upon piles of muscle — and horse necks are much thicker and much stronger than human necks. Obsidian is razor sharp, but sharpness just enables the cutting action — you need strength of arm and material to perform it. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I doubt there was one man in a hundred capable of performing such a feat.

I suspect any account of Japanese sword-testing where a guy cut five people in half is either lying, talking about a true master, or let them clean the sword in between strokes. Normally the blood and oil accumulating on the blade of a katana will begin to dull the edge after the third neck cut or stomach disemboweled.

[fusilier]

I've heard of a test of a replica macuahuitl where in one blow they cut about half-way through a hog. There were two-handed macuahuitl's, but they seem to have been rare.

I tracked down a quote:

". . . the Indian gave the horse of his antagonist, such a blow in the breast that he opened it to the entrails, and it fell dead on the spot . . . another Indian [gave] another horse such a blow to the neck that stretched it out dead at his feet."

This account does not actually say "decapitated" just killed with a single blow to the neck.

Incanur:

I suspect these dynamics came from skill and organization of the crusaders in question more than form their weapons. In other cases, such as the Hundred Years War, bows seemed superior to crossbows. The same goes for heavy cavalry against infantry. It depends on the humans involved. Technology matters, but not nearly as much as standard narrative of ancient and medieval warfare assumes.

I agree. The Venetians were so impressed with Ottoman recurve bows, that they instituted a training program to use them (alongside handguns, and crossbows). I think that we need to be very careful when looking at technology as the winning factor in combat, and I feel that the tendency is to overestimate it's value. The reasons for victories and losses in wars can be very complex, it's too easy to look at differences in weaponry and assume that's the root cause (because those differences are obvious). There are examples where the side with the technologically inferior weapons have won, the Gran Chaco War being a good one. American WW2 tanks can hardly be considered to be technologically superior to German WW2 tanks, and similarly the French were generally considered to have the best tanks (and more of them) in 1940. The French are actually a good example of what happens when the "technological" argument gets applied in reverse: many people assume, that because France lost, their tanks and weapons must have been technologically inferior or flawed.

[gkathellar]

". . . the Indian gave the horse of his antagonist, such a blow in the breast that he opened it to the entrails, and it fell dead on the spot . . . another Indian [gave] another horse such a blow to the neck that stretched it out dead at his feet."

Alright. That's much more believable.

[Dervag]

The M16 has always had adjustable sights, so I have no idea what this guy is talking about. And he's nuts if he thinks it's easy to hit a man at 400 yards by just "aiming low on the body" with a factory zeroed rifle. Most rounds fired by average troops miss at less than half that.

Sure, they do boresight at the factory, so it will shoot kinda sorta where you aim, but I've never seen a rifle without an adjustable sight so a shooter could set his own zero. It takes five minutes at the range for you to zero a rifle. Way quicker than you learning to shoot my zero if you're much taller or more nearsighted or whatever.

I spent three weeks on the rifle range at Parris Island before I even got out of recruit training. Plotting shots, adjusting for windage and elevation, and learning the fundamentals of shooting. All Marines got that, even if they went to Cooks and Bakers School. Infantry schools has lots more shooting.

So, I've adjusted the sights on a crapload of M16s. I'd hate to have a guy in my squad who didn't know how to zero his weapon, and it wouldn't happen in the Corps.WWI armies were training millions of conscripts, and had nothing like enough time to put them all through the amount of basic training you're familiar with. So (like the Cold War USSR and probably like the Cold War US Army) they accepted a lower standard of marksmanship.

There were exceptions- the highly professional prewar British army that went into the campaigns of 1914 trained in marksmanship to standards comparable to a high-end modern military, and it showed... but as all nations involved started raising mass armies, the resources to spend four months training them weren't there.


... is correct. You should take a look at Guns, Germs, and Steel for a good overview of how societies developed, and why some advanced more quickly than others. The Americas had a lot going against it. The lack of large domesticable animals is one factor. The lack of easily cultivated grains (corn), is another which is compounded by the North-South layout of the Americas (briefly, crops spread easily East-West, due to similar climate zones).

Aztecs, and Incas, did have some copper weaponry and tools, so they weren't entirely unfamiliar with metalworking.Although Jared Diamond oversimplifies a bit; there's a lot going on and it's not ALL biology.

Consider another factor- the beginning of city-building culture. The first permanent urban centers that I know of in the New World date to around 3000 BC (Norte Chico) and 2000 BC (Olmecs). The Egyptian and Sumerians were building cities a thousand years before that time, and there was a broader belt of 'civilizable' land in the Old World for those cultures to spread into- so innovations and ideas could percolate back and forth from Egypt to China by slow diffusion over a few hundred years.

The zone of city-building cultures in the New World was physically smaller and got less time to develop out of the Neolithic hunter-gatherer milieu it was born from. Combine that with biological resources and terrain and it's no surprise they hadn't duplicated all the inventions of the Old World.

[Knaight]

I suspect any account of Japanese sword-testing where a guy cut five people in half is either lying, talking about a true master, or let them clean the sword in between strokes. Normally the blood and oil accumulating on the blade of a katana will begin to dull the edge after the third neck cut or stomach disemboweled.

Much of this comes from the claim that you can cut one person in half, and smiths routinely did that to test the blade. That's a half truth at best - it was a test of the blade, yes, but not of the sword, and the blade tended to be mounted on the end of what was less a "hilt" and more a "pole". Given the ability to make gigantic swings on corpses that would never work in actual combat, the claim is suddenly far more plausible*.

*Which is not the same as "accurate".

[Traab]

Much of this comes from the claim that you can cut one person in half, and smiths routinely did that to test the blade. That's a half truth at best - it was a test of the blade, yes, but not of the sword, and the blade tended to be mounted on the end of what was less a "hilt" and more a "pole". Given the ability to make gigantic swings on corpses that would never work in actual combat, the claim is suddenly far more plausible*.

*Which is not the same as "accurate".

So it was almost setup as a naginata and swung like a baseball bat?

[gkathellar]

So it was almost setup as a naginata and swung like a baseball bat?

I know they did some testing of the sword proper on corpses and criminals, but that was mostly disemboweling, chopping off heads, maybe severing a limb or two. I'd never heard anything about bisecting people before, so I'd say Knaight's explanation is more than plausible.

[Galloglaich]

I suspect these dynamics came from skill and organization of the crusaders in question more than form their weapons. In other cases, such as the Hundred Years War, bows seemed superior to crossbows. The same goes for heavy cavalry against infantry. It depends on the humans involved. Technology matters, but not nearly as much as standard narrative of ancient and medieval warfare assumes.

I hope I will be forgiven for going against the consensus, but I disagree.

Like I said, I think if you go directly to the primary sources and the archeology this does not appear to be the case. Having just read the Chronicles of Henry of Livonia it's abundantly clear that the (incremental) technological edge held by the Crusaders played a crucial role in the defeat of the Letts, Livs, Semigalians, Estonians, Osielians, and the Russians as well. Just like Franks in the first Crusade, or Conquistadors in the Yucatan, whether that is politically correct to say or not. Yes smallpox helped the conquest enormously, and so did First-Nation allies, but Cortez would not have had any allies if his initial tiny force of 500 men had not been able to defeat huge numbers of them in hand to hand combat first.

Also, it's not a popular to point this out over and over the history of England + France is not the history of Medieval Europe.

The bows during the 100 Years War were English longbows (and Burgundian copies of the same). These were a distinctly superior technology to the earlier bows used in the Baltic and Russia in the early 13th Century; later that changed for them as well when they adopted the Mongol recurve. Just like crossbows being used in the 1220's in the Baltic were nothing like the ones being used 100 years later.

I know I'm going against 150 years of Anglo-centric history by writing this but it is also incorrect to suggest that the longbow was better than the crossbow (100 History Channel documentaries to the contrary notwithstanding). This has been basically debunked in academia. The French simply had no concept of how to use infantry and due to the same culture which gave them good heavy cavalry, could not make effective use of their mostly foreign crossbow-armed mercenaries. Or for that matter their own cavalry in numerous cases (and not just against the English, consider Hattin or Nicopolis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_nicopolis).)

The crossbow and the Longbow were an equivalent technology throughout the Medieval period but the crossbow in various forms remained by far the most popular weapon in Continental Europe, even though crossbowmen cost at least as much to hire as Longbowmen did and crossbows themselves were significantly more expensive to make, and both types of troops were widely available as mercenaries. Henry IV of England brought Longbowmen to the Baltic on Crusade in the 1390s and while they acquitted themselves well, they did not prove to be anything like the game-changer they were during the 100 Years War. Similarly, Charles the Bold tried to use English Longbowmen in large numbers against the German towns in Lorraine and later against the Swiss, facing opponents principally armed with crossbows, and lost out repeatedly.

Regarding cavalry vs. infantry, this went back and forth several times, but in the 1220's (the period I was referring to) heavy cavalry had a consistent advantage over even well trained infantry in most battles. In the Baltic the infantry they were facing had no experience of dealing with Latin heavy cavalry, but the Lithuanians quickly upgraded theri technology and developed techniques to defeat them. Just as the Arabs and Turks made incremental improvements to their bows, armor, and other technologies as well as tactics to cope with Latin Crusaders shortly after the first Crusade. By the late 13th Century the momentum had begun to shift back toward infantry, but heavy Cavalry returned with a vengeance several times after that in various forms, notably the French Gendarmes in the late 15th and 16th Centuries, the Polish Winged Hussars, and the German pistol-armed Ritter, all of whom proved capable of contending with the best infantry.

This is a big like the argument of which was superior in siege warfare, offense or defense (cannon or fortifications), or in the 20th Century armored vehicles, offense vs. defense (cannon and rockets vs. armor). It teeters back and forth.

It was never the case, at least not before the 17th Century when pike-and-shot training really got streamlined, that just any infantry could defeat cavalry. This is the kind of oversimplification which leads to so many errors in understanding military history. The infantry in question had to be well trained, well equipped and have a deep warrior culture to draw upon. The famous defeats of heavy cavalry in the late 13th and early 14th Century, Bannockburn, Golden Spurs / Courtrai, and Morgaten, were victories by basically elite infantry. The flipside was also true, not all cavalry, by any means, could take on decent quality infantry.



Somebody upthread also cited the example of French tanks. On paper, from a distance, yes they seem like they were better than the German and Czech tanks used by the Wermacht, namely because at least some of them (such as the SOMUA) had bigger guns and much thicker armor. But these were untested designs with fatal design flaws. which are quickly clear on closer inspection. Mainly a lack of radios, one man or two man turret (requiring the commander to load the main gun and / or shoot the main gun) and in the case of the SOMUA, a main hatch that didn't open. The disconnect is because the technology of a three man turret and a radio are not as obvious as armor and the size of the gun. Had the French had time to do some shake-out of their armor, perhaps in an invasion of Luxemburg, (or if they had the type of military culture which was more self-correcting) they would have probably fixed all or some of these problems and been able to face the Germans, maybe even with a genuinely superior force. But in the historical events, their kit was in fact inferior.


Technology is by no means the only factor that matters. Discipline, organization, logistics, training, and esprit de corps are all also of vast importance. But technology can confer a really important edge. I think partly due to the twin celebrity historians of the late 20th Century, J. Diamond and V.D. Hansen, the nuanced reality of military history of pre-industrial times is grossly overshadowed by logically pristine cute but factually lacking political theories. This is because this history unfortunately has huge political implications.

Of course, just my $0.02 as always, please forgive me for being devils advocate here.

G.

[Spiryt]

The bows during the 100 Years War were English longbows (and Burgundian copies of the same). These were a distinctly superior technology to the earlier bows used in the Baltic and Russia in the early 13th Century; later that changed for them as well when they adopted the Mongol recurve. Just like crossbows being used in the 1220's in the Baltic were nothing like the ones being used 100 years later.

