Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X

[Spiryt]

Even though it's called the Fool, it's not really stupid but works quite well in certain situations. But even centuries ago, when this style was state of the art, master swordmen were very well aware how stupid it looks. :smallamused:

Well, uh....

What's exactly so stupid looking in holding your sword low, with right hand and right leg as lead, compared to say, any other stance?

As far as space suit goes, it's interesting question.

Someone would have to provide data about resistance of some suit against particular space debris, of exact velocity, mass, material etc.

In general, those meteoroids usually travel at speeds few times greater than bullets, but are also usually much, much smaller, and are not exactly great penetrators (rock instead of metal, some random porous shape instead of bullet).

So it's hard to say, but certainly impact of such debris is very, very different than the one of bullet.

The debris probably causes quite tremendous friction, being very light, with large surface, and great velocity.

[Storm Bringer]

If a space suit was strong enough to withstand direct hits from space debris, would it be effectively bulletproof? Wikipedia says that the micrometeoroids can move at relative speeds of kilometres per second, which is faster than a bullet, no?

short answer, yes, though unless it was a rigid suit, the wearer would still take impact damage even if the bullet did not penetrate.

bear in mind, though, that a bullet is designed to penetrate while a micrometeoroid is not, so it will achieve greater penetration with much less total energy.



Specifically, what would Edward I have had to do to prepare for his invasions of Scotland. Did the army do any training once it was assembled or was it assumed that all of archers and men-at-arms were ready to fight when they were called up? Who (job titles) was in charge of what?

an army commander. then and now, had to worry about the logistics of a force under his command. people of the time knew this as well as any modern general. King Edward would have had people working for him whoose job it was to buy supplies, get them to the army muster point, and then move them with the army. things like the Bayux Tapsetry make a show of the army prepareing, depicting boats full of things like horseshoes, arrows, mail shirts and swords, etc.


thier were also boats full of dried meat and fish. However, due the perishable nature of most foodstuffs, most armies were reliant on foraging (that is, stealing food off the locals). this had the benefitical side effect that an army on the march was surrounded by small parties of foragers, which could double as scouts, but ment that the army wasn't able to linger too long in any location, as the local supplies would be quickly exhuasted trying to feed tens of thousands of extra mouths. supporting a seige was a diffcult undertaking for logicistics of the time.


training wise, a major point of the feudal system was that a King did not have to worry about equipping and training all the kingdoms men, but only those of his personal household, while his lords delt with thier contingents, on which the king could call for in times of need. The lords, in turn, delegated to lower nobles, and so on down the line.

in practice, the training of a soldier really depended on how rich the leige was. Things like hunting, and particualy tourneys, were a way to practice marital skills in peacetime. Since good archery is a skill that requires decades of practice and constant training to keep up, most lords could only afford to keep a relitivly small number of archers on thier books (though an archer was much cheaper than a knight and all his gear). A poorer lord would have to make do with conscripting farmers with whatever they could arm them with.

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastilude)is a wiki page listing some of the "war games" the medieval peoples playee to hone thier skills.

[Dervag]

Well, uh....

What's exactly so stupid looking in holding your sword low, with right hand and right leg as lead, compared to say, any other stance?Because superficially, it looks like you're holding your sword in such a way that you'd never be able to defend effectively against attacks coming at you from higher angles. If I saw someone holding a sword that way, I'd expect them to get stabbed in the face in short order- which goes to show what I know, not very much. But it explains why someone would half-jokingly call it "fool's guard:" it's just crazy enough to work.


Yes. Most bullets would be peanuts against small space debris. .50 BMG is a different matter, but most bullets would be stopped very effectively.
That is, if you were able to make space suits that durable. :smallwink:Then again, optimized defenses against very very fast but lightweight projectiles aren't quite the same as a good general-purpose armor. Whipple shields (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield) are an obvious example of this- the Whipple shield is very good at turning a tiny incoming micrometeoroid into a spray of gas that will be stopped by thing metal/plastic casings, but it'd be useless against a bullet.

[cucchulainnn]

Because superficially, it looks like you're holding your sword in such a way that you'd never be able to defend effectively against attacks coming at you from higher angles. If I saw someone holding a sword that way, I'd expect them to get stabbed in the face in short order- which goes to show what I know, not very much. But it explains why someone would half-jokingly call it "fool's guard:" it's just crazy enough to work.


you're right, that is why it is called a fools guard. the intention is to sucker an inexperience fighter into attacking high. in that only an inexperienced fool would fall for it.

i personally think it is an insult to your opponent. come on chump i'm giving you an opening try taking it and see what happens, type thing. kind of like the way mohamed ali used to drop this hand to sucker and intimidate opponents or at least that is my opinion of that guard.

[Vitruviansquid]

What might a historical knight in the central middle ages have on him when he travels around alone? Take, for example, Sir Gawain in Gawain and the Green Knight - what might one visualize him carrying around the countryside? For that matter, was it common to have knights running around alone or in small groups?

As far as I can guess, someone like Gawain might have...

1. Probably a sword, both to defend himself and as a status symbol to show he's a knight. How common would it be to carry around a shield, too, if the knight in question wasn't anticipating a fight? Also, would a back-up weapon usually be necessary? Would a knight have something like a second sword, just in case?
2. Food. I'm guessing most of it would be bread and cheese, since they'd be cheap and common. Maybe he might also have some fruits, nuts, dried meats, and that sort of thing? Would the knight carry water or alcohol or both on a long-distance journey?
3. Some kind of satchel, sack, or saddlebags to store his food and other miscellany seems sensible. If the knight was on foot, how might he have held his stuff?
4. Would a traveling knight normally want to have armor on him? It seems to me like carrying around your armor would be awfully inconvenient for long-distance travel unless you were expecting a fight when you arrive. Would it be likely for a knight to carry around a part of his armor rather than the full suit? If the knight did have armor, was it also feasible/necessary to have a suit of casual clothes to change into for things like sleeping or being among company, or could the knight sleep in armor and act socially acceptable with his armor on?
5. If you had armor, you would certainly need a squire to go along with you to help you put it on. In any case, a knight would probably have a squire around anyways because it always helps to have a lackey. How many people might a knight consider necessary in his entourage? How feasible would it be to travel somewhere without a squire?
6. Would something like a bedroll have been necessary, or would most people have just slept on the ground? Would an entire tent have been considered necessary?
7. It seems much more likely than not that the knight would have a horse, but how many horses would he need? Would they be different horses for different purposes?
8. What kind of equipment might a knight need to maintain his weapons and armor? Was anything even necessary to carry around for their maintenance?

[Knaight]

What might a historical knight in the central middle ages have on him when he travels around alone? Take, for example, Sir Gawain in Gawain and the Green Knight - what might one visualize him carrying around the countryside? For that matter, was it common to have knights running around alone or in small groups?

As far as I can guess, someone like Gawain might have...

1. Probably a sword, both to defend himself and as a status symbol to show he's a knight. How common would it be to carry around a shield, too, if the knight in question wasn't anticipating a fight? Also, would a back-up weapon usually be necessary? Would a knight have something like a second sword, just in case?
2. Food. I'm guessing most of it would be bread and cheese, since they'd be cheap and common. Maybe he might also have some fruits, nuts, dried meats, and that sort of thing? Would the knight carry water or alcohol or both on a long-distance journey?
3. Some kind of satchel, sack, or saddlebags to store his food and other miscellany seems sensible. If the knight was on foot, how might he have held his stuff?
4. Would a traveling knight normally want to have armor on him? It seems to me like carrying around your armor would be awfully inconvenient for long-distance travel unless you were expecting a fight when you arrive. Would it be likely for a knight to carry around a part of his armor rather than the full suit? If the knight did have armor, was it also feasible/necessary to have a suit of casual clothes to change into for things like sleeping or being among company, or could the knight sleep in armor and act socially acceptable with his armor on?
5. If you had armor, you would certainly need a squire to go along with you to help you put it on. In any case, a knight would probably have a squire around anyways because it always helps to have a lackey. How many people might a knight consider necessary in his entourage? How feasible would it be to travel somewhere without a squire?
6. Would something like a bedroll have been necessary, or would most people have just slept on the ground? Would an entire tent have been considered necessary?
7. It seems much more likely than not that the knight would have a horse, but how many horses would he need? Would they be different horses for different purposes?
8. What kind of equipment might a knight need to maintain his weapons and armor? Was anything even necessary to carry around for their maintenance?
0. Sir Gawaine wasn't actually a historical knight, so what fits with him and what fits with historical knights is variable. Also, this is hugely, hugely dependant on era.
1. What time, what countryside? A crusader taking a long journey in a crusader state during a period of relative peace and a Carolingian knight taking a short trip are going to be armed differently. That said, the big thing here, besides era is whether the knight is really a knight in the sense of a military troop or a knight in the sense of title that isn't actually a combatant.
2. Again, this depends hugely on what they are doing. If it is a knight, alone, going on a mission for an extended periods of time while not marked with any heraldry, it is probably going to be different than something closer to a pleasure trip.
3. This one probably varies least, broadly speaking. There will be bags involved, though what exactly the bags are vary.
4. This depends on era even more than others. For instance, "part of the armor" doesn't even make much sense when applied to mail wearing knights, as most of the armor is one piece.
5. Again, this varies. You don't need a squire for mail, and plate armor can be put on without a squire in some situations. Maintenance is going to be tricky in the latter case, but there are ways to make armor easier to maintain for one person.
6. Again, this depends on the knight, what they are doing, so on and so forth. However, the key point here is that "knight" is a very vague statement as far as class goes, and some knights were absurdly rich while others really weren't. Sometimes, there are a bunch of retainers and some very large tents, sometimes there really isn't much in the way of sleeping gear.
7. Poorer knights really only had access to one horse, but very rich knights could bring a bunch of horses, suited for different things. Generally speaking though, there's no need for more than one horse per person.
8. What weapons? What armor? A sword takes very different maintenance than a poleax; mail takes very different maintenance than plate. So on and so forth.

[Vitruviansquid]

I meant how might a medieval person have imagined Sir Gawain traveling, not how might Sir Gawain have traveled.

Let's say I want to know the circumstances for a French knight from the Ile de France in 1400, a south German knight in 1000, and an Italian knight in 1500. Let's say I want to know the circumstances for all of those times and regions for if the knights in question were on the extremely rich side, the extremely poor side, and if the knights possessed a typical (mode) amount of wealth. I also want to know the differences in how these knights might travel if they were on a pleasure trip (let's say to visit a friend somewhere), if they were going to a tournament or joust, and if they were on a military campaign.

edit: But if you have a particularly good picture of a specific kind of travelling knight to provide that's specific to a place/time/whatever, I'd like to hear it along with an explanation on how that picture is limited.

[Knaight]

edit: But if you have a particularly good picture of a specific kind of travelling knight to provide that's specific to a place/time/whatever, I'd like to hear it along with an explanation on how that picture is limited.
I might have something saved involving late Polish cavalry with some decent details. It was from an earlier iteration of this thread, so if I can't find it look there.

[fusilier]

As far as food is concerned, most travellers in those places at those times probably wouldn't need to carry much food with them. The regions are sufficiently populated that food could be had at many points along the route of travel -- unless for some reason the said traveller is simply wandering off into the wilderness (which might be hard to do in Italy in 1500 -- it was a fairly densely populated place, although it wouldn't be impossible).

Historically the kinds of foods travellers would carry with them didn't change much until the last century or two. Hard breads (hard tack, ship's biscuits) usually keep pretty well. Grain can also be carried or requisitioned and be milled with a hand mill. Also there were preserved meats and hard cheeses. Certain vegetables and fruits will keep for a while, or can also preserved, but will depend upon the region. Spanish sailors, being based in the Mediterranean, consumed olives and garlic to such an extent that scurvy was almost unknown to them -- they called it the "Dutch disease". A larger force might bring a small herd of live animals for slaughter and eat "on-the-hoof", but that doesn't really fit with a knight and a small entourage. Of course, a knight wandering around the wilderness, may do some hunting to get fresh meat, if the time or opportunity permits.

As for drink -- it was very rare to drink water straight, or wine straight either. They were typically mixed, but the ratio was usually up to the imbiber's whim. Surely, if working in the fields, or running around on a hot day, a little bit of wine in your water would probably serve better than the reverse. I'm not sure about beer an ales during that period. Some old beers were actually quite weak, more like "near beer", and might have served as a decent way to get necessary hydration. Stronger ones may have been mixed with water?

The cork was yet to be introduced to wine making. So once the wine came out of the barrel, it had to be consumed fairly quickly before it turned to vinegar. It would probably last long enough for a decent trip in a wine skin, or an amphora of some sort. Even if it started to turn to vinegar it could probably be watered down to the point that it was acceptable to drink, and would still kill bacteria. In some places vinegar was (and is) considered to be a fine drink on it's own, mixed with water.

Most of the areas you describe, are probably wet enough that they wouldn't need to carry water with them to drink. Although for convenience, some skins or flasks may be carried.

The Italian knight would certainly have carried wine; the French Knight probably would have had wine; the German one is more likely to have carried beer.

I'm not exactly sure how beer would be carried: once out of the barrel it would go flat, but I don't know how quickly it might spoil in a skin or flask. A "near beer" may hold up better. Liquors might also have been carried (later British sailors would drink "grog" a mixture of rum and water).

Good luck with your question, I'm always curious about what travellers brought with them, and especially what kinds of foods they ate.

[Storm Bringer]

as has been said, pure water was very rarely drunk in those time periods, due to the risk of catching something, and the lack of decent fliters to clean dirty water with (seriously, try taking a glass down to the nearest natural water supply to you, like a river or pond, and filling it up. it will be full of random crap that you don't really want to drink).

most people prefered to drink a very weak beer or wine (often only 1% ABV), since the booze would kill most of the stuff livng in the water. I am under the impression that this weak beer was even given to children, form pretty much the point they stopped drinking milk, becuase it was safer than plain water was.




1. Probably a sword, both to defend himself and as a status symbol to show he's a knight. How common would it be to carry around a shield, too, if the knight in question wasn't anticipating a fight? Also, would a back-up weapon usually be necessary? Would a knight have something like a second sword, just in case?


A knigh'ts sword WAS his "back up" weapon, as his "primary" weapon was his lance. like the samuari, the sword as used when the primary weapon could not be used for whatever reason.

that said, most people would have a knife of some sort with them, for all those little things you need a knife for.




4. Would a traveling knight normally want to have armor on him? It seems to me like carrying around your armor would be awfully inconvenient for long-distance travel unless you were expecting a fight when you arrive. Would it be likely for a knight to carry around a part of his armor rather than the full suit? If the knight did have armor, was it also feasible/necessary to have a suit of casual clothes to change into for things like sleeping or being among company, or could the knight sleep in armor and act socially acceptable with his armor on?
5. If you had armor, you would certainly need a squire to go along with you to help you put it on. In any case, a knight would probably have a squire around anyways because it always helps to have a lackey. How many people might a knight consider necessary in his entourage? How feasible would it be to travel somewhere without a squire?


Armour is, and always has been, a pain to wear. it's heavy, it restricts your breathing and makes you tire faster, and it's uncomfortable, even when its perfectly fitted. While a knight trained form his tennage years would have been perfectly able to spend all day in his armour, he would only want to do so if he honestly thought he would need it. Forr examle, a lot of the viking troops at the Battle of Stanford bridge, thinking the Saxon army was several days march away, had left thier armour in the baggage train, and were forced to fight with just thier sheilds to protect them. A knight in "safe" country would be in plain clothes, or possibly just his gambeson (a padded garment worn under most armours to protect agianst crushing blows and pad the wearer).

as for sleeping in armour, it can be done, but without a good reason, you would not want to do it.

with the socially acceptability of wearing armour, i'm not sure. i think it would depend on the context. the closest reference i can think of is "when would it be socially acceptable for a modern day soldier to be wearing either his full dress uniform or his full combat uniform?", since a knight wearing his armour in a social setting would be emphasising his status as a warrior.

[Yora]

as has been said, pure water was very rarely drunk in those time periods, due to the risk of catching something, and the lack of decent fliters to clean dirty water with (seriously, try taking a glass down to the nearest natural water supply to you, like a river or pond, and filling it up. it will be full of random crap that you don't really want to drink).

most people prefered to drink a very weak beer or wine (often only 1% ABV), since the booze would kill most of the stuff livng in the water. I am under the impression that this weak beer was even given to children, form pretty much the point they stopped drinking milk, becuase it was safer than plain water was.
I think the major health factor of beers was the fact that it was boiled while being made. But at that time nobody new that it was the boiling that did the trick, only that water makes you sick while beer doesn't.

A knigh'ts sword WAS his "back up" weapon, as his "primary" weapon was his lance. like the samuari, the sword as used when the primary weapon could not be used for whatever reason.
One very good reason was to be at home or taking a stroll through the village. You don't want to carry a spear or a bow with you all the time, but a sword tucked into the belt doesn't get into the way much. Given that swords were rather expensive and peasant soldiers could not afford them, you automatically got a quite reliable way to identify noble warriors by them, even when not wearing armor. From there is't a very simple step to codify it in the unspoken rule that for example a samurai must have the sword to be properly dressed and from there the written law that anyone else is forbidden from doing so.