G.


That's interesting, are there any details known about those bows?

Generally medieval bows all around Europe are unfortunately somehow difficult topic, due to tiny amount of surviving staffs.

But there's basically nothing inherently superior about english longbows at all, apart from the fact that most were apparently being made of at least yew, if not high altitude yew, which is very 'easy' material to make good bow out of.

But many other self bow designs can offer very good bows, and some examples that can be dated as medieval were found.

http://www.arcus-lucznictwo.pl/index.php?id=47

Like you mentioned, english longbow is being surrounded by quite a bit of "hype" while there's nothing inherently superior about it.

'Basic' longbow with D shaped crossection, can be really great bow, as well as quite a bit of clunker, depends on maker skill, available piece of wood and work...



Just like Franks in the first Crusade, or Conquistadors in the Yucatan, whether that is politically correct to say or not. Yes smallpox helped the conquest enormously, and so did First-Nation allies, but Cortez would not have had any allies if his initial tiny force of 500 men had not been able to defeat huge numbers of them in hand to hand combat first.

From what I've read though, technological edge wasn't crucial at all there, and that's the point.

The fact that Central American cultures were obviously so completely different than what we 'know' was most important, and that's overlooked thing.

I've seen great post about it somewhere on some polish forum, will try to locate it....

In short, Aztecs, and all other people around military organization, customs, mentality were pretty much alien and couldn't hold against something that was basically optimized for survival and killing.

They were fighting to capture a lot of people for sacrifices etc.

They were agreeing on days, places and even results of battles before-head... Along all other "craziness" of flower wars.

Even if they had some serious metalworking and generally more "optimal" equipment, they would be doomed to perish during first clashes.

[Galloglaich]

On the Longbows, what I mean is significant is the strength of the bow. In fact a lot of the yew I believe actually came from Poland. The right kind of wood was fairly rare, but widely available given the commercial networks of the time. They just hadn't made vast numbers of very powerful bows earlier on. The recurve and the crossbow both went through a similar evolution.


We may have to agree to disagree on the culture vs. technology issue in the Yucatan. This same cultural issue (agreeing on battle sites and letting champions fight and so on) was also the case when the Greeks first faced the Persians, when the Celtic and Germanic tribes first faced the Romans, when the Japanese first faced the Mongols, and in numerous other cases. Initially the technological edge is a big factor, along with the culture (Japanese swords and bows proved not really ready for prime time, Celts had to use more armor, hoplites had to augment their forces with more light infantry 'peltasts' and so on) but small adjustments were made and the problem was overcome.

I suspect the real impact of the smallpox was that it made these adjustments impossible, by taking away the necessary time. Other tribes were either able to change tactics (Seminoles) or adapted to technologies like horses and guns (many North American tribal confederations like the Lakota or the Iroquois)

Here is a fairly typical passage from Henry of Livonia

“When the fort was closed, ballistarii [Crossbowmen] mounted the ramparts and wounded many. The Russians, however, were ignorant of the art of the ballista, being rather with the bow. Yet they wounded many on the fortification during the many days they fought and, bringing up a huge pile of wood, they tried to burn down the fort. Their labor was in vain, however, for many of them fell wounded by the ballistarii as they gathered wood. The king, therefore, sent messengers to the people of Treiden, to the Letts, and to the pagans round about, urging them to join in an expedition against the [German] people of Riga. Accordingly the people of Treiden at once came happily to the king and this one task was enjoined among the newcomers, namely to bring up wood and set fire to the fort. As they brought up the wood, many of them, being without armor, were killed by flying arrows.”

Iron Age style infantry vs. heavy-cavalry and crossbows:

“When morning broke they came down from the mountain and saw the fort and the pagan army, and the valley was between them. Immediately they beat joyfully upon their drum and enlivened the spirits of their men with their musical instruments and their song. They called down God’s mercy upon them and swiftly hurried toward the pagans. After crossing a little stream they halted for a moment to collect themselves in a group. When the pagans saw them, they were terrified by the unmistakable prospect. They ran, got their shields; some of them rushed to the horses, others leaped over the barricade, and they all assembled in one group. They troubled the air with their shouts and came out in a great multitude to meet the Christians, throwing a shower of spears upon them. The Christians caught the spears with their shields, and when the pagans had run out of spears, the Christians drew their swords, marched closer, and commenced the fight.

The wounded fell and the pagans fought manfully. The knights saw the strength of the pagans and suddenly charged through the center of the enemy. Many of them fell to the ground, the others turned to flight, and the Christians pursued those who fled. They caught them and killed them on the road and in the fields. The Livonians from the fort when out with the balistarii and met the fleeing pagans. They scattered them, up to the German lines. They pursued the Esthonians so that few of them escaped and the Germans even killed some of the Livonians as if they were Esthonians. Some of them, it is true, fled by another road which goes around the fort,, toward the Aa. These came to another section of their army and escaped. More of them, however, were pursued by the knights as they descended the mountain, and were killed.


G

[fusilier]

G. Disagreements, certainly occur in these studies, so there's no problem with pointing them out! :-)


. . .Having just read the Chronicles of Henry of Livonia it's abundantly clear that the (incremental) technological edge held by the Crusaders played a crucial role in the defeat of the Letts, Livs, Semigalians, Estonians, Osielians, and the Russians as well. . . .

But couldn't Henry of Livonia, have committed the same error (i.e. assume that technological differences were responsible for victory)?



Somebody upthread also cited the example of French tanks. On paper, from a distance, yes they seem like they were better than the German and Czech tanks used by the Wermacht, namely because at least some of them (such as the SOMUA) had bigger guns and much thicker armor. But these were untested designs with fatal design flaws. which are quickly clear on closer inspection. Mainly a lack of radios, one man or two man turret (requiring the commander to load the main gun and / or shoot the main gun) and in the case of the SOMUA, a main hatch that didn't open. The disconnect is because the technology of a three man turret and a radio are not as obvious as armor and the size of the gun. Had the French had time to do some shake-out of their armor, perhaps in an invasion of Luxemburg, (or if they had the type of military culture which was more self-correcting) they would have probably fixed all or some of these problems and been able to face the Germans, maybe even with a genuinely superior force. But in the historical events, their kit was in fact inferior.

I'm actually glad you brought up some of these flaws, as they are very important to the argument.

The main failing of the French tanks in 1940 (and the British tanks), was their piecemeal application in combat, being spread out to support the infantry, rather than concentrated. The Char B1 bis, was almost indestructible, and German tanks and anti-tank guns of the period couldn't take them out. The French Cavalry tank force (Somua S35s), was intended to be used in concentrated fashion, it fell for a German feint, and spent most of it's time rushing around missing battles. It is reported that when those tanks entered battle, they actually performed quite well. The Germans had very little problems with using as many captured tanks as they possibly could.

The French tanks weren't perfect, and certainly had flaws. The lack of radios was one, but it was a supply problem (in the case of the Somua tanks), and not a design one. The one man turret, however, is a perfect example of a "difference" being assumed to be a technical "flaw" -- there is no evidence that the French tanks ever suffered in combat from having one man turrets! There are claims that this was a problem. But the French themselves never complained of it, and the Germans, who took over many of their tanks, don't seem to have mentioned it either. It should be noted that the Panzer II was actually quite popular in the German army in 1940, as a result of it's good performance in Poland; it had a one man turret, where the commander aimed and fired the guns (although the loader was positioned under the turret). The German's did however, spend time converting captured French tanks to have a top hatch (as opposed to a side hatch), on the turret. Another thing to be remembered is that the French turrets typically had a 47mm cannon, which at the time was a very effective anti-tank weapon. By later standards that would be considered light ammo, reducing the burden on the commander. Earlier and later French turret designs with heavier cannon, did have multiple crew members in the turret.

[Incanur]

There were two-handed macuahuitl's, but they seem to have been rare.

I tracked down a quote:

". . . the Indian gave the horse of his antagonist, such a blow in the breast that he opened it to the entrails, and it fell dead on the spot . . . another Indian [gave] another horse such a blow to the neck that stretched it out dead at his feet."

This account does not actually say "decapitated" just killed with a single blow to the neck.

The weapons question were two-handed, because Bernal Díaz called them "montantes." As for what exactly happened to the mare, interpretations vary. Here's the original Spanish (http://www.antorcha.net/biblioteca_virtual/historia/bernal/27.html):


Y lo pusieron por obra arremetiendo, y echan mano a una muy buena yegua y bien revuelta de juego y de carrera, y el caballero que en ella iba, buen jinete, que se decía Pedro de Marón, y como entró rompiendo con otros tres de a caballo entre los escuadrones de los contrarios, porque así les era mandado, porque se ayudasen unos a otros, échanle mano de la lanza, que no la pudo sacar, y otros le dan de cuchilladas con los montantes, y le hirieron malamente; y entonces dieron una cuchillada a la yegua que le cortaron el pescuezo redondo y colgado del pellejo: y allí quedó muerta.

Here's A. P. Maudslay's English version:


Pedro de Moron, was a very good horseman, and as he charged with three other horsemen into the ranks of the enemy the Indians seized hold of his lance and he was not able to drag it away, and others gave him cuts with their broadswords, and wounded him badly, and then they slashed at the mare, and cut her head off at the neck so that it hung by the skin, and she fell dead.

Other translators read the passage different, but Maudslay's best matches the literal Spanish in my opinion. From the context and grammatical structure, it's most likely that multiple warriors attack the mare. But "dieron una cuchillada a la yegua que le cortaron el pescuezo redondo y colgado del pellejo" makes it clear that head only hung on by a bit of skin.


Much of this comes from the claim that you can cut one person in half, and smiths routinely did that to test the blade. That's a half truth at best - it was a test of the blade, yes, but not of the sword, and the blade tended to be mounted on the end of what was less a "hilt" and more a "pole". Given the ability to make gigantic swings on corpses that would never work in actual combat, the claim is suddenly far more plausible*.

I've read so many accounts of swords cutting through people completely from so many different periods and regions that I can't help but believe it. It's obviously not something that happened often in combat, but the evidence suggests that an strong and skilled warrior could accomplish the feat. Here's one topical (and horrific) example (http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bdorsey1/41docs/02-las.html) from Bartoleme de Las Casas: "They laid bets as to who, with one stroke of the sword, could split a man in two or could cut off his head or spill out his entrails with a single stroke of the pike." :smalleek:

[Galloglaich]

The Germans never used any of those French tanks on the front line that I know of, they were used for police in rear areas. Some were completely rebuilt and made into tank destroyers (marder) with no turret and a much bigger gun. Compare and contrast with the Czech and British tanks they captured which they actually used on the front lines 'as-is' (and in the case of the very well built Czech tanks, also remade into tank destroyers - the famous Hetzer).

The Pz II is only a recon tank, essentially a tracked armored car, it was never used like a regular medium tank.





Here is another interesting passage from Henry of Livonia, illustrating the dramatic change which could happen when the locals figured out a key technology (in this case Trebuchets)

“The Oeselians [an Estonian people native to the island of Oesel or Saaremaa in the Baltic Sea]]/i] assembled from all the villages and provinces and besieged that fort. They sent to the Esthonians on the coast to come to their aid. Some of the Oeselians went into Warbole to study the use of the paterell [Trebuchet] or the machine which the Danes had given to the people of Warbole as their subjects. They returned to Oesel and and began to buuld paterells and machines. They taught others and each of them made his own machine. All of them came together with seventeen paterells; they shot many great stones continually for five days and they gave no rest to the men who were in the fort. The latter had no houses and buuldings, nor was there as helter or refuge within the unfinished fort, and many of them were injured. But many of the Oeselians fell, wounded by the ballistari.

The Oeselians did not, however, cease attacking the fort for that reason. After many days of fighting, the Oeselians spoke thus to the men in the fort: “ Since you in this fort know that you cannot be saved at all from our continued attack, we urge and bessech you that, after making peace with us, you all leave the fort , safe and unharmed, and relinquish the fort and all our land to us.” The men who were fighting under the open sky, lacking houses, in need of everything, accepted these terms of peace. They went ouft of the fort, brought their belongings with them to the ships, and gave up the fort and the land to the Oeselians. The Oeselians also kept seven of the Danes and Theodoric, the brother of the bishop of Riga, as hostages there for the confirmation of the peace. All of the rest returned to the Danes in Reval.

The Oeselians then destroyed the fort on all sides leaving not a stone upon a stone, and they sent this message throughout all of Estonia, that they had taken the fort of the Danish king and had expelled the Christians from their territory. They encouraged the Esthonians in all the provinces to cast the yoke of the Danes from themselves and expunge the Christian name from the land, saying that it was easy to storm a fort of the Danes. The Oeselians taught them to build machines and paterells and other instruments of war, and evils arose in the land.”[/I]

G.

[fusilier]

The Germans used S 35s on the Eastern Front, in combat, although I believe that the majority of captured tanks were used as you stated, in rear-line areas. There are numerous practical reasons for such decisions. I mentioned the Panzer II, just to note that the Germans did have experience with one-man turrets, so the "culture shock" of requiring the commander to do a lot of work may not have been so severe.

[Incanur]

Just like Franks in the first Crusade, or Conquistadors in the Yucatan, whether that is politically correct to say or not.

I don't know much of anything the crusades in the Baltic, so I can't comment on that. However, I can speak to these examples. The Franks had few technological advantages over their Muslim opponents in the Middle East and at least as many disadvantages. Ascribing crusader success to technology here has negligible support from historical and archaeological sources. Western European crusaders managed to conqueror Constantinople as well in the early thirteenth century. One account claims that crusader crossbow terrified the Greeks but simply ascribing that victory to technology would be patently ridiculous.


Yes smallpox helped the conquest enormously, and so did First-Nation allies, but Cortez would not have had any allies if his initial tiny force of 500 men had not been able to defeat huge numbers of them in hand to hand combat first.

Agreed, more or less. Only an amazing combination of military superiority, political acumen, and incredible luck enabled Cortés and company to do what they did.


The bows during the 100 Years War were English longbows (and Burgundian copies of the same). These were a distinctly superior technology to the earlier bows used in the Baltic and Russia in the early 13th Century; later that changed for them as well when they adopted the Mongol recurve. Just like crossbows being used in the 1220's in the Baltic were nothing like the ones being used 100 years later.

Matthew Strickland makes a powerful argument against this notion in The Great Warbow. Powerful wooden bows date back to literally thousands of years before the English weapon gained prominence. Apart from arrowheads, any difference between ancient and Renaissance-era longbows would have been minimal.


The crossbow and the Longbow were an equivalent technology throughout the Medieval period but the crossbow in various forms remained by far the most popular weapon in Continental Europe, even though crossbowmen cost at least as much to hire as Longbowmen did and crossbows themselves were significantly more expensive to make, and both types of troops were widely available as mercenaries.

That's likely because crossbows excel at defending fortifications, while bows shine in pitched battles. Guess which tends to be more important in Continental Europe. It's also


Similarly, Charles the Bold tried to use English Longbowmen in large numbers against the German towns in Lorraine and later against the Swiss, facing opponents principally armed with crossbows, and lost out repeatedly.

I've never seen anything to suggest Charles failed against the Swiss because of inferior missile support. The Swiss used guns and crossbows to skirmish, but they defend Charles in the close combat that was becoming their specialty.


In the Baltic the infantry they were facing had no experience of dealing with Latin heavy cavalry, but the Lithuanians quickly upgraded theri technology and developed techniques to defeat them. Just as the Arabs and Turks made incremental improvements to their bows, armor, and other technologies as well as tactics to cope with Latin Crusaders shortly after the first Crusade.

If you conflate material technology with organization and tactics, then we're not even using the same terminology here. These various aspects go together, but I'm deeply skeptical of the notion upgraded bows and armor had any meaningful effect on the conflict between Christian and Muslims in the Middle East. Composite bows as well as steel swords and spears existed for hundreds of years before and after with little change.


On the Longbows, what I mean is significant is the strength of the bow. In fact a lot of the yew I believe actually came from Poland. The right kind of wood was fairly rare, but widely available given the commercial networks of the time. They just hadn't made vast numbers of very powerful bows earlier on.

I'd like to see some evidence for this argument, which contradicts Strickland's argument as well as the ancient and early medieval accounts and remains of powerful wooden bows.


Japanese swords and bows proved not really ready for prime time,

The primary sources I've read showed that Japanese warrior competed fine against the invasion force with both the bow and sword. For instance, see this analysis (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:bAvssYOhVkgJ:www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD%3DADA502217+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgyQ4ENf1a87jZA-PreoPKMUcYps4KYbsG5vrC33Ter-80H44X0fpPybQCVy90W1WVnfIHcWiGJ4a3ESpsrIJtikf9ZV2y 2QLNuupi9V0xlhBMEBxRFaLhcO-V8kMSeqgUq9m42&sig=AHIEtbSGZ_oK8FxahsuF5zImCEtG5Q3uvw&pli=1) of the conflict.

[fusilier]

The primary sources I've read showed that Japanese warrior competed fine against the invasion force with both the bow and sword. For instance, see this analysis (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:bAvssYOhVkgJ:www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD%3DADA502217+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgyQ4ENf1a87jZA-PreoPKMUcYps4KYbsG5vrC33Ter-80H44X0fpPybQCVy90W1WVnfIHcWiGJ4a3ESpsrIJtikf9ZV2y 2QLNuupi9V0xlhBMEBxRFaLhcO-V8kMSeqgUq9m42&sig=AHIEtbSGZ_oK8FxahsuF5zImCEtG5Q3uvw&pli=1) of the conflict.

I think the potential problem with detailed primary sources is that they are only from the Japanese perspective. Are there any Mongol primary accounts, beyond administrative records?

My attitude towards medieval Japanese warfare is generally formed by a very high-level observation, that the isolated nature of Japan, and therefore Japanese warfare, would have been detrimental to the Japanese when fighting foreigners. The Mongol invasions are difficult to use as a gauge, because of their brief, punctuated nature. The Japanese invasions of Korea in the 16th century are perhaps more instructive.

[gkathellar]

My attitude towards medieval Japanese warfare is generally formed by a very high-level observation, that the isolated nature of Japan, and therefore Japanese warfare, would have been detrimental to the Japanese when fighting foreigners. The Mongol invasions are difficult to use as a gauge, because of their brief, punctuated nature. The Japanese invasions of Korea in the 16th century are perhaps more instructive.

There's some later evidence for this — I seem to remember that in Nagasaki, they had to ban samurai from getting into sword-duels with foreign sailors because the sailors kept winning. The samurai just weren't familiar with the way their opponents fought, having only ever been exposed to the fighting styles of their isolated home.

[Galloglaich]

I don't know much of anything the crusades in the Baltic, so I can't comment on that. However, I can speak to these examples. The Franks had few technological advantages over their Muslim opponents in the Middle East and at least as many disadvantages. Ascribing crusader success to technology here has negligible support from historical and archaeological sources. Western European crusaders managed to conqueror Constantinople as well in the early thirteenth century. One account claims that crusader crossbow terrified the Greeks but simply ascribing that victory to technology would be patently ridiculous.

I was specifically referring to the First Crusade, and I stand by my remark, I believe the evidence is very strong from both the Arabic and Byzantine sources that the Crusaders initially had a telling technical edge with their cavalry in particular, mainly due to the armor. And the crossbows clearly played an impact as well.



Matthew Strickland makes a powerful argument against this notion in The Great Warbow. Powerful wooden bows date back to literally thousands of years before the English weapon gained prominence. Apart from arrowheads, any difference between ancient and Renaissance-era longbows would have been minimal.

Yes longbows existed back into the late Neolothic, mostly in Scandinavia, but there is no evidence that they were ever ubiquitous in recorded history until the Medieval period outside of Scandinavia and the British Isles. After that Burgundy made use of them as well. The second important point is that the longbows being used in England increased dramatically in power from the early Medieval period (conquest of Wales and immediately afterword) and by the time of the Mary Rose. From the neighborhood of 90 lb draw weapons to 140 lbs draw weapons.

There is no evidence that I know of, of (non recurve) bows of anywhere near that power being used in the Medieval period or afterword anywhere other than the Kingdom of England or the Duchy of Burgundy in any significant numbers, except by English or Burgundian mercenaries. If you know of any I'd like to see it, it would change my understanding of European military history.



That's likely because crossbows excel at defending fortifications, while bows shine in pitched battles. Guess which tends to be more important in Continental Europe.

Perhaps, but there is no evidence that I know of that this was how the weapons were differentiated. Crossbows played a substantial role in dozens of battles in the open field that I could cite, I could list 20 off the top of my head, and Longbows were used extensively in siege warfare, Froissart mentions this several times in his descriptions of the 100 Years War and you can see numerous examples of Longbows depicted in sieges in period art.



I've never seen anything to suggest Charles failed against the Swiss because of inferior missile support. The Swiss used guns and crossbows to skirmish, but they defend Charles in the close combat that was becoming their specialty.

It was the same situation the French were in. Their specialty was close-combat too. It works both ways. Before being killed by the Swiss Charles the Bold fought many well documented campaigns in the Rhine with large numbers of English Longbowmen facing mostly crossbow-armed opponents, and got no advantage, in fact he lost. The difference was not the Longbow or the Crossbow, it was a relatively integrated combined- arms force on the one hand compared to a 'one trick pony' in the case of the French.


If you conflate material technology with organization and tactics, then we're not even using the same terminology here.

I didn't, but I suspect you may be right regardless.



These various aspects go together, but I'm deeply skeptical of the notion upgraded bows and armor had any meaningful effect on the conflict between Christian and Muslims in the Middle East. Composite bows as well as steel swords and spears existed for hundreds of years before and after with little change.

You should read Usamah Ibn Munquidh


I'd like to see some evidence for this argument, which contradicts Strickland's argument as well as the ancient and early medieval accounts and remains of powerful wooden bows.

Iron existed in Neolithic times as well, (from meteorites) but it wasn't very ubiquitous until they developed the bloomery forge. That is the best analogy I can give you.



The primary sources I've read showed that Japanese warrior competed fine against the invasion force with both the bow and sword.

The Japanese themselves felt differently, as they upgraded both immediately after their first encounter with the Mongols.

G.

[Galloglaich]

St.Maurice sculpture from Magdeburg Cathedral, also famous for one of the earlier depictions of coat of plates:

http://www.themcs.org/armour/knights/Germany%20Magdeburg%20Cathedral%20St%20Maurice%201 250%20small%20171.JPG

And generally St.Maurice is interesting thing to look up here, together with a lot of Maur and African heroes of Charlemagne/Roland legends.

And nice bow video just because (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWrBfJyBCwQ&context=C32dec0eADOEgsToPDskI8ngmchj8kPiE1tzIPGQk3 )


Dude, thanks for turning me on to St. Maurice I had never heard of him, check out this superb image from the PUBLIC DOMAIN of a painting I found of him in some badd-ass 16th Century military kit (escorted by a equally realistic arbalestier, who also carries a very nice sword like Maurices.)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Mathis_Gothart_Gr%C3%BCnewald_011.jpg

I'm putting that in my book, it does an excellent job of illustrating the different attitudes toward ethnicity back then. St. Maurice was a major Saint of real importance. He was the patron Saint of the Holy Roman Emperors and Charlgemagne!