I'm not sure if the sword became part of the dress code in Europe at any time. I have a hunch that probably Italians would have something similar, but then the major italian cities were Republics and I'm not sure there even were any nobles.

[Vitruviansquid]

It strikes me that a knight would definitely want a few lances on the battlefield, but would it have been necessary if he was going on a pleasure trip?

Lances would probably have been annoying to carry around, seeing as they're big, long, and probably had to be carried in your hand all the time whereas a sword could just be put in your belt.

At the same time, would a sword really have been such a huge disadvantage over a spear in a small fight? I imagine spears dominated big battles because of their ability to be used in mass formations, but if a small group of less than ten people (say a single knight and his entourage) are attacked on the road, it would either not be a big battle in which a spear wall or cavalry charge would be relevant or the attackers would have such overwhelming numerical advantage it'd be pointless to resist no matter what weapon the knight had.

I remember reading an edict from Frederick Barbarossa prohibiting non-knights from carrying swords, with the exception of traveling merchants for the explicit reason that they had to defend themselves. I doubt the law would have this exception unless medieval people recognized that swords were an effective weapon for self-defense. I'm no historian, so if someone would like to review the source and see whether it's credible or if I'm drawing the right conclusions, that'd be nice... as soon as I re-locate it. >_>

[Spiryt]

If knight was visibly wealthy one, he would travel with retinue of pages, serfs, and other people, so he wouldn't have to worry about carrying all his stuff at all.

And lance, apart from being always dreadful weapon from horseback, would also be good heraldic/show off accessory with flags on the top etc.

Especially, while he was, for example, traveling to take part in some big tourney, when showing off was pretty much basic idea. :smallbiggrin:

Poor knight, on the other hand, could have quite often find himself in such retinue as one of follower, so in such case being armed and ready would be simply obligation to his liege in such situation, as guard, entourage etc. where one should present himself well too.

So it all depends on context, really.

[Matthew]

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is a very interesting poem, because it is very detailed and does present a relatively realistic, if idealised, view of a medieval landscape. The fact that he travels alone and armoured is particularly notable, but he is not the only "hero type" to be portrayed in this way. The self sufficient warrior may be a fictional notion, or it might have been possible, hard to say. As the others mention above, though, much more likely is for a knight to travel in groups, it is just safer that way for one thing.

[Mercenary]

Very interesting discussions in this thread.

I have a question concerning the future of unmanned vehicles in warfare. UAV's are perceived as a military success in Afghanistan, and that trend will probably continue.
But what about ground based, unmanned, remotely operated vehicles? It's a well known military maxim that you need boots on the ground to occupy territory, and that means infantry. But could unmanned ground vehicles support or replace standard troops, especially supported by UAV's?

You don't need to worry about casualties and the morale of troops and people back home and it might even be cheaper than normal infantry – though I have no idea of the costs and logistics of unmanned vehicles compared to human soldiers.

So do you think unmanned ground vehicles will be a factor in warfare and perhaps even replace the 19-year old kid with a rifle?

[Raum]

So do you think unmanned ground vehicles will be a factor in warfare...They already are. They're used for everything from bomb disposal to surveillance now and have transport and extended surveillance vehicles in testing...possibly in limited production.


...and perhaps even replace the 19-year old kid with a rifle?No, drones can't do everything. Need someone who can relate to civilians, make decisions, and even jump to the occasional assumption. Need people to deal with the complexity of cities and large populations. Boots on the ground will always be a requirement to conquer and hold territory.

[Yora]

Robots really only work for surveilance and fire support. (And yes, for poking strange things that nobody else wants to poke.) And that job they actually do very efficiently because machines can ignore many of needs of human opperators. If it's remote controlled, you can simply switch the opperator without having to get the robot back to base.

But the reason you need people on the ground is because there's a lot of things to do which are not pointing a cammera or making something explode.
As of now, robots have very severe limitations in regard to reliable mobility. On clean pavement or even solid concrete stairs they work fine. But the whole point is that you have to get them into situation where there is going to be lots of rubble and other obstructions. And quite often you want to avoid blasting a clear path through whatever is in your way and inside just climb over something ore carefully move it out of the way. Robots might eventually get there, but that would still be many decades in the future.

And even more importantly, you need people to interact with the locals, with conventional battlefield out in wide open spaces disappearing. You can't do that with robots.

What I would expect is to see unit sizes getting smaller in number and replace the removed soldiers with some kinds of heavy duty firepower robots. Instead of having a group of 8 soldiers doing a patrol or whatever, you have 4 soldiers and two 2,5 meter combat robots. If you need firepower and keeping your head low, you let the robots take the brunt of the work and while you're guarding, on patrol, or scouting, they just follow behind letting the soldiers deal with the talking and deciding on a course of action.

[Storm Bringer]

One very good reason was to be at home or taking a stroll through the village. You don't want to carry a spear or a bow with you all the time, but a sword tucked into the belt doesn't get into the way much. Given that swords were rather expensive and peasant soldiers could not afford them, you automatically got a quite reliable way to identify noble warriors by them, even when not wearing armor. From there is't a very simple step to codify it in the unspoken rule that for example a samurai must have the sword to be properly dressed and from there the written law that anyone else is forbidden from doing so.

I'm not sure if the sword became part of the dress code in Europe at any time. I have a hunch that probably Italians would have something similar, but then the major italian cities were Republics and I'm not sure there even were any nobles.


it was considered normal for a gentleman to carry a sword right up to the napoleonic era, and most modern officers still have swords for thier dress uniforms.

[Galloglaich]

They new boiling made water safer. Galen, Hyppocrites and Avicenna all recommended boiling surgical instruments, and the works of these three men were the basis of virtually all the medical schools in Europe from 1100 - 1500 AD. They didn't really know why it made anything safer, but that is a different matter entirely. They didn't know why the Sun rose in the morning but they could plan their day around it.

They drank a lot of beer, not all of it watered down.. It was one of the most important export commodities in at least 100 cities.

I agree with everyone else who pointed out that the lance, not the sword, is the primary weapon of the knight. The sword is very important nevertheless, because the lance as effective as it is is also very limited situationally and very often breaks. But the sword has historically almost never been a 'primary' weapon. One of the most consistently irritating things in historical or fantasy films portraying 'knights', from Gondor dudes in LOTR to Crusaders in Kingdom of Heaven, is that they basically never have lances, which is really ridiculous. Even more riduclous than the fake looking swords and (always helmetless) armor they make them wear.

I also agree with the point that wearing armor then was like wearing body armor today, it was considered somewhat alarming depending on the circumstances.

Normally a knight would travel with a minimum of 3 attendents, 2 armed and partly armored supporters, one possibly with a crossbow, at least one other a demi-lancer, and one valet or 'valetti' to carry stuff and bring weapons forward, and lead the pack animals. The knight would also often have at least two or three horses.

As Spiryt mentioned some knights such as ministeriales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministeriales) might not actually have anything of their own, but this is where the slipppery definition of what a knight is. To have the legal rights of a knight, by the late Medieval period (1350-1500) usually meant being a member of the gentry or the upper eschelons of town citizenry (burghers). Other heavy cavarly in that period also included so called sergeants, who were armed and equipped by some other sponsor, and also "Brother Knights" of military orders who technically didn't own anything, squires who were actually much closer to being knights than usually depicted in pop culture, but were a bit poorer, and other types of "men at arms". In the earlier Medieval period you had many more poor knights who might actually be from the serf class.

As for supplies, it's true they did have taverns, pubs, inns, and hotels all over the place, as well as abbeys and castles and other places to stay and buy (or be given) food, which would be the normal place that travellers of any kind would get food. But there were also a lot of wilderness zones in many parts of Europe and groups of men expecting trouble in particular did actually bring supplies with them. This might you help get a sense of what that actually means, it is the supply train for a small force from the town of Regensberg in the late Medieval period in Germany (from the Osprey Military book German Medieval Armies:

The small army from Regensburg on campaign in 1431, consisted of 73 knights, 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 7 “kilderkins” of Austrian wine, and 138 “kilderkins” of beer. The total cost of this campaign was 838 guilders.

This group later merged with about 1000 mercenary infantry, so seeing as the army was from a town, it may have been carrying a little bit extra in supplies and support personnel than was typical for that amount of men. But it gives you some idea of the kind of stuff they carried.