G

[Matthew]

I was specifically referring to the First Crusade, and I stand by my remark, I believe the evidence is very strong from both the Arabic and Byzantine sources that the Crusaders initially had a telling technical edge with their cavalry in particular, mainly due to the armor. And the crossbows clearly played an impact as well.

Well... it is possible to make an argument along these lines, but pretty much all historians of the crusades have settled on political fragmentation of the Muslim east for explaining the success of the first crusade, and lay the subsequent defeats at the door of an increasingly united enemy polity. That is not to say that there were not technological differences that provided advantages and disadvantages to both sides, but it seems to me you may be laying too much emphasis on their influence here. After all, the Muslims were well familiar with the Franks prior to the first crusade, having faced them operating in conjunction with Byzantine armies as mercenaries. On the other hand, the crossbow and couched lance were relatively new, and Anna Komena comments on them in that capacity, which brings up an interesting point about primary sources...

We have to be really careful with medieval military accounts, because as often as not they are modelled on classical predecessors and what we are reading is as much a demonstration of the knowledge of the author's familiarity with such sources as an accurate description of what is going on. Anna herself is consciously writing in an archaic style, and in hindsight looking back for explanations as to why things have transpired the way that they have. As far as I understand it, the Byzantines should not have found the couched lance and crossbow a new technology at the time of the first crusade (though perhaps thirty years earlier the couched lance would have been truly surprising to them).

Of course, the crusaders were not exclusively a force of crossbowmen and knights in any case, and the Gesta Francorum famously depicts the Muslims outside Antioch as being emboldened by examples of their inferior weapons. Moreover, and much like modern films, it seems often that armour in medieval sources makes men invincible except for when it is time for a character to die, at which point it might as well not be there. Heroes cleave men in twain through double layers of armour, and return from battle so covered in arrows stopped by their mail that they are compared to hedgehogs. I am not saying we should not see technological advances for the advantage that they are (for instance, Caesar's Gallic Wars), but I am sounding a note of caution about taking primary sources at face value (see for instance, Caesar's Gallic Wars). :smallbiggrin:



Dude, thanks for turning me on to St. Maurice I had never heard of him, check out this superb image from the PUBLIC DOMAIN of a painting I found of him in some badd-ass 16th Century military kit (escorted by a equally realistic arbalestier, who also carries a very nice sword like Maurices.)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Mathis_Gothart_Gr%C3%BCnewald_011.jpg

I'm putting that in my book, it does an excellent job of illustrating the different attitudes toward ethnicity back then. St. Maurice was a major Saint of real importance. He was the patron Saint of the Holy Roman Emperors and Charlemagne!

As an analogue, if you are unfamiliar, also check out the "converted Pagan" motif in both Arthurian and Charlemagne cycles. In the former, Palamedes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palamedes_%28Arthurian_legend%29), and in the latter Ferumbras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fierabras)/Otuel.

[Galloglaich]

Well, I'm sure one could argue it both ways pretty much forever, I concede it is a subjective opinion on my part, there is no way to measure it. But to me it's abundantly clear that the heavy cavalry of the Franks was a MAJOR shock to the Byzantines, the Turks, and the Arabs in the 1st Crusade, and the crossbows were as well. I think this 'edge' rapidly faded away after the initial shock, as kit was upgraded and more was used (more armor distributed for example). You can't chalk up all of those uneven victories to disunity or disorganization.


Do you know of any accounts of the First Crusade in which someone was actually killed by a cut through armor the way you described? The only failure of armor I remember in that context is by lance strikes and occasionally, a lucky arrow. Many more the latter type of "Franks with 20 arrows in their armor, fighting as if unharmed" stands out in my memory of Ana Comnena, Fulcher of Chartres, and Usamah Ibn Munqidh among others.

I remember one passage from the latter memoir in particular, when Saladin is bugging Munqidh about putting on his Kazaghand , and they begin to argue, when he finally does, he reveals that his Kazaghand has two mail haubergeons in it, a regular one and a frankish one underneath. Saladin was so impressed he gave him an expensive gift. That said a lot to me!

I also remember Ana Comnena describing her amazement to see Frankish cavalry resisting lances and arrows repeatedly.

I don't think either the crossbow or heavy cavalry were new to the Byzantines, they had both before the Europeans did, but the types the Europeans were using were clearly new and more effective. I think specifically it was new spanning techniques and higher draw weights on the crossbow, and with the cavalry it was the recent invention of cap-a-pied armor coverage, of a lighter type than the klibanion harness the Byzantines relied on, combined with new breeds and new training for horses (the Destrier, Courser and Palfrey types), different horse armor and some better (higher speed) lance charge tactics on the part of the 'Franks'.


G.

[Dervag]

Technology is by no means the only factor that matters. Discipline, organization, logistics, training, and esprit de corps are all also of vast importance. But technology can confer a really important edge. I think partly due to the twin celebrity historians of the late 20th Century, J. Diamond and V.D. Hansen, the nuanced reality of military history of pre-industrial times is grossly overshadowed by logically pristine cute but factually lacking political theories. This is because this history unfortunately has huge political implications.

Of course, just my $0.02 as always, please forgive me for being devils advocate here.

G.I don't think Diamond belongs in the same cubbyhole as Hanson. He's got some of the same problems- tendency to attribute detailed outcomes to very abstract causes- but he's relatively free of that self-congratulatory "rah rah West!" behavior found in Hanson.

And I don't think Diamond makes comments on technology that are all that different from your ideas- his main observations on the subject come about from cases where Iron Age met Stone Age, and obviously was sure to win... and the question is "why was one continent in the Iron Age and the other in the Stone Age in the first place?"


From what I've read though, technological edge wasn't crucial at all there, and that's the point.

The fact that Central American cultures were obviously so completely different than what we 'know' was most important, and that's overlooked thing.

I've seen great post about it somewhere on some polish forum, will try to locate it....

In short, Aztecs, and all other people around military organization, customs, mentality were pretty much alien and couldn't hold against something that was basically optimized for survival and killing.

They were fighting to capture a lot of people for sacrifices etc.

They were agreeing on days, places and even results of battles before-head... Along all other "craziness" of flower wars.

Even if they had some serious metalworking and generally more "optimal" equipment, they would be doomed to perish during first clashes.I'm not sure I agree- the Aztecs adapted fairly quickly to the violent intent of the Spanish, and butchered Spanish forces on la Noche de Triste. But between the diseases and the technological gap, even grasping the idea that they were in a war for the survival of Mesoamerican civilization as a distinct entity wouldn't do them a lot of good.

Really, the Aztecs lost because of a huge combination of factors, a veritable 'perfect storm' of things largely beyond their control. Singling out any one means ignoring other, equally important ones.

[Matthew]

Well, I'm sure one could argue it both ways pretty much forever, I concede it is a subjective opinion on my part, there is no way to measure it. But to me it's abundantly clear that the heavy cavalry of the Franks was a MAJOR shock to the Byzantines, the Turks, and the Arabs in the 1st Crusade, and the crossbows were as well. I think this 'edge' rapidly faded away after the initial shock, as kit was upgraded and more was used (more armor distributed for example). You can't chalk up all of those uneven victories to disunity or disorganization.

The victories of the Franks were certainly a major shock, and their emphasis on the heavy cavalry charge was certainly unusual, my quibble is only really with it in conjunction with crossbows as the primary explanation for the success of the first crusade. After all, the crusade of 1101 was a dismal failure, and if anything it was supposedly better equipped.



Do you know of any accounts of the First Crusade in which someone was actually killed by a cut through armor the way you described? The only failure of armor I remember in that context is by lance strikes and occasionally, a lucky arrow. Many more the latter type of "Franks with 20 arrows in their armor, fighting as if unharmed" stands out in my memory of Ana Comnena, Fulcher of Chartres, and Usamah Ibn Munqidh among others.

I remember one passage from the latter memoir in particular, when Saladin is bugging Munqidh about putting on his Kazaghand , and they begin to argue, when he finally does, he reveals that his Kazaghand has two mail haubergeons in it, a regular one and a frankish one underneath. Saladin was so impressed he gave him an expensive gift. That said a lot to me!

Yes, indeed, I had one in particular in mind. Godfrey of Bouillon is the heroic fellow in question. At Antioch he is reported as cutting a Saracen in two in several contemporary chronicles (I would have to look up exactly which ones, though), but a few decades later in William of Tyre's Chronicon this has become an armoured Saracen:

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

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

The translation is perhaps a bit dated, but you get the idea. Here is a link to a previous post that presents a few examples of this "heroic blow" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2926565&postcount=2056); this sort of thing suggests a crossover between romance, epic and chronicle that has to be borne in mind whenever dealing with their reliability. William of Tyre, of course, was a very serious historian, but clearly even he is prone to exaggerate the feats of his favoured protagonists. To see Franks suffering similar misfortunes, I suspect it would have to be fellow Franks doing the killing, these blows are really evidence of heroism or some sort of divine favour. I will keep an eye out, might be worth looking for in accounts of the Albigensian crusades.



I also remember Ana Comnena describing her amazement to see Frankish cavalry resisting lances and arrows repeatedly.

Yes, I seem to recall that, and I know the Christians report the same thing from time to time; Robert the Monk's history of the first crusade definitely has a passage along those lines, but similarly juxtaposed with more effective engagements. Again, though, it is strange to find Anna reporting on the resistance of Frankish mail when her own countrymen had access to similar or better armour, and had been frequently at war with the Franks and Italio-Normans. I will have to get back to you on this, as I am reading some of the primary sources again and will hopefully have a fresher point of view shortly!



I don't think either the crossbow or heavy cavalry were new to the Byzantines, they had both before the Europeans did, but the types the Europeans were using were clearly new and more effective. I think specifically it was new spanning techniques and higher draw weights on the crossbow, and with the cavalry it was the recent invention of cap-a-pied armor coverage, of a lighter type than the klibanion harness the Byzantines relied on, combined with new breeds and new training for horses (the Destrier, Courser and Palfrey types), different horse armor and some better (higher speed) lance charge tactics on the part of the 'Franks'.

Could well be, it would not be too surprising for the crusaders to have some incremental advantage in both those technologies. Horse armour amongst the crusaders would have been pretty rare, though, the earliest mention I recall off hand is from the mid to late twelfth century in Chrétien de Troyes (I am sure there are earlier mentions, but I believe this is one of the earliest).

[valadil]

It's purely a comfort issue, depending on whether you are happier with a hip quiver slightly getting in the way of walking, or a back quiver being slightly harder to reach. In game terms, it doesn't have enough effect to matter at the level of granularity that D&D offers.

Not quite. A back quiver is actually easier to reach as it's closer to where your hand is after firing. If you're trying to shoot off arrows as quickly as possible, avoiding making your hand travel from neck to waist and back up again is a good thing. That said, I have no idea how often period archers would fire like this as opposed to in a coordinated volley.

[Incanur]

I'd have to wax into levels of hyperbole sufficient shame Anna Komnene to express how misguided I consider the technological-determinist view of historical warfare. On the Crusades, I recommend reading both (http://www.amazon.com/Crusader-Warfare-Byzantium-Western-Europe/dp/1847250300) volumes (http://www.amazon.com/Crusader-Warfare-Muslims-Struggle-Crusades/dp/1847251463) of David Nicolle's Crusader Warfare. Nicolle provides compelling argument and evidence against the notion that the Franks had any dramatic edge in equipment quality over their opponents. To the contrary, Nicolle suggests that various Muslim kingdoms they attack likely held a technological advantage if any existed. While there's no doubt Frankish knight made deadly charges with couched lances, this came from skill and tactics more than better armor or superior spears. As Russell Mitchell writes in "Light Cavalry, Heavy Cavalry, Horse Archers, Oh My! (http://books.google.com/books?id=FEhkAnsNhg8C&pg=PA95&dq=russell+mitchell+%2B+light+cavalry,+heavy+caval ry,+horse+archers&hl=en&ei=yzL5TfvTCYn4gAePxLn5Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=russell%20mitchell%20%2B%20light%20cavalry%2C%20 heavy%20cavalry%2C%20horse%20archers&f=false)", it's not even necessarily reasonable to classify crusaders as heavy cavalry in terms of armor. With their combination of mail and lamellar armor as well as horse armor, Byzantine horsemen they repeated defeated better fit that description.

I also recommend J. E. Lendon's Soldiers and Ghosts (http://www.amazon.com/Soldiers-Ghosts-History-Classical-Antiquity/dp/0300106637) for an example of military history that escapes the fixation on technology so common in that genre. I suspect our own present context of the gun, tank, plane, and bomb leads military historians into this trap.

[Galloglaich]

David Nicolle is notoriously biased and is considered an ardent Islamophile in military history circles. You will notice many people commenting about this on Amazon on every one of his books.

I personally don't hold a purely "technological-determinist view of historical warfare", I just think dismissing the technical factor of warfare entirely is throwing the baby out with the bath-water. It was clearly a major factor. And I've read most of Nicolle's books, I have his book on the Mongols 5 feet from my desk as I type this. But just as some people disparage the period authors of the primary sources, so too the modern historians, especially the semi-professional enthusiast types like Nicolle who did most of his writing for Osprey and for publications aimed at re-enactors rather than any peer reviewed academic journals, have to be taken with a grain of salt. That is not to say Nicolle's opinion isn't worth something, it is, but I'd put him in the same category as someone like Terry Jones whose work I've also read, but with a grain of salt. I wouldn't assume that the opinion either of them automatically trumps the primary sources, or the opinions of other historians in the field from Hans Delbruck to Eric Christiansen.

So yes, while I'm sure you are well read on the Crusades, and clearly have your own opinion, I've read a bit on the subject myself as well and I don't share it. That doesn't make me a 'determinist', let alone someone caught up in the modern mentality of 'guns and bombs' or whatever. You posit a training advantage. What was this training precisely? I've done a fair bit of period fencing myself and I'm not aware of this particular edge in technique. To support my own argument, I can point out, in agreement with the primary sources, that the armor worn by the 'Franj' was more effective than anyone in the area expected it to be, which frequently caused panics and led to routs. It's also obvious that improvements to the crossbows at that time gave them a temporary edge in sieges particularly. So I assume you are saying that the primary sources are all wrong... that seems to require extraordinary proof for your counter- argument.

The reason for the cap-a-pied mail armor is that the 'Franks' had begun to enjoy much more ubiquitous homogenous iron at exactly the time of the First Crusade due to the rapid spread of the overshot water wheel and the windmill by the Cistercian monks since the millennium, and the secondary automated technologies of mechanical trip hammers and bellows. They had therefore better and more iron for more armored troops. What's more the heavier armor (lamellar over mail) of the Byzantines doesn't necessarily equal better. In fact by being able to wear less armor in terms of weight and mass and remain fully protected meant the Franj were able to fight more effectively especially when dismounted, which is something the Byzantine Cataphract did not expect to have to do.

I cite for example this famous passage from Usamah Ibn Munqidh:


"Another Turk now climbed and started walking on the same wall between the two bastions. He was carrying his sword and shield. There came out to meet him from the tower, at the door of which stood a knight, a Frank wearing double-linked mail and carrying a spear in his hand, but not eqquipped with a shield. The Turk, sword in hand, encountered him. The Frank smote him with the spear, but the Turk warded off the point of the spear with his shield and, notwithstanding the spear, advanced towards the frank. The latter took to flight and turned his back, leaning forward, like one who wanted to kneel, in order to protect hiss head. The Turk dealt him a number of blows which had no effect whatsoever, and went on walking until he entered the tower."


When it comes to tanks and aircraft, I think it's patently ludicrous to discount technological advantages. The examples where technical advantages for aircraft in range, speed, armament, armor and maneuverability led directly to tactical and strategic victories during World War II are almost limitless. Similarly, a tank with a given gun can only penetrate so much armor; conversely, a tank with 2 inches of armor cannot face certain enemy guns, like say for example, any British tank before 1944 faced with a Flak 18 88mm gun. To suggest that this wasn't a decisive factor in numerous battles is ... beyond belief.

Which is not to say it was ever the only factor. Technological advantages are fleeting and only matter in certain specific cases, certain environments. A huge advantage in any number of technologies didn't help the American forces in Vietnam, incremental edges in many technologies on the Russian front didn't matter for the Germans after 1941, though a broader technical edge played a decisive role in their initial invasion. What changed was the adjustment by the Russians, not just in tactics but in technology: the T-34, the KV, the Katushka rocket, the PPsh machine gun and so on.

Having say, the rate of climb and speed to be able to attack or disengage from an enemy aircraft at will, or the range or service ceiling to reach targets that enemy aircraft couldn't get to, were decisive factors in key air campaigns in the war, there is no escaping the reality any more than those poor pilots could escape their enemies who were flying better planes.

G.

[Incanur]

David Nicolle is notoriously biased and is considered an ardent Islamophile in military history circles.

I'm aware of Nicolle's reputation, though I find the charge you mention dubious and problematic. Have you read Crusader Warfare? It has none of the comments you claim on Amazon and feels rather more robust than other works I've read by Nicolle. He makes a few questionable claims - such as that longbows could pierce mail at 200 meters and that Mamluk archers could shoot three arrows in a second and a half - but the big-picture arguments are brilliant.


You posit a training advantage. What was this training precisely? I've done a fair bit of period fencing myself and I'm not aware of this particular edge in technique.

I suggest reading the piece I mentioned by Russell Mitchell. Mitchell explained how the Franks excelled at charging in close formation. That's a style of combat rather than a material technology. (You could call it a military technology. In a sense, all culture is technological. I use the term in a more limited - yet still likely too broad - sense.) "Weapons, Technological Determinism and Ancient Warfare (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ui1nnpT3HOUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA21&dq=ancient+warfare+%2B+technological+determinism&ots=eiUE2_ptst&sig=Xhx4KHOdafSMTKmrKvlzJonrhow#v=onepage&q=ancient%20warfare%20%2B%20technological%20determ inism&f=false)" by Fernando Echeverría Rey, which appears in the same collection as the Mitchell piece, provides a thorough critique and discussion of technological determinism in the military context.


To support my own argument, I can point out, in agreement with the primary sources, that the armor worn by the 'Franj' was more effective than anyone in the area expected it to be, which frequently caused panics and led to routs.

Period sources stress the power of a Frankish charge as well as the strength and ferocity of Western European warriors. Which primary sources suggest Frankish mail surpassed the various mail and lamellar defense employed the Middle Eastern cavalry elite? Usama actually described personally piercing two layers of mail (http://books.google.com/books?id=UalnoF5MBHMC&pg=PA452&lpg=PA452&dq=usama+%2B+crusades+%2B+mail&source=bl&ots=U3Uc76sLbo&sig=PilmQj1m_-90tCs6GFl8mGxuEzk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=t6cLT6roIaGYiAKK4amQBA&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=usama%20%2B%20crusades%20%2B%20mail&f=false) with a lance thrust.

[Knaight]

I'm aware of Nicolle's reputation, though I find the charge you mention dubious and problematic. Have you read Crusader Warfare? It has none of the comments you claim on Amazon and feels rather more robust than other works I've read by Nicolle. He makes a few questionable claims - such as that longbows could pierce mail at 200 meters and that Mamluk archers could shoot three arrows in a second and a half - but the big-picture arguments are brilliant.
Those aren't questionable, those are laughably wrong. 90 arrows in a minute vastly exceeds even the best modern archers using the best modern bows. Moreover, 200 meters isn't even in effective range against moderately armored targets with a bow.

[Ashtagon]

Not quite. A back quiver is actually easier to reach as it's closer to where your hand is after firing. If you're trying to shoot off arrows as quickly as possible, avoiding making your hand travel from neck to waist and back up again is a good thing. That said, I have no idea how often period archers would fire like this as opposed to in a coordinated volley.

If you have difficulty reaching down to your waist, you have bigger problems than whatever it was you were shooting at.

[Galloglaich]

Horse archers from the early Iron Age through the early-modern period used to carry both bow and arrows in a sheath on their saddle called the gorytos, which could also be carried on the hip.

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

http://www.atarn.org/chinese/Urumqi/urum_ill/ltr_no8.jpg
http://www.traditional-archery.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Persepolis.jpg
http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/imgs_En/04/2010/hm4_2_299_0_big.jpg
http://wiki.antir.sca.org/images/b/b5/IMG_0421.JPG
http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc247/rez-twc/gorytos.jpg
http://www.arco-iris.com/George/images/archer_qing.jpghttp://domin.dom.edu/faculty/dperry/hist270silk/calendar/changes/mongols/images/30589%20-%20R91.jpg


I've also seen photographs of infantry archers with arrows on their back.

http://www.photo.rmn.fr/LowRes2/TR1/DJZXAM/98-026369.jpg
http://i947.photobucket.com/albums/ad314/kushka84/Pajero%201993/MongolArcherInnerMongolia1940s.jpg

G.

[Matthew]

There is one on the Bayeux Tapestry as well, though most carry their quivers at the hip or have them set down on the ground in the margins. You can see the fellow in question on the extreme right here (http://hastings1066.com/bayeux28.shtml).

[GraaEminense]

Do I see Assyrians carrying strung bows across the shoulder? That's interesting, I always thought bows would be carried unstrung or at least in a sheath.

Is this practice actually common and I'm just unaware of it, or is it a rarity (or even just an artistic convention)?

[Incanur]

Those aren't questionable, those are laughably wrong. 90 arrows in a minute vastly exceeds even the best modern archers using the best modern bows. Moreover, 200 meters isn't even in effective range against moderately armored targets with a bow.

I've hardly ever read a book on historical warfare without encountering something in this category. However, I'm not convinced by the ways in which you attempt to refute this claims either. 3 arrows in 1.5 seconds isn't same 90 arrows per minute, and I've never heard of anyone shooting modern bows for speed. Compound bows were designed for murdering deer and nailing targets, not shower shooting. Current speed records come with traditional recurve bows. Lajos Kassai (http://www.worldarcherycenter.com/archery-rapid-fire-hun-archery-kassai/) can shoot 12 arrows at moving targets in under 18 seconds. He also managed 5 shots in 7.38 seconds. And, as you can see in comments on the linked video, at least one archer claims to have meet 3-arrows-in-1.5-seconds standards set by a Mamluk archery manual. Actually, here's the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggDfJLB8jTk). So, barring trickery, I guess it is possible. Wow! :smalleek:

With regards to piercing mail at 200 meters, this remains contested. The Alan Williams armor tests combined with the bow tests in The Great Warbow say no way, but Williams didn't the test thin bodkins that may take less energy to wound through mail. I'm skeptical, but some accounts suggest English arrows did penetrate armor at extreme range.

[Deadmeat.GW]

Actually...there are some records that claim that English longbows pierce armour of the 'full-plate' type completely through and through, front to back, including the man...

However when we check out the actual injuries recorded by armies that lost to Longbowmen and which managed to retreat there is few if any injuries that are through armour that is not a joint, open faced helmet or eye-piece or such.
And most of the time these are deadly hits.

Most of the injuries seem to be to either unarmoured troops or horses...