G

[Ashtagon]

Regarding realistic knights:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZrE1mVcB2k

[Matthew]

Painful to watch that, but television history almost always is. Maybe the whole thing is better.

[Knaight]

I agree with everyone else who pointed out that the lance, not the sword, is the primary weapon of the knight. The sword is very important nevertheless, because the lance as effective as it is is also very limited situationally and very often breaks. But the sword has historically almost never been a 'primary' weapon.
The thing is, the situation being assumed here is a single fictional traveling knight with some sort of probably small retinue as imagined at the time. Lances as weapons are much more useful when you have supply trains full of them, and your lance charge is backed by a whole bunch of people next to you. One person, traveling alone has less use of a lance, and within that specific context the sword makes a lot of sense. It certainly upends assumptions made based on armies. Moreover, the sword's exaggerated role in fiction is actually relevant to how a fictional character at the time would be pictured.

The point is, the huge role of lances in an army setting is really of questionable pertinence. What would support this is lances described in period writings about knights, which largely means poetry and the occasional romance, with early novels at the late medieval period. That still supports lances fairly strongly, given the prevalence of representations of Pas d'armes in later works that strongly resembled jousting.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Would this be the thread to ask how a specific real-world weapon would be statted for a game? I'd like to make a Pathfinder character who specializes in this weapon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swordstaff

I'm not sure whether it'd count as a Piercing or Slashing weapon or both, whether it'd have reach or not and most importantly, what damage it'd have, etc.

[Spiryt]

What game though? That would matter here.

For D&D 3.5, I would probably give it ranseur stats, or maybe glaive...

It's not very important, really those particular rules' are very abstract.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

What game though? That would matter here.

For D&D 3.5, I would probably give it ranseur stats, or maybe glaive...

It's not very important, really those particular rules' are very abstract.

Pathfinder, as I said.

[Spiryt]

Lol, one day I will be able to pay attention, I guess.

Anyway, PF has nice set of stats as "Bill" for it - reach and brace are obvious, disarm usually means some kind of portrudes to bind/control opposing weapons in D&D.

[Ashtagon]

Would this be the thread to ask how a specific real-world weapon would be statted for a game? I'd like to make a Pathfinder character who specializes in this weapon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swordstaff

I'm not sure whether it'd count as a Piercing or Slashing weapon or both, whether it'd have reach or not and most importantly, what damage it'd have, etc.

The description sounds like a good description of the Japanese naginata. Rules for that weapon exist in 3.0e Oriental Adventures, and probably other places too. The glaive is also a close stand-in for game stat purposes.

[Spiryt]

As far as I understand, some kind of bar, or other guard that resembled that of 'normal' cruciform sword was crucial characteristic of those.

Here some sources and one pretty reconstruction (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=1248)

So Bill's stats from PF seem that they could fit very well, with disarm bonus and additional defense.

It also seems pretty much way better than glaive, people who had written those weapons for PF quite apparently didn't agree on what should be power level of similar martial weapons. :smallconfused:

[Galloglaich]

The thing is, the situation being assumed here is a single fictional traveling knight with some sort of probably small retinue as imagined at the time. Lances as weapons are much more useful when you have supply trains full of them, and your lance charge is backed by a whole bunch of people next to you. One person, traveling alone has less use of a lance, and within that specific context the sword makes a lot of sense. It certainly upends assumptions made based on armies. Moreover, the sword's exaggerated role in fiction is actually relevant to how a fictional character at the time would be pictured.

The point is, the huge role of lances in an army setting is really of questionable pertinence. What would support this is lances described in period writings about knights, which largely means poetry and the occasional romance, with early novels at the late medieval period. That still supports lances fairly strongly, given the prevalence of representations of Pas d'armes in later works that strongly resembled jousting.


As you yourself noted, the stories, novels, songs, and artwork of the late medieval period are full of depictions of knights with their lance. The lance is the primary weapon of the knight, both individually and in formation. It's use is not limited to formations.

from the East
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8e/Peresv_b.jpg/800px-Peresv_b.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Vastnetsov_1914.jpg/711px-Vastnetsov_1914.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/19-v_2h_Vasnetsov.jpg/800px-19-v_2h_Vasnetsov.jpg


to the West

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Armand-point-st-george-and-dragon.jpg/489px-Armand-point-st-george-and-dragon.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/Franz_Pforr_-_St_George_and_the_Dragon_-_WGA17399.jpg/455px-Franz_Pforr_-_St_George_and_the_Dragon_-_WGA17399.jpg

Here you see the value of the sword (or falchion), note the lance has broken into several pieces after stabbing the dragon, so he must be finished with the blade

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Raffaello_Sanzio_-_St_George_Fighting_the_Dragon_-_WGA18634.jpg/516px-Raffaello_Sanzio_-_St_George_Fighting_the_Dragon_-_WGA18634.jpg

And in the center
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/St_George_and_the_Dragon-altar_wing-NG-Praha.jpg/349px-St_George_and_the_Dragon-altar_wing-NG-Praha.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Albrecht_D%C3%BCrer_-_Knight%2C_Death_and_the_Devil_-_WGA7315.jpg/458px-Albrecht_D%C3%BCrer_-_Knight%2C_Death_and_the_Devil_-_WGA7315.jpg

(The flagpole here is a lance)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Albrecht_Duerer-_Paumgartner_Altar_-_right_wing.JPG/224px-Albrecht_Duerer-_Paumgartner_Altar_-_right_wing.JPG

People in period knew very well that the lance was the primary weapon of the knight, it was closely linked in all the iconography. The sword was the personal weapon of the knight, almost equally important. But not every knight carried a sword - every knight carried a lance, at least until pistols became available.

For some reason in more modern times the idea of the lance has fallen out of favor. Modern audiences of fantasy or 'historical' fiction can't relate to it somehow. Maybe because there wasn't a lot of cavalry in DnD, I'm not sure. The point of having some other primary weapon than the sword is to attack first. Really important, that first attack! Other primary weapons would be a bow, for example, mostly in the East.


On a tangentally related note, (I hope it's ok to post here) for those interested in more realistic combat in games,

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/260688528/clang

G

[Knaight]

As you yourself noted, the stories, novels, songs, and artwork of the late medieval period are full of depictions of knights with their lance. The lance is the primary weapon of the knight, both individually and in formation. It's use is not limited to formations.
My point is just that the rationale provided wasn't very applicable, not that the conclusions drawn were wrong. As for formations, the main point there is that armies are better able to replace broken lances than some guy going through the wilderness with a tiny retinue.

[Daosus]

Well, there are a couple important things to remember. First, even if the lance were not the best possible weapon for individual combat (that's probably some sort of infantry polearm) when traveling, it is what the knight trained with, and what he has on hand. Second, in small scale combat, lances are much less likely to be broken because you are not going to use them to charge with. More likely, you would use them as a spear to gain reach. Napoleonic lancers, for example, were feared by infantry because the lance could reach all the way down to the ground, so you could not save yourself by dropping low.

Also, combat lances are much lighter than tourney lances, and can be carried in one hand with no problem. For maintaining readiness for long periods of time, they can be rested against the right side stirrup.

[Galloglaich]

Yeah but the point is, (pun intended!) you still want to be able to get in that first attack ... first, if you can. You wouldn't want to run into a guy with a lance if all you had was a sword.. I mean Robert the Bruce killed a guy with an axe once who was charging him with his lance, but there is a reason that story is so famous!

G

[Maclav]

Some old beers were actually quite weak, more like "near beer", and might have served as a decent way to get necessary hydration. Stronger ones may have been mixed with water?

I'm not exactly sure how beer would be carried: once out of the barrel it would go flat, but I don't know how quickly it might spoil in a skin or flask. A "near beer" may hold up better.



most people prefered to drink a very weak beer or wine (often only 1% ABV), since the booze would kill most of the stuff livng in the water. I am under the impression that this weak beer was even given to children, form pretty much the point they stopped drinking milk, becuase it was safer than plain water was.


As both a history buff and a home brewer, I have done quite a bit of research into beer, particularly in the medieval time. Beer history is actually really interesting from 11-16th c. with massive changes in production and ingredients.

Starting around 11c, the term beer did not exist. Everything was called ale (which has a different meaning from the modern term - we now call this gruit or gruit ale.) Anyway, this ale was typically made by the women as part of her household duties. A mash of the local grains, malted and dried in a draft kiln over a fire of straw, peat or hardwood.

Commonly 3 beers were made from each mash. First a thick, dark ale would be drawn off the grist by lauttering the strike water and the mash out water into the kettle. This "first running" would be boiled with various herbs (Myrica gale, Yarrow and Marsh rosemary commonly) and would create an ale in and around 8% abv with heavy amounts of herbs, a strong smoke flavour and a great deal of bitterness. This ale would be inoculated with the frothy karuzen (yeast foam) of the previous batch, and cellared to be drunk on special occasional. It would age very well, and would last at cellar temperatures in barrels for a long period. Eventually it would pick up some wild yeasts (brett) from the barrel and over time develop a "hose blanket" flavour which at some point after the introduction of hops was to become known as a porter. It was served completely flat or sparkled with a hand pump at serving time.

A second addition of water would be added to the grist, called a sparge. This would be drawn off and added to the dregs in the kettle from the first running. This second running would create an ale of around 4% abv. This ale would be fermented in about a week and then casked with a small portion of new second running. This very light carbonation would last a few weeks until the cask was opened and would spoil in 4-5 weeks due to mould, lactic or acobacter infections. It would be drunk with meals by the men of the house.

A third running was then taken, boiled briefly and consumed immediately. It would undergo a lacto fermentation over the next few days resulting in a table ale/water drink that started off a "sweet wort" then would develop something in the nature of 1-2% abv and/or a tart/tangy taste. This table beer would be unpalatable due to mould after a week, two on the outside. This table beer would be consumed by everyone as if it were water.


Over the medieval period hops started to replace the gruit herb mixtures across Europe and the term beer was coined to mean "ale with hops". Eventually hops were forced though via laws such as the reinheitsgebot because hops are a superior preserving agent and allowed this "beer" to be stored, where housed and shipped. There is some evidence that this transition to hops was part of the Protestant movement (hops inhibit sexual function, lower sex drive and induce drowsiness where gruit herbs are largely narcotic in nature), joined by large merchant guilds to break the Catholic hold on the gruit herbs mixes, but that is fodder for another post.

[Autolykos]

Very interesting. But as far as I know, one of the main reasons for the Reinheitsgebot was only allowing barley for brewing, so that more valuable grains (wheat and rye) could be reserved for baking bread. Or is this just a rumor?

[Maclav]

Very interesting. But as far as I know, one of the main reasons for the Reinheitsgebot was only allowing barley for brewing, so that more valuable grains (wheat and rye) could be reserved for baking bread. Or is this just a rumor?

That particular law did prevent competition with bakers over wheat and rye which kept the price of bread down. There were other laws and royal edicts all over Europe in a similar vein which are more specific to the outlawing of gruit herbs without mention to the grains used. But this all has nothing to do with weapons or armour. :)

[Yora]

If you had advanced steel to work with, could you make a kopis with a narrower blade, more like a scimitar?
Or would that be too light to use effectively?

[Yukitsu]

I'd imagine that if you found the blade too light, you could always make the weapon longer. In general though, a slashing and thrusting weapon that isn't designed to puncture armour doesn't require much mass to effectively kill or maim an enemy.

[Spiryt]

If you had advanced steel to work with, could you make a kopis with a narrower blade, more like a scimitar?
Or would that be too light to use effectively?

Of course you can, and plenty of kopis/falcata apparently had pretty narrow blade compared to most of "typical" ones.

Making it more narrow also in no way forces it to be lighter, either, as there are still two more dimensions to work with. :smallbiggrin:

Cross-section, and general thickness distribution, will be as always most important.

Most antique falcata I've seen anyway had pretty elaborate fuller/groove work near the spine or even up to the middle of the blade - which certainly reduced the weight quite a lot

[Yora]

I actually quite like these weapons and was wondering if they could make a good common secondary weapon to spears in an environment in which maile and lamellar is rare and plate nonexisting.

http://www.council-of-elrond.com/castdb/legolas/legolas8.jpg
A slim kopis appears to be the closest thing to this that was actually used effectively.

[Spiryt]

I'm pretty sure that those Legolas sticks were pretty much knives/ daggers?

At least funky little book of movie weaponry states them at 16 inches blades, which is kind of "in between".

Look more sica daggers or similar antic stuff.

Anyway, seaxes and all kind of other war knives of that size were most certainly used as secondary weapons, so something like that could be quite sensible, depending on construction.

I'm not sure if rapid rise of curvature on tip of pretty narrow blade makes much sense though.

Are they supposed to have two edges, or just one on convex side?

[Yora]

What I have in mind would be a weapon about 60 cm in full length, single edge, a slight s-curve on the edge, and a slightly upward pointing tip. To be used when two-handed spears, glaives, or halberds can no longer be used for some reason.

When it comes to size, I do like the proportions of these entirely not historically accurate blades:
http://i1109.photobucket.com/albums/h427/jhossom/Knives/AmericanKopisBB.jpg

http://www.lmpenterprises.co.uk/ekmps/shops/pearl/images/curved-machete-blade.jpg

http://pingfmmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/img/Bpt4fQsD/YRq4posPDBS5pLfE.jpg
The first one is really quite close to the image I have in mind regarding proportions and blade shape.

To give polearms the attention they deserve, I want swords to move into the background. But apparently they were very common even quite early on, so instead of just making them rare, I want to make them backup weapons and sidearms. A gladius probably would do the job perfectly! But it just looks completely european to the untrained eye. A kopis looks more exotic (even though it really isn't), but most I've seen on pictures look really quite broad and heavy.
Basically I was wondering if drawing a kopis with a narrower and less curvy blade would still show a weapon that could have existed, or if the physics just can not work. For chopping you probably need the heavy tip to get a good swing. For slashing like a sabre, the double-curve might possibly be more of a hinderance. And for stabbing an upward or downward pointing tip might not work well.
Not sure if any of these are really actual problems, but if two or all three types of attack wouldn't really work with such a weapon, then it's highly unlikely that anyone would ever develop it, when other blade shapes are just plain better.

[Spiryt]

Well, this is all getting into 'fictional setting WorA", but:

Swords were anyway mostly backup weapons in larger scale combat.

While gladius, funnily enough, was not, it was pretty much primary weapon in close combat, actually, such was the Roman conception. :smallwink:

As mentioned, kopis, falcata and machairas weren't really usually heavy, they were pretty much conserving the 'normal' amount of metal for weapons that size, just put into broad and bold blade at the main striking part.
While this one part of the blade could be very broad indeed, it was also short and thin, so weight of ~ 2 pounds, like most Mediterranean swords of the period would be usual.

Here is pretty good thread about actual examples (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2729&highlight=kopis)

As for 'working' is certainly would work, just differently than more 'standard' blade.

Daggers with curved tips were used quite often here and there, not sure what could be the reason for such curve.

Thrust would track and hit very differently, obviously.

[Yora]

Well, I'm mainly interested in the physics of existing s-curved swords to understand why there were made as they were made, so I can spot shapes that are obviously plain nonsense.

But I think so far it looks that my idea is reasonably close enough to actual examples that people considered to be worth taking into battle. :smallbiggrin:
But it seems that what I assumed to be a typical falcata shape (http://www.armurias.com/contents/media/falcata_sword.jpg) is really at the upper end of how broad and apparently bulky these weapons were made. Is there a special reason to make the blades this heavy in some swords while most examples of original are actually considerably more slender? Or is it just replica makers going for the most imposing size they can get away with?

[Yukitsu]

I think making a thin, light sword that's both tough and sharp is more expensive and difficult than just sharpening up a chunk of pig iron. Making a replica that's light and thin without the quality steel, you'll probably end up with something that's too fragile, and everyone swings around replicas a little even if they shouldn't.

Speaking from experience, a heavy blade is also easier to chop with, so perhaps some swords designed for utility in dense foliage in addition to combat may exist.

[Spiryt]

This 'replica' costs 60 E, is probably from stainless steel, we can rather safely assume that it doesn't have any authenticity to speak of.

Mostly some kind of sword that holds shape similar to the 'falcata'.



and apparently bulky these weapons were made. Is there a special reason to make the blades this heavy in some swords while most examples of original are actually considerably more slender

But how do you know they're heavy?? That shop doesn't leave any data...

But it's probably heavy indeed, overbuilt like most cheap reconstructions today.


I think making a thin, light sword that's both tough and sharp is more expensive and difficult than just sharpening up a chunk of pig iron.

I seriously doubt that anyone would ever make a sword out of pig iron, it's just doesn't have sense.... It's base product to make actual steel, and apparently wasn't even well known and used in Europe trough most of the medieval.

[Yukitsu]

I was more talking about making a replica out of it, not making a functional sword out of it. They aren't really going to go over all the high work, high difficulty parts of the process to get it to a high quality steel during the forging. Most replicas out there are brittle enough I could snap them on my knee.