So we can say quite confidently that the armour piercing capabilities of the longbow were not anywhere near as effective as the injuries would indicate, compared to the actual descriptions of their effects, that there was no massive amount of injuries to armoured men.
If you have thousands of arrows showering an enemy army and afterwards the injuries count in the hundreds from arrows and more are from melee combat you know that the effect of individual arraws is way overstated.

Of course if you put it in perspective it still is a factor that is going to make a massive difference in a battle.
Getting pelted constantly by impacts from arrows, even if they do not cause direct injuries, is going to wear upon you and you will start suffering from combat stress a lot more, a lot sooner.

[Spiryt]

With regards to piercing mail at 200 meters, this remains contested. The Alan Williams armor tests combined with the bow tests in The Great Warbow say no way, but Williams didn't the test thin bodkins that may take less energy to wound through mail. I'm skeptical, but some accounts suggest English arrows did penetrate armor at extreme range.

There were different mailles all over the middle ages, and quite a lot of fragments with very large diamater of rings had been found.

Connect it with somehow poor quality of fragment, that could happen from some reasons, and powerful bow - and everything could happen.

Still, under any sorts of 'normal' conditions piercing trough any good protection like that seems extremely improbable.

All kinds of really thin bodkins wouldn't be optimal for going trough soft padding, and would be more prone to getting damaged against hard rings or anything else, so getting them thinner won't necessarily give that much either.


Actually...there are some records that claim that English longbows pierce armour of the 'full-plate' type completely through and through, front to back, including the man...



What is source of this? Sounds very interesting, even though it's indeed probably some 'heroic' artistic license by chronicler or someone else.

[Ashtagon]

I'd be careful of using any ancient artwork that shows archers to prove they routinely travelled with bows in a particular way.

Aside from artistic licence which can change everything anyway, there is also very often no way to know whether the artist intended to showcase the soldier marching, ready for battle, or actively shooting. And even less way of knowing whether the particular pose was chosen to illustrate something 'normal' or to illustrate something 'abnormal'.

[gkathellar]

Either way, this guy?


http://i947.photobucket.com/albums/ad314/kushka84/Pajero%201993/MongolArcherInnerMongolia1940s.jpg

This guy is a boss. He is now my desktop background.

[GraaEminense]

I'd be careful of using any ancient artwork that shows archers to prove they routinely travelled with bows in a particular way.
Well, obviously. That's why I'm asking if anyone can shed some light upon the matter.

The guys in question carry spears as well, and from what I have seen of Assyrian artwork they do depict people fighting as, well, fighting -something these guys are not doing. They are marching or standing. Bows are carried in several ways -including strung in a quiver on the back- in the pictures.

And since these are depictions of bows being carried strung over the shoulder, the question remains: Does that make any sense? More to the point: do anyone have sources at hand showing the same, perhaps from other times/places?

I'm no expert on bows, but I counted "not really carried strung across the body" among the things I thought I knew, and I'm intrigued at possibly being proven wrong.

[Storm Bringer]

I'm not an expert, but it may be that while the bow was kept unstrung normally, carrying the bow strung across the body may have been done for short periods of time (several hours), say, for a unit marching into battle or when not shooting during that battle, or on parade.

plus we can't discount that the artist may hace shown the bow strung so that we knew that it was a bow, and that the soldier was armed with it as well as his spear.

[Ashtagon]

Missiles and water

So according to TV Tropes, bullets fired at water won't penetrate more than a foot if supersonic, or 3-4 feet if subsonic.

Does the same lack of penetration apply to muscle-powered (bows, crossbows, slings, thrown stuff) missile weapons? Would it make a difference if, say, an arrow (or bullet) were loosed/fired while underwater, instead of having to penetrate the water surface?

I realise that d20 RAW allows useful bows. Whether to nerf that is an entirely different question.

[Knaight]

Missiles and water

So according to TV Tropes, bullets fired at water won't penetrate more than a foot if supersonic, or 3-4 feet if subsonic.

Does the same lack of penetration apply to muscle-powered (bows, crossbows, slings, thrown stuff) missile weapons? Would it make a difference if, say, an arrow (or bullet) were loosed/fired while underwater, instead of having to penetrate the water surface?

The short version: The same lack of penetration applies regardless. Unless the missile is moving through a vacuum it has to displace something, and it's really a question of how much has to be displaced, at the simplest. For liquids and solids, significant intermolecular forces also make displacement more difficult, but if you look at the density of water (1000kg/m3) compared to the density of air (1.2754 kg/m3 at STP) that alone explains rather a lot. Note that both of those values vary, though you will see approximately 3 orders of magnitude difference under most conditions. Displacing all of this takes energy, and decelerates the missile - water merely decelerates the missile significantly faster.

EDIT: I'd note that the barrier between air and water is more or less irrelevant at most angles, for most missiles, as concerns penetration. It will mess up aim, and if one is slinging flat rocks at a low angle they might skip, but as a rule it can more or less be ignored.

[Ashtagon]

Also, is there a specific reason why a supersonic missile has worse water penetration than a subsonic one?

(supersonic referring to the conventional speed of sound in one standard atmosphere pressure at "standard temperature", or about 330 m/s)

[Spiryt]

Also, is there a specific reason why a supersonic missile has worse water penetration than a subsonic one?

(supersonic referring to the conventional speed of sound in one standard atmosphere pressure at "standard temperature", or about 330 m/s)

I believe that in the first place the way TVtropes puts it is badly simplified...

As far as supersonic bullets being stopped even faster, I believe it's matter of drag etc. equation containing v square.

So resistance of medium 'penetrated' increases very much with velocity.

Objects that are very light and very fast aren't optimal for flying far in the air even.

Similarly very fast bullets tend to get stopped very violently by human body, resulting in gruesome injuries, and falling into the water with sufficient speed isn't that much different from colliding with ground.

Getting back to water, I would be inclined to believe that shape of missile would be very important, so arrow could go further than sling or gun bullet under water.

This can be wrong though, but splash of ordinary stones in water depends greatly on shape of stone.

Stone skipping without flat surface hitting the water isn't very effective either.

[Yora]

The thing with supersonic bullets is, that they shatter when hitting the water and each fragment has less streamlined shape, less mass, and a relatively larger surface, which slows the fragments down a lot faster than a bullet that stays in its solid streamlined form. Try throwing a paper bag and try throwing it when curled up into a ball. Same mass, but you see the huge difference it makes in the distance and speed it travels.
I think the speed of sound is actually irrelevant to all this. When I drop an apple on the floor it will just have a small dent, but when I hurl it down it will split to pieces. Slower bullets survive impact on water while faster don't do so. That this genrally matches up with subsonic and supersonic speeds is probably just coincidence. If you use a different material, you'd probably have the same effect at subsonic speeds as well.

[Eldan]

I remember seeing the mythbusters doing those water penetration tests. Their conclusion was that the bullet seems to break apart almost instantly upon hitting the water.

[Raum]

Supersonic rounds tend to fragment when hitting water. That said, I'm not sure the "one foot" is all that correct.

Mythbusters did a show on it sometime ago. If memory serves, somewhere around three feet was the minimum safe depth. It has been a while though, so don't hold me to that.

(Do note, I'm not endorsing Mythbusters' methods for everything. They have been wrong a few times. In their favor, they do usually own up to mistakes.)

[Ashtagon]

I remember seeing the mythbusters doing those water penetration tests. Their conclusion was that the bullet seems to break apart almost instantly upon hitting the water.

Literally break apart? I'd read plenty of reports that say the bullets will tumble and lose any real accuracy, velocity, and penetration power. But breaking apart implies that the water was harder than steel...

[gkathellar]

Ever hit water moving at terminal velocity? Surface tension is harder than concrete, if you're moving fast enough.

[Spiryt]

Literally break apart? I'd read plenty of reports that say the bullets will tumble and lose any real accuracy, velocity, and penetration power. But breaking apart implies that the water was harder than steel...

It doesn't imply that water is "harder than steel" at all.... :smallconfused:

It really all depends on bullet, it's shape, material, mass etc.

Small, high velocity bullet's like 5.56 from M-16 have tendency to completely break apart in human body/balistic gel.

And those certainly are not harder than any steel.

If bullet hits a large block of steel it probably has quite good chance of ricocheting, since it won't penetrate, both material's are springy to degree etc.

If it enters pool of water, it cannot bounce back, but is violently slowing down in much denser environment.

[tordirycgoyust]

I am given to understand that at supersonic speeds, one observes cavitation, a large envelope of turbulence in front and to the sides of the projectile, and that the area and shape of the cavity basically become those of the projectile for the purposes of the drag equation. This explaining things like stability issues with early supersonic airplanes and the surprisingly low water penetration of supersonic rounds vs. subsonic.

[Storm Bringer]

The thing with supersonic bullets is, that they shatter when hitting the water and each fragment has less streamlined shape, less mass, and a relatively larger surface, which slows the fragments down a lot faster than a bullet that stays in its solid streamlined form. Try throwing a paper bag and try throwing it when curled up into a ball. Same mass, but you see the huge difference it makes in the distance and speed it travels.
I think the speed of sound is actually irrelevant to all this. When I drop an apple on the floor it will just have a small dent, but when I hurl it down it will split to pieces. Slower bullets survive impact on water while faster don't do so. That this genrally matches up with subsonic and supersonic speeds is probably just coincidence. If you use a different material, you'd probably have the same effect at subsonic speeds as well.

i don't think it's a coincidence. fluid dynamics in supersonic airflow are somewhat different than those in subsonic flow. I would assume the same is true in water (though the speed of mach 1 would be different), the differing effects may be linked to the differing flow.

[Knaight]

i don't think it's a coincidence. fluid dynamics in supersonic airflow are somewhat different than those in subsonic flow. I would assume the same is true in water (though the speed of mach 1 would be different), the differing effects may be linked to the differing flow.

I'd expect to see something similar in water. That said, mach 1 in water is over 5000 km/hr, and it is far harder to propel something through water anyways - this isn't likely to come up for a while, if at all.

[GungHo]

Literally break apart? I'd read plenty of reports that say the bullets will tumble and lose any real accuracy, velocity, and penetration power. But breaking apart implies that the water was harder than steel...
"Standard" bullets aren't really that dense, nor are they made of a non-pliable material. In fact, many are designed to deform when they strike a target. A denser bullet that's designed to penetrate armor might be able to survive longer, but never seen that tested.

[Silus]

Hey, I've got a weird question regarding lightning. Figured this was a good of a place as any to ask (It's one of those things that comes to you when you're trying to sleep at 4AM).

So a campaign back, my character got knocked up. A few session later during a fight, she got blasted with lightning by the druid in the party (Intentional. Was my idea after I grappled a werewolf and shouted for the Druid to hit us). What I am wondering is if a lightning strike can terminate a pregnancy (Had to retire the character when it was clear to the party that she was knocked up).

According to Wikipedia, a lightning bolt's voltage differs on the length, with it being ~1 Megavolt per meter and 30 feet (the max range of the spell) being 9.114 meters (so 9 megavolts, which looks like "9,000,000 volts" which is at least 180 times more powerful than a police taser (50,000 volts)).

[Dervag]

Any nasty physical shock can trigger a miscarriage- a bad fall, a car accident... I'm sure a bolt of lightning could do it.

Then again, it doesn't always do that (http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/Lightning__126093919.html).

[Yora]

That would be a cool origin story for a superhero.

[Ashtagon]

Hey, I've got a weird question regarding lightning. Figured this was a good of a place as any to ask (It's one of those things that comes to you when you're trying to sleep at 4AM).