[Spiryt]

Because they're mostly made from easily available commercially stainless steel, that's indeed prone to snap if formed in longer blades.

That aside from actual geometry and design issues, that those are also obviously incorrect.

[GraaEminense]

What I have in mind would be a weapon about 60 cm in full length, single edge, a slight s-curve on the edge, and a slightly upward pointing tip. To be used when two-handed spears, glaives, or halberds can no longer be used for some reason.
A warknife of 60-70 cm total length is pretty much the perfect back-up weapon for polearms.

They are long enough and heavy enough to be able to compete with "proper" swords at sword-range (though with some handicap), short enough to draw easily even when pressed (you don't want to have to reach across your body in that situation, you draw from a near-horizontal sheath across your back or lower belly, or straight up in the Roman style), short enough to work well in the close press of bodies and, in extremis, well enough for grappling and not least, the heavy stabby slashy blade gives a good choice of attack options.

The exact style is not important: gladius, kopis, long dagger, short sword -they do pretty much the same job. I do quite a bit of reenactment fighting focusing on polearms, and not quite coincidentially I carry one much like this:
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQinAJqmn3r9QaOwm931HYUtCHZnzfXR tVqN_iv2P5lVDnOVOFxEuY9ylkN

[Galloglaich]

They did make longer, thinner versions of the kopis / falcata family in later centuries, notably in Central Asia, especially Ottoman Turkey and India, which were probably evolved from the original kopis family.

This is the yataghan, it's basically a slim kopis with a funny grip (which is due to using it on horseback). It was one of the primary weapons of the Ottoman Empire.

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

http://www.mdc.hr/krizevci/images/foto-oruz-1.jpg

http://www.oriental-arms.com/photos/items/61/003061/ph-0.jpg

This is a Sosun Pata, an Indian weapon

http://www.oriental-arms.com/photos/items/34/001734/ph-0.jpg

http://www.oriental-arms.com/photos/items/28/001928/ph-0.jpg

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg139/scaled.php?server=139&filename=000101zc1.jpg

Actually it's a whole family of kopis-like swords, some wonderfully slim, others more beefy.

The very elegant South-East Asian (Burmese and Thai) Dha family of swords also includes some inward-curving examples.

http://dharesearch.bowditch.us/DecorationFrame1Source1_files/image034.jpg

You can also go much further back in time to the falx / rhomphia family of weapons used by the Thracians and Illyrians, which are also kopis-like but are often two-handed.

As for the quality of the steel, the steel they were using back then (notably wootz) was generally superior to anything they can make swords out of today, so I wouldn't worry about that. But modern high carbon steel is also certainly plenty good enough to make these.


One quibble about the gladius; I still think it was a secondary weapon because the pilum (javelin) was the primary. This follows the typical pattern with swords. The primary may either be a long melee weapon (spear or polearm) or a missile (javelin, bow, crossbow, gun) the sword is the secondary. The critical importance of the secondary weapon is indicated by how ubiquitous it was... once the primary weapon became effective and / or dual purpose enough (i.e. a bayonetted musket) the sword becomes delegated to officers.


G

[Ashtagon]

One quibble about the gladius; I still think it was a secondary weapon because the pilum (javelin) was the primary. This follows the typical pattern with swords. The primary may either be a long melee weapon (spear or polearm) or a missile (javelin, bow, crossbow, gun) the sword is the secondary. The critical importance of the secondary weapon is indicated by how ubiquitous it was... once the primary weapon became effective and / or dual purpose enough (i.e. a bayonetted musket) the sword becomes delegated to officers.

I'm confused. Your argument seems to be saying the Roman gladius was a secondary weapon because a thousand years after the empire fell, bayonetted muskets were the weapon of choice by Europeans who were not Romans.

[Spiryt]

One quibble about the gladius; I still think it was a secondary weapon because the pilum (javelin) was the primary. This follows the typical pattern with swords. The primary may either be a long melee weapon (spear or polearm) or a missile (javelin, bow, crossbow, gun) the sword is the secondary. The critical importance of the secondary weapon is indicated by how ubiquitous it was... once the primary weapon became effective and / or dual purpose enough (i.e. a bayonetted musket) the sword becomes delegated to officers.

G

That's why I wrote "close combat". :smallwink:

Pilum was after all probably used in melee only in great emergency.

Primeness of pilum is interesting question anyway, I would guess that it would greatly depend on circumstances.
Facing phalanx, especially on hash terrain, continuous shower of pila would be very good, while skirmishers in loose group would be rather needed to engaged/driven away quickly.

[Storm Bringer]

I'm confused. Your argument seems to be saying the Roman gladius was a secondary weapon because a thousand years after the empire fell, bayonetted muskets were the weapon of choice by Europeans who were not Romans.

not quite. His arguement is that the "primary weapon+ sword" set up lasted until the introduction of bayonets, at which point the musket with bayonet made the secondary sword redundant, and it was dropped form most troops equipment.

[Yora]

But I think many armies used dagger-bayonets that had a grip to be used as a combat knife.

This is the yataghan, it's basically a slim kopis with a funny grip (which is due to using it on horseback). It was one of the primary weapons of the Ottoman Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yatagan
And we have a winner. This is exactly what I had in mind. :smalleek:

But well, it's the evolution of a very simple template. If I could imagine it, and thousands of swordsmiths and fighters will have imagined it many times through history, and some will have tried if it works. :smallbiggrin:

[Spiryt]

In other news, great Peter Johnsson's lectures about swords (http://forums.dfoggknives.com/index.php?showtopic=23706&pid=223115&st=0&#entry223115)

Other lectures may be great as well, haven't watched yet.

And some fairly recent 'crash test', not most scientific grade experiments for sure, but still way better than 95% of stuff out there.

Too bad they didn't gave more info about weapons in use.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juIw20z5p0c

[Yora]

The first link didn't work for me.

But the second one is really interesting. Almost all the major mistakes that you see in almost all the weapon test videos are avoided. Mounting the pig on a post is the only thing I think could have been done better.
But they are using padding and rivited maile, and maybe even more importantly did not make the absolute worst case optimal strikes. Those strikes look a lot more as if you could actually make them with only a split second to spot an opening and strike.

And dane axe to the head convinced me: Maile is incredible. :smallbiggrin:

[Spiryt]

First link works for me, it's post with links to all the lectures, not to just PJ ones.


As far as padding goes, they actually use just some thick cloth, and just with butted rings, actual 'realish' maille is used Conan the Bodybuilder way, with no thrusts against it either. Dunno why, maybe they were out of time and stuff.

Actually I would also gladly see some cloth on that pig in general, because people would generally tend to be clothed. :smallwink:

Pig carcass was also already very dehydrated, and thus hard and leathery, as seen by the stats.

[Yora]

Sure, it wasn't perfect. But at least they tried the best with what they had.
Many TV productions with actual budget make much less of an effort.

I also noticed that the padding was inadequate. While the skin appears to be tougher than it should in a living person. And still you see a huge difference. And under optimal conditions, the difference would be even bigger.
If the result is less spectacular than it would probably have been under optimal conditions, I can live with the shortcommings. :smallamused:
It's when you make things appear more significant than they should that it's problematic.

[fusilier]

not quite. His arguement is that the "primary weapon+ sword" set up lasted until the introduction of bayonets, at which point the musket with bayonet made the secondary sword redundant, and it was dropped form most troops equipment.

Pilae: I view the Romans as using the sword (gladius) as a primary weapon. To the best of my knowledge, they were the only army to train in using the sword in formation. The Pilum is an integral part of their equipment, but more like grenades might be for modern infantrymen.

Sword: The sword was a symbol of being a soldier for a long time. Even after muskets and bayonets became standard, many armies continued to issue swords to their line infantry until the middle of the 19th century. Even though it must have been a nearly useless item in combat (perhaps around camp it was used as a machete -- if it was up to the task).

As for the sword as a primary weapon: so called "sword-and-buckler" men would have used the sword as a primary weapon, and they could be a significant component of some armies even if they were never the numerically dominant force. Troops armed with two handed swords (zweihander or doppelhander) at the same time would use such weapons as primary weapons. Various meso-american warriors could easily be considered as using a "sword," macuahuitl, as their primary weapon. Again typically mixed in with other armed troops. To date I know of no sheath for a macuahuitl that would allow the weapon to be carried as a secondary weapon.

--EDIT-- Pictorial evidence does show them occasionally placing the macuahuitl between the arm and shield (often this is where javelins/darts would be carried). So they did have some way to carry another weapon. It doesn't appear to be too common, but it was done.

[Matthew]

One quibble about the gladius; I still think it was a secondary weapon because the pilum (javelin) was the primary. This follows the typical pattern with swords. The primary may either be a long melee weapon (spear or polearm) or a missile (javelin, bow, crossbow, gun) the sword is the secondary. The critical importance of the secondary weapon is indicated by how ubiquitous it was... once the primary weapon became effective and / or dual purpose enough (i.e. a bayonetted musket) the sword becomes delegated to officers.

I agree with this, the pilum is a prelude to the close combat attack in the same way that the spear of the Greek Hoplite was the initial weapon used, giving way to a short blade in the press. The caveat would be that the period of combat during which the spear was "primary" was probably longer than the period during which the pilum was (though not necessarily, it depends on how many were thrown and if there was any rotation of the ranks).

[Conners]

Dumb question: Was the Katana any sharper than European swords? I'm just wondering, becuase there are various techniques (or so I'm told), where you grab the blade in European martial arts, but I'm not sure that's the case in Japanese ones.

[Matthew]

Dumb question: Was the Katana any sharper than European swords? I'm just wondering, becuase there are various techniques (or so I'm told), where you grab the blade in European martial arts, but I'm not sure that's the case in Japanese ones.

According to Johnsson, it depends on the sword. Some examples of katana are sharper than some examples of western swords and the reverse is also true. How long they stay sharp is apparently more important.

If anybody is finding the Peter Johnsson videos difficult to find from Spiryt's forum link, here are the direct versions:

http://www.ustream.tv/embed/recorded/23590865
http://www.ustream.tv/embed/recorded/23612784

[Yora]

That's where it doesn't work for me. :smallbiggrin:
Getting to the videos is simple, but they won't play anything.

[Matthew]

Have you installed the latest version of Adobe Flash Player?

[Spiryt]

Dumb question: Was the Katana any sharper than European swords? I'm just wondering, becuase there are various techniques (or so I'm told), where you grab the blade in European martial arts, but I'm not sure that's the case in Japanese ones.

Funnily enough, Johnsson mentions it in his video. :smallbiggrin:

In short, variety amongst katanas, not to mention just 15th century European swords, was so great that it's impossible to answer like that.

Some of longswords were wicked sharp, others almost blunt in some parts.

Katanas in general had relatively obtuse angles of the blades, while the edge itself indeed was very keen.

That, before anything will be different sharpness than much more acute angle of XIIIa sword, for example.

As far as grabbing goes, even very sharp swords can be grabbed safely if one knows what he's doing.

With some solid martial glove, it's perfectly viable.

[Autolykos]

I agree with this, the pilum is a prelude to the close combat attack in the same way that the spear of the Greek Hoplite was the initial weapon used, giving way to a short blade in the press. The caveat would be that the period of combat during which the spear was "primary" was probably longer than the period during which the pilum was (though not necessarily, it depends on how many were thrown and if there was any rotation of the ranks).
IMHO the best way to distinguish between "primary" and "secondary" weapons is to ask whether using it would be considered a Plan B. The Romans definitely tried to close in after the Pilum throws to use the Gladius, which makes it primary in my view. But I don't think the Hoplites actively tried to get into the press and would've preferred to use their spears exclusively (might be wrong though). This would make their swords secondary, even if they were used a lot.

That makes defining the role of the bayonet quite hard, though. I'd call it primary as long as bayonet charges were part of military doctrine, and secondary otherwise.

[Yora]

I think there are many sources that indicate use of bayonets to be avoided as much as possible. I once read that in the american civil war, soldiers were reloading their muzleloaders during fighting inside houses. Getting close enough to reach one enemy with your bayonet means getting into range of the whole group of enemies. You may stab one, but one of them will stab you!
Unless a bayonet charge was ordered, it apparently was really weapon of last resort.
I think this really rules out considering it a primary weapon.

Have you installed the latest version of Adobe Flash Player?
Could it be region blocked? Other videos on the site work, but the links on the forum post you linked all direct me to the main page.

Edit: searched the site. Is this the video? http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/23635650

[Matthew]

IMHO the best way to distinguish between "primary" and "secondary" weapons is to ask whether using it would be considered a Plan B. The Romans definitely tried to close in after the Pilum throws to use the Gladius, which makes it primary in my view. But I don't think the Hoplites actively tried to get into the press and would've preferred to use their spears exclusively (might be wrong though). This would make their swords secondary, even if they were used a lot.

As far as I am aware it was expected that spears would eventually break or the fighting would become so close that swords would be necessary. That is also the same logic by which the knightly sword is a secondary weapon and the lance the primary. Preferably in all instances the enemy will break before it comes to a close quarters fight. Of course, we can distinguish things more clearly like this:

Primary Weapon
Secondary Weapon
Primary Close Combat Weapon
Secondary Close Combat weapon

Clearly, by this criteria, the Roman pilum was a primary weapon, but not a primary close combat weapon.



Could it be region blocked? Other videos on the site work, but the links on the forum post you linked all direct me to the main page.

Possible. Are you being redirected to another address?

[Yora]

Turns out those were just the links from the uploader service not meant to lead to the videos.

I did find the channel: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/arctic-fire/videos
But he didn't label any of the videos, so I have no clue which one is which.

[Matthew]

Turns out those were just the links from the uploader service not meant to lead to the videos.

I did find the channel: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/arctic-fire/videos
But he didn't label any of the videos, so I have no clue which one is which.

If you hold your cursor over them and look at the address, you should be able to find the matching numbers for the ones I linked above, which is to say "23590865" and "23612784".

[Conners]

According to Johnsson, it depends on the sword. Some examples of katana are sharper than some examples of western swords and the reverse is also true. How long they stay sharp is apparently more important.
Funnily enough, Johnsson mentions it in his video. :smallbiggrin:

In short, variety amongst katanas, not to mention just 15th century European swords, was so great that it's impossible to answer like that.

Some of longswords were wicked sharp, others almost blunt in some parts.

Katanas in general had relatively obtuse angles of the blades, while the edge itself indeed was very keen.

That, before anything will be different sharpness than much more acute angle of XIIIa sword, for example.

As far as grabbing goes, even very sharp swords can be grabbed safely if one knows what he's doing.

With some solid martial glove, it's perfectly viable. Blade sharpness can vary? That's surprising. I thought that sword sharpness would be fairly uniform, so that the blades were sharp enough, yet not brittle.

Also surprising that you can grab swords which are on the sharper side of the spectrum. Does this mean you can grab extra-sharp knives (this is assuming knives were sharper than swords)?




PS: Anyone seen this one yet? http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/260688528/clang

[Vitruviansquid]

Does it even matter how sharp the blade was if you were wearing gauntlets designed to let you hold a sword on the blade?

[Conners]

Well, no. Though, a lot of blade-grabbing moves are shown bare-handed, so it's a question of whether you need gloves with certain blades.

[Galloglaich]

Note this demo by Roland Warzecha of Hammaborg, which I have linked on here before

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E4aSlLyBTo&list=PL06751D4ED50512E0&index=8&feature=plpp_video

this sword is sharp enough to easily cut all the way through a tatami mat, which means it's pretty sharp, though granted he missed his second cut... but right afterword he not only grabs the blade with bare hands (1:31, 1:47), they play a bit of tug of war with it (2:22) though I would not try this at home folks. If you know what you are doing, you can grab a sharp blade. I have a very sharp albion constable and can do half-sword thrusts with it into plywood with bare hands without any risk, I've done it many times.


That Peter Johnnson video has been creating quite a stir in HEMA circles. He also goes into some more detail on those theories in this book here

http://www.amazon.com/NOBLE-ART-THE-SWORD-Renaissance/dp/0900785438/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1341719574&sr=8-1&keywords=fashion+sword

G

[Spiryt]

Blade sharpness can vary? That's surprising. I thought that sword sharpness would be fairly uniform, so that the blades were sharp enough, yet not brittle.


]

Well, of course it can... Generally, britleness doesn't have much to do with sharpness...

Just given the same brittleness of material, keener edge will tend to be more delicate, from obvious reasons.

And sharpness will vary greatly between European swords, due to great variety in general. But katanas would vary too, according to PJ, among others.

[Conners]

@Galloglaich: Awesome video. Thanks for explaining that to me. I guess there'll be some level of sharpness where that isn't possible (glass, maybe?)--but I doubt there'll be any swords of that sharpness.



@Spiryt: Sorry, meant delicateness. Hmm... how much does sharpness change a sword's use, on the topic? I guess the more armour your opponents' wear, the less useful the sharpness tends to be?