So a campaign back, my character got knocked up. A few session later during a fight, she got blasted with lightning by the druid in the party (Intentional. Was my idea after I grappled a werewolf and shouted for the Druid to hit us). What I am wondering is if a lightning strike can terminate a pregnancy (Had to retire the character when it was clear to the party that she was knocked up).

According to Wikipedia, a lightning bolt's voltage differs on the length, with it being ~1 Megavolt per meter and 30 feet (the max range of the spell) being 9.114 meters (so 9 megavolts, which looks like "9,000,000 volts" which is at least 180 times more powerful than a police taser (50,000 volts)).

According to the PHB, this baby will end up as a sorcerer with an affinity for electricity-based spells.

[gkathellar]

Hey, I've got a weird question regarding lightning. Figured this was a good of a place as any to ask (It's one of those things that comes to you when you're trying to sleep at 4AM).

So a campaign back, my character got knocked up. A few session later during a fight, she got blasted with lightning by the druid in the party (Intentional. Was my idea after I grappled a werewolf and shouted for the Druid to hit us). What I am wondering is if a lightning strike can terminate a pregnancy (Had to retire the character when it was clear to the party that she was knocked up).

According to Wikipedia, a lightning bolt's voltage differs on the length, with it being ~1 Megavolt per meter and 30 feet (the max range of the spell) being 9.114 meters (so 9 megavolts, which looks like "9,000,000 volts" which is at least 180 times more powerful than a police taser (50,000 volts)).

Getting hit directly with a lightning bolt can kill a person very easily. Lighting isn't just static electricity — the electricity ignites the air into a column of plasma which can result in severe burns on top of the very real dangers of electric shock (that's what thunder is — it's the sound of air exploding). Even if someone does survive a head-on strike, human beings are essentially electrical. They'll often have heart or muscle problems for the rest of their life, and in some cases massive electrical shocks dramatically alter brain chemistry or personality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Cicoria) in ways that are poorly understood. The woman in Dervag's link was not hit directly. If she had been, I suspect the chances of her baby surviving would have been slim to none. As it is, if the parents are smart they'll keep an eye on the kid for all kinds of potential physical problems.

Of course, in D&D lightning deals 1d8-10d8 electrical damage and is commonly hurled by spellcasters at guys who then dodge it, so uh ... real world physics may not apply.

[Yora]

The effects of electric shocks are just highly unpredictable. Lightning strikes have killed entire groups of people on occasion, at other times people went away virtually unharmed. Electricity always takes the path of least resistance. If you are hit by lightning in the head or chest and it exits through the feet, there would likely be serious damage to a pregnant womans child. But if it exists through a hand, I don't think the lower body will be directly affected by the current. The strain on the whole body may still cause complications leading to damages, but well, it's highly unpredictable.

I found this guy on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/user/JoergSprave) who builds a lot of slingshots. He's just testing different designs and shots them in his garden, but if you ever wondered how these things can actually perform, it's quite interesting.

[Fortinbras]

I know this never would have happened historically, but for the purposes of fantasy:

What specific techniques would an infantryman with a two-handed longsword be likely to employ against a Norman knight from the era of the battle of Hastings? What would he do if the man were mounted and what would he do against a dismounted knight?

Thanks

[Aux-Ash]

Hey, I've got a weird question regarding lightning. Figured this was a good of a place as any to ask (It's one of those things that comes to you when you're trying to sleep at 4AM).

So a campaign back, my character got knocked up. A few session later during a fight, she got blasted with lightning by the druid in the party (Intentional. Was my idea after I grappled a werewolf and shouted for the Druid to hit us). What I am wondering is if a lightning strike can terminate a pregnancy (Had to retire the character when it was clear to the party that she was knocked up).

According to Wikipedia, a lightning bolt's voltage differs on the length, with it being ~1 Megavolt per meter and 30 feet (the max range of the spell) being 9.114 meters (so 9 megavolts, which looks like "9,000,000 volts" which is at least 180 times more powerful than a police taser (50,000 volts)).

Any physical, mental or emotional stress can lead to the body terminating a pregnancy. What it does is essentially that it goes into premature labour, regardless if the mother and/or child is ready for it. I think it's a safety feature, when the mother suffers something that means she's unlikely to continue the pregnancy the body terminates it in an "built in" attempt to save the child and/or the mother.

So yes, a lightning strike, even a watered down one cast through a spell, can most definantely terminate a pregnancy. This might be a miscarriage, or if late in pregnancy, just giving an early birth.

Not only due to being a massive electrical danger. But also due to the amount of heat it produces and the plain mental shock of it all.

[Dervag]

If I were DMing and the question came up, I'd go with "roll a Fortitude save." I'd have to figure the DC, I guess.

Or just "save versus spell," in the editions I actually did most of my playing in... eh.

As to the Norman versus zweihander, the normal techniques for using two-handed swords against armor focus on getting the armored man down on the ground- almost a form of wrestling with the sword used to gain leverage. Once he's down you can keep him down and start probing for weak spots in the armor with daggers.

But those tactics evolved against full suits of heavy, interlocking plate. An armored man at the time of Hastings would... I would think, as a rule, be relying more on chain mail as armor protection. That would definitely change things; a mail shirt doesn't have the same types of weak spot, but on the other hand is something a sword blow could plausibly penetrate if you hit it right.

[Yora]

A strong hald-sword thrust (using the sword like a spear) would be quite nasty and probably have a good chance to break the chainmail open and slip through.

[Spiryt]

As knights at battle of Hasting would be mounted, in the first place, wrestling techniques with sword would be very limited, although wrestling dude out of his horse would be rather desirable I guess.

Anyway, from what we know longsword as such wouldn't be really good primary battlefield weapon at all, as far as tight formation and cavalry goes, especially.

15th or 16th century two hander was way more suitable for such use, although still not against cavalry, it seems.

Anyway, poor horsies would probably be most logical target, although targeting horse is always risking that rider will stab you with his lance hard.

[Yora]

Also, a horse charging at you is damn scary. And if it falls on you, it can easily kill you.

[Matthew]

Yeah, attacking the horses seems likely, similar to what the Saxons Huscarls are depicted doing with their two-handed axes.

[eulmanis12]

for the knight scenario

Stab the horse, and watch as the knight breaks his neck/back/leg/arms/other bones, when he falls off and the horse starts to panic from being stabbed. Depending on the type of sword, the chaimail in the knights armor might as well be paper for all the good it will do. Chainmail can block minor slashes but it does nothing against stabbing, piercing, or blunt force trama. An while the sword is made to stab (fine on its own), or (slash, here is the problem with chainmail) the chainmail will not protect the knight from the fact that you are still beating him with a heavy metal club.


My prefered method would be to try to panic the horse. A fall from a horse, possibly with the horse falling on top can easily kill a man reguardless of his armor.

[Yora]

Another question:
How dangerous and effective are attack dogs without human backup?

Police dogs are trained to not fataly injure people they wrestle down, but I heard of cases in which people were attacked by dogs and killed them with bare hands. What about someone in chainmail or plate? Would they be in any direct danger by attack dogs if they had other soldiers with them who could help them getting the dogs off and killed?

[Spiryt]

for the knight scenario

Stab the horse, and watch as the knight breaks his neck/back/leg/arms/other bones, when he falls off and the horse starts to panic from being stabbed. Depending on the type of sword, the chaimail in the knights armor might as well be paper for all the good it will do. Chainmail can block minor slashes but it does nothing against stabbing, piercing, or blunt force trama. An while the sword is made to stab (fine on its own), or (slash, here is the problem with chainmail) the chainmail will not protect the knight from the fact that you are still beating him with a heavy metal club.


My prefered method would be to try to panic the horse. A fall from a horse, possibly with the horse falling on top can easily kill a man reguardless of his armor.

This is all magnificently incorrect.

Mail was not "as good as paper" in any case, and even modern garage innovation known as "butted mail" stops pretty much everything that can be called sword cut.

As far as stabbing the horse goes, if this was that easy, cavarly wouldn't be so major force on the battlefields for so long.

As far as falling goes, we have innumerable accounts of knights etc. getting back multiple times after loosing their horses.

AFAIR French King Philip VI got at least few horses killed beneath him at Crecy.


Police dogs are trained to not fataly injure people they wrestle down, but I heard of cases in which people were attacked by dogs and killed them with bare hands. What about someone in chainmail or plate? Would they be in any direct danger by attack dogs if they had other soldiers with them who could help them getting the dogs off and killed?

Not really, I would say. They would have to guard unarmored places, I guess, but with safety of armor they could wait for help or actually stab/choke the dog out.

[Fortinbras]

what would one do to get around the knight's kite shield if he was dismounted?

[Spiryt]

what would one do to get around the knight's kite shield if he was dismounted?

Stab him where there's no shield? Trip him? Grapple him, grab his arm etc. so shield is not really in equation anymore?

Those may sound silly, but your question is very vague, 'what to do against' would depend on many circumstances....:smallwink:

[Traab]

Ever hit water moving at terminal velocity? Surface tension is harder than concrete, if you're moving fast enough.

No it isnt. Its still totally lethal, but the g forces are significantly lower as is the damage sustained. Mythbusters tested this pretty extensively, both at varying heights and then using a dead pig in a bag to test relative damage from terminal velocity. Pig hitting concrete had significantly more fractures, and even a decapitation, basically, the damn thing nearly exploded on impact. The pig hitting water was still instantly dead, but its injuries were also less overall. Fewer fractures, and even though its neck was broken, its head was still attached. Both had the stabilizer chutes to make them hit in the same way so its not like pig one fell face first while pig 2 hit the ground on its side. The g forces arent recorded unfortunately, because the 500 g meter they had maxxed out on concrete, (though not water) at significantly lower drop distances.

[Yora]

I think I have to rewatch this episode.

I remember the pig containment bags. There were made so the pigs could get x-rayed without unpacking them to keep things from getting too gross. :smallbiggrin:

[gkathellar]

No it isnt. Its still totally lethal, but the g forces are significantly lower as is the damage sustained. Mythbusters tested this pretty extensively, both at varying heights and then using a dead pig in a bag to test relative damage from terminal velocity. Pig hitting concrete had significantly more fractures, and even a decapitation, basically, the damn thing nearly exploded on impact. The pig hitting water was still instantly dead, but its injuries were also less overall. Fewer fractures, and even though its neck was broken, its head was still attached. Both had the stabilizer chutes to make them hit in the same way so its not like pig one fell face first while pig 2 hit the ground on its side. The g forces arent recorded unfortunately, because the 500 g meter they had maxxed out on concrete, (though not water) at significantly lower drop distances.

My understanding is that this is because the water's hardness is surface tension, and it's soft once said surface tension is disrupted. An impact with water hurts you all at the exact first moment you hit. Concrete's hardness is more constant, and therefore the impact itself is more protracted and has more of a chance to hit more of the body.

[Incanur]

Mail provided solid protection against forms of attack, though a thrust will a narrowly pointed longsword likely would get through. The only specific instructions for fighting against the shield with two-handed sword I know of come from Iberian montante tradition. Mair includes various examples of horsemen facing soldiers on foot.

[Yora]

My understanding is that this is because the water's hardness is surface tension, and it's soft once said surface tension is disrupted. An impact with water hurts you all at the exact first moment you hit. Concrete's hardness is more constant, and therefore the impact itself is more protracted and has more of a chance to hit more of the body.
Water can move to the side. It takes a bit of time, so going in slowly or jumping in feet first means that water has more time to get out of the way. What hurts you is the sudden change of speed, so when you are already moving slowly, the slowdown is so insignificant that it can hardly be felt.

Making up some numbers, your body could have a terminal velocity of 100 in air and 1 in water. The sudden change in speed from 100 to 1 hurts a lot.
If you were only going 10, then being slowed down to 1 hurts much less.
And anything would have a terminal velocity in hardened concrete of 0.

[gkathellar]

The only specific instructions for fighting against the shield with two-handed sword I know of come from Iberian montante tradition.

I've seen it attempted in a re-enactor environment. Obviously not the most skilled fighters in the universe, but not exceptionally shoddy either. It ended poorly for the guy with the two-handed sword, because the other guy was handy at getting in close and hitting him with said shield.

I expect your best bet would be to try to get the sword tangled up in the opponent's guard and try to use it as a lever, forcing them to keep their shield-side away from you or throwing them to the ground. Not much of a chance either way.

[Spiryt]

In reenactment it's really attempted regularly, at all levels of skill and athletic shape, and yeah, generally regardless of rules longsword dude is pretty screwed, because person with shield has easy time cutting off his angles, tangling his sword and attacking.

In actual armored encounter, longsword dude would most probably have easier time actually doing something with his strikes, but then again, it would have very good chance to end in wrestling/daggers anyway.

Here's one duel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MncQ5OKROc0) the thing is that longsword dude is really good in those fights, while shield guy was novice.

And one must always remember that such abstract duels would always be rare in actual battlefield, and longsword was most probably more of 'personal' weapon.

[Mike_G]

It wouldn't surprise me if US weapons typically had windage adjustments, as the US (and the UK) have not historically had the national service models, that were common on the continent. The US has been able to rely upon oceans to give it more time to train an army. So while the UK had to decrease basic training to four weeks, and simplified its rifle sights, US troops in WW1 still got months of training. Like I said in my original response, this represents a fundamentally different approach.

My suspicion is that most European military rifles, for the first half of the 20th century (Lebel, Gewehr98, Mosin, etc.) did not have windage adjustments, but I don't have that information at hand.

Kind of dredging up an old quote, but I found an aritcle on the Lebel which shows the windage adjustment for the rear sight:

http://www.rifleman.org.uk/Lebel_training_rifle.htm

And an article on correcting windage on a Swedish Mauser, by moving the front sight to the right or left.

http://pdf.textfiles.com/manuals/FIREARMS/swede_m38-m41b-m96.pdf

Here's how to adjust the sights on a Mosin:

Q. How do you adjust the sights on a Mosin Nagant?
A. Elevation is adjusted using the rear sight.If the point of impact (POI) is too low, raise the rear sight. If it is too high, lower the rear sight. If the rear sight is at the lowest setting, you will need a taller front sight. Windage is adjusted by drifting the front sight with a brass punch. Later Finnish models (M28/30 and M39) have adjustment screws on the front sight. Loosen the screw on the side which you want to move the sight towards and then tighten the screw on the opposite side the same amount. Move the front sight to the left to move the POI to the right and move it to the right to move the POI to the left.

Full text here: http://62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinFAQ.htm



Not that I think every poorly trained conscript zeroed his rifle, but technical manuals all acknowledge that any rifle from the factory should be zeroed with actual rounds fired and adjustments to the sight made. It's true that relatively flat shooting weapons could be aimed center mass from 0-400 yards, since hitting the guy at 50 yards in the head and the guy at 400 yards in the groin will both accomplish your goals, but it seems that the intent is to get the battlesight zero with a sandbag, a target and a few rounds of ammo, not just assume that our good friends wit the low government bid at Fabrique Nationale built it right.

[Incanur]

I've seen it attempted in a re-enactor environment. Obviously not the most skilled fighters in the universe, but not exceptionally shoddy either. It ended poorly for the guy with the two-handed sword, because the other guy was handy at getting in close and hitting him with said shield.

I expect your best bet would be to try to get the sword tangled up in the opponent's guard and try to use it as a lever, forcing them to keep their shield-side away from you or throwing them to the ground. Not much of a chance either way.


In reenactment it's really attempted regularly, at all levels of skill and athletic shape, and yeah, generally regardless of rules longsword dude is pretty screwed, because person with shield has easy time cutting off his angles, tangling his sword and attacking.

You have to be careful when attempting to apply modern reenactment sparring dynamics to historical combat. Period martial artists disagreed with the notion that the shield has great odds against the longsword or two-handed sword. George Silver explicitly gave the advantage to his two-hand sword (a longsword) over the sword & target (a medium-sized shield). Godinho, from the Iberian monante tradition, gave advice for fighting one, two, and even more than two shield-armed foes. He offered no indication that the montante - a rather larger weapon than Silver's two-hand sword - operated at a disadvantage versus the shield. Godinho's text suggests exactly the opposite.

In my own extremely limited experience sparring against shields with two-handed weapons, I found the typical rush invariably leaves the shield wielder's legs completely open. I don't see the technique doing much better than forcing double hits.

[Norsesmithy]

I am hesitant to ascribe any meaning to reenactment fights except what the skilled (if any) participants relate as their interpretation of how it felt to fill one role or another, because, unlike an actual duel or battlefield engagement, two reenactors are not trying to kill one another.

Speaking as a larger and stronger cousin, I do know that it is the effort not to injure the other party that makes a simulation of mayhem so difficult, especially when one would otherwise have the upper hand, but the margin is less than enormous.

As an amateur that has played with swords and things, I have to say, that while a person I don't want to kill, who is using a one handed sword and a shield, has an easier time scoring a touch when I am using a two handed sword of whatever size, I don't feel that I would be at any great disadvantage if we were in it for blood.

[fusilier]

Well, I slipped up, and just deleted my entire response, so I'll try to go through this as concisely as possible.

I was actually talking to some fellow WW1 reenactors about this just the other day.


Kind of dredging up an old quote, but I found an aritcle on the Lebel which shows the windage adjustment for the rear sight:

http://www.rifleman.org.uk/Lebel_training_rifle.htm

This appears to be a weapon for the civilian market. It uses very small calibers, like .22 and 6mm flobert.

It is not a military weapon. The French produced 3-4 million of the actual rifle between 1887 and 1904, then stopped because they didn't think they would ever need anymore (heh, little did they know!). They would not have produced a separate training weapon for their armies that used different sights.

My friend's M1886 Lebel is dated 1890, it is an excellent condition. It does not have windage adjustments, and he stated that they never did (and he is very very knowledgeable of French WW1 weapons in particular). As usual the front sight can be adjusted sideways, but only with a special tool, and any such adjustment would not be carried out by the soldier.



And an article on correcting windage on a Swedish Mauser, by moving the front sight to the right or left.

http://pdf.textfiles.com/manuals/FIREARMS/swede_m38-m41b-m96.pdf

This is slightly confusing:

If the rifle shoots of [off] aim you primarily correct it by choosing another point of aim. If the point of impact needs to be corrected, the front sight is moved sideways. . . .

Adjustment to the point of impact is to be made by an armourer only.

This sounds like the initial response to the sights being off, is to change your aiming point. However, if it is bad enough that it needs to be corrected, they specifically state that the correction is to be made by an armorer, not the soldier himself.


Here's how to adjust the sights on a Mosin:

Q. How do you adjust the sights on a Mosin Nagant?
A. Elevation is adjusted using the rear sight.If the point of impact (POI) is too low, raise the rear sight. If it is too high, lower the rear sight. If the rear sight is at the lowest setting, you will need a taller front sight. Windage is adjusted by drifting the front sight with a brass punch. Later Finnish models (M28/30 and M39) have adjustment screws on the front sight. Loosen the screw on the side which you want to move the sight towards and then tighten the screw on the opposite side the same amount. Move the front sight to the left to move the POI to the right and move it to the right to move the POI to the left.

Full text here: http://62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinFAQ.htm

These instructions are intended for a hobby shooter, who is used to be able to adjust the rifle sights. Using a brass punch to adjust the front sight's "windage", is something that would have been left to an armorer. I doubt putting on a taller front-sight would be "regulation" (and certainly isn't something an individual soldier is going to do at the firing range). It sounds like other adjustments to the rear sight, are taking advantage of the ladder like rear sight that the weapon has. The later Finnish models have a more easily adjusted front-sight, but I believe the Finnish took after the Americans to some extent in this regard.


Not that I think every poorly trained conscript zeroed his rifle, but technical manuals all acknowledge that any rifle from the factory should be zeroed with actual rounds fired and adjustments to the sight made. It's true that relatively flat shooting weapons could be aimed center mass from 0-400 yards, since hitting the guy at 50 yards in the head and the guy at 400 yards in the groin will both accomplish your goals, but it seems that the intent is to get the battlesight zero with a sandbag, a target and a few rounds of ammo, not just assume that our good friends wit the low government bid at Fabrique Nationale built it right.

Mike -- I've talked to a retired US Army Lt. Col., who teaches military history (to the army) and is also a very well studied reenactor. I've talked to a fellow WW1 reenactor who is very knowledgeable about French equipment, but has also owned and used many surplus military rifles from many nationalities, and his friend who is the president of military surplus rifle gun club, that goes to the range every weekend. Most nationalities trained their soldiers to adjust their aim, rather than adjust the sights to conform to their own particular aiming habits. If it was windy, they trained them to use "kentucky windage"(?). All the military rifles designed in the late 1800s/early 1900s were designed to be very accurate, tough, and to last a long time. They had very high standards of manufacture, sometimes surprisingly so (it is very rare to find a carcano bolt that has serial number -- their tolerances were so high that over 50 years of manufacturing by many different arsenals they are interchangeable).

I have no reason to believe that these high standards of manufacturing, were absent when the rifles were bore-sighted at the factory. However, even if the sights were discovered to be "out of whack", the rifle would be sent to an armorer to be corrected -- the individual soldier on the range wouldn't be adjusting his sights in this manner. The soldier still "zeroed" the rifle on the range, but this was done by learning how to adjust his aim, and not the sights of the weapon.

The American army used a different approach. I've heard statements like: the M1903 Springfield was a "shooting rifle", but the Mauser was a "battle rifle". That's very overstated, but I understand the intent of such a statement. At the reenactment, the US reenactor pointed out the sling on his M1903 Springfield was a "shooting sling", whereas the French and Italian rifles had "carrying slings" . . .

[Mike_G]

It's not that I doubt you, it's that marksmanship is a religion in the Marines, and I'm horrified at the thought of being issued a rifle where I couldn't adjust the sights, trusting factory boresighting.

It just runs fingernails down the chalkboard of my soul to hear that men who were expected to fight and kill and die were told "just aim a little to the left."

[gkathellar]

You have to be careful when attempting to apply modern reenactment sparring dynamics to historical combat. Period martial artists disagreed with the notion that the shield has great odds against the longsword or two-handed sword. George Silver explicitly gave the advantage to his two-hand sword (a longsword) over the sword & target (a medium-sized shield). Godinho, from the Iberian monante tradition, gave advice for fighting one, two, and even more than two shield-armed foes. He offered no indication that the montante - a rather larger weapon than Silver's two-hand sword - operated at a disadvantage versus the shield. Godinho's text suggests exactly the opposite.

In my own extremely limited experience sparring against shields with two-handed weapons, I found the typical rush invariably leaves the shield wielder's legs completely open. I don't see the technique doing much better than forcing double hits.

Right, I can buy into that. The fight I saw involved a relatively large shield and a guy big and strong enough to move it around quickly, but I expect that the smaller the shield the less of an advantage it presents, and that for many people larger shields could have become an encumbrance.

[Yora]

Here is the age old problem: Make a sword to hard and it breaks. Make it too soft and gets blunt. Is it actually possible to make materials that are both highly resistant to breaking and can hold a very sharp edge, even if it requires advanced modern technology and wouldn't be economically reasonable?
So is fictional adamantine possible, or does it defy a basic truth of physics?

[Hazzardevil]

During history, how were polearms. (The longer ones, like lances or pikes) carried when not in use? Since I don't see how you can carry one on your back or in some sort of sheathe.