[fusilier]

As far as I am aware it was expected that spears would eventually break or the fighting would become so close that swords would be necessary. That is also the same logic by which the knightly sword is a secondary weapon and the lance the primary. Preferably in all instances the enemy will break before it comes to a close quarters fight. Of course, we can distinguish things more clearly like this:

Primary Weapon
Secondary Weapon
Primary Close Combat Weapon
Secondary Close Combat weapon

Clearly, by this criteria, the Roman pilum was a primary weapon, but not a primary close combat

In many cases it will be a bit arbitrary, especially given soldiers like legionaires which had diverse training. Also what is meant by primary? Primary in importance? Primary as in typically the first weapon used? Are we considering an individual in isolation, or some greater tactical function (would a ww2 German infantryman's primary weapon be his Mauser, or his squad's MG34)? What weapon defines the soldier?

In my mind, given the tactics used by Roman Legionnaires circa 1st century, the pilum was a preliminary weapon, and the Gladius was the primary weapon. Much like, in the recent Iraq conflict, the first weapon an infantryman might use would be a flashbang -- but I suspect that most would be hard pressed to claim that was his primary weapon. It is however my opinion of Roman tactics, and my interpretation of "primary". (And an admittedly weak analogy)

[Galloglaich]

You are assuming that the Legionairre always got to charge, but quite often they didn't. A lot of fights from the Bronze Age through the late Medieval period amounted to both sides showering each other with rocks, darts, javelins and spears until one side breaks... or alternately, one side making lance attacks or pike attacks until one side breaks. That is when the sword comes into play. The theoretical ideal of a Roman infantry battle is that they throw three pilum and then charge into sword range, but if you read accounts of actual battles a lot of the time they were just throwing pila, or hiding from arrows under their shields, all day before they ever got a chance to charge if they ever even did.

The lance, pike, spear, javelin, bow, crossbow or firearm are the primary weapons almost always, the sword is the personal weapon par excellence, and the personal weapons were of crucial importance because the primaries, as effective and important as they were, were also so limited.

G

[deuxhero]

Any pre-~1900 militaries where female combatants were more than a tiny crossdressing fraction?

[Galloglaich]

The Hussite heretics of Bohemia included significant numbers of female soldiers, varying estimates I've seen put them at between 5 and 25% of some of the armies in key battles. They get into this in some detail in the Osprey book on them.

The Hussites were important in the military history of Europe in the 15th Century because in the first half, they were fighting off a series of Crusades and pioneering the innovation of numerous 'new' (or greatly improved) weapons systems and tactics, and then in the second half they were fighting as mercenaries throughout Central Europe, and won some important victories against the Turks and the Tartars.

There are some records of female Knights in several places around Europe, Spain, Italy, and England among other places, as well as in the 1st Crusade, but they were probably a very small minority.

There are a handful of well documented female pirate leaders in the Medieval period.

There are also stories in the Icelandic sagas about female Vikings, and they have found swords in the graves of women in Scandinavia and the Baltic.

And finally, there is a fairly substantial body of archeological and literary evidence of female warriors among Central Asian Steppe nomads, from the Scythians to the Mongols.

G

[fusilier]

You are assuming that the Legionairre always got to charge, but quite often they didn't. A lot of fights from the Bronze Age through the late Medieval period amounted to both sides showering each other with rocks, darts, javelins and spears until one side breaks... or alternately, one side making lance attacks or pike attacks until one side breaks. That is when the sword comes into play. The theoretical ideal of a Roman infantry battle is that they throw three pilum and then charge into sword range, but if you read accounts of actual battles a lot of the time they were just throwing pila, or hiding from arrows under their shields, all day before they ever got a chance to charge if they ever even did.

The lance, pike, spear, javelin, bow, crossbow or firearm are the primary weapons almost always, the sword is the personal weapon par excellence, and the personal weapons were of crucial importance because the primaries, as effective and important as they were, were also so limited.

G

I didn't assume that actually. Just like sometimes people surrender or are easily subdued after being disoriented by a flashbang, without a shot ever being fired, Legionnaires could settle battles with their pila alone.

That doesn't make the pilum (or the flashbang) the primary weapon though. Not as I view it. The Romans, perhaps uniquely so, are often considered to have created the only "sword-based" army in history. They actually trained to fight with swords in formation, and had formations specifically for sword fighting. All other troops that you refer to (pikemen, hoplites, etc.), revert to the sword once that formation is disturbed, but not the Romans. To me that indicates that the Romans placed greater emphasis on the sword as a primary weapon, and not as a backup or secondary weapon.

Also, if the "theory" called for the pilum to be used to soften up the opponent, and then to close with the gladius, then shouldn't that give greater weight to the argument that the gladius was considered the primary weapon; i.e. that in doctrine and training it was given the greater emphasis? It was the weapon that was expected to settle battles. And if the Romans considered it to be the primary weapon, why shoudn't we?

A compromise would be to say that the pilum and gladius were, together, the primary weapons of a Roman Legionnaire (like grenades and daggers were for WW1 Arditi). But I'm still inclined to say it was the gladius. Their usual battle formation was based around being able to use a sword. If chucking pila were their primary concern a tighter formation would have given greater concentration of missiles, and have been easier to control (i.e. required less training). Clearly the pila were an important part of their tactics, but the sword appears to have been the overriding issue.

A weapon can be used first, even doctrinally, and still be a secondary weapon. Unless your definition of primary is simply "preliminary" . . .

--EDIT--
I was thinking about your comments. If your argument is that they always used their pila, but they didn't always use their gladius, then you have a valid argument. It's more semantic one -- does doctrine or actual use determine primary weapon. The doctrine, to me, puts a greater emphasis on effective use of the gladius, than it does on the pilum. But that doesn't mean we can simply ignore what occurred in practice, as sometimes practice and doctrine diverge significantly.

Therefore, to convince me that in practice the gladius was not the primary weapon, it would require some significant number of battles where the gladius wasn't used. I would dismiss battles where the conditions to use the gladius would be lessened -- i.e. basically I would accept straight-up significant field battles. Then there's a question of how many such battles was only the pilum used, versus how many saw the use of the gladius (and pilum). If out of 100 battles, where the heavy infantry were engaged, only 1 didn't involve the use of the gladius, then I would consider that battle a fluke.

The problem here is that it's unlikely that we have a sufficient amount of data to come to a meaningful conclusion. However, I would point out that the Romans didn't change their doctrine to put emphasis on the pilum.
--EDIT--

[Yora]

The Hussites were important in the military history of Europe in the 15th Century because in the first half, they were fighting off a series of Crusades and pioneering the innovation of numerous 'new' (or greatly improved) weapons systems and tactics, and then in the second half they were fighting as mercenaries throughout Central Europe, and won some important victories against the Turks and the Tartars.
The Hussites are historically important in the 15th century because half the cool military stories of that time center on them. :smallbiggrin:

If you hear a cool and unusual story from that time, it was probably them. :smallamused:

[Conners]

Were they really the only sword-based army?



With female soldiers, I think Japan had some female samurai, but later disbanded/slaughtered them (I forget the details). There were also women who defended their villages when the men were away, generally with the ningata, if I remember correctly.

Interested in those female pirate leaders... reality is so cliché' :smallbiggrin:.

[Yora]

Why is the tank in this picture positioned with its front on top of the slope?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Sherman-korea.jpg

This appears to make it harder to aim the gun down and exposes more of the tank above the small ridge in front of it. Setting it 3 meters back appears to me as being a lot more beneficial, but I would assume the crew had very goof reasons to position the tank like this.

[fusilier]

Were they really the only sword-based army?

Well, were actually debating if they were a sword-based army period. :-)

But assuming they were, I'm not aware of any other army that was also sword based. The Roman army had plenty of auxiliaries, velites, etc., whose primary weapon weren't swords, but the core of the army was heavy infantry whose primary weapon was the gladius (or so I believe). This is a tactic that they picked up fighting the Samnites in hilly country, so, arguably, the Samnites had a sword based army, but their impact was basically limited to convincing the Romans to use swords. Other armies, at times, may have been considered sword based. I think it was at Cerignola that approximately a third of the Spanish infantry were sword-and-buckler men, used in conjunction with arquebusiers and pikemen. However, most armies at that time used mainly pikemen, and increasing numbers of arqubusiers. Spanish conquistador armies may have been made up of a majority of swordsmen, but they were almost transitory entities.

I don't know enough about eastern armies to comment on them with any authority.

[Storm Bringer]

With that tank, my guess is they are firing at a "soft" (i.e. infantry) target at or near the upper limit of thier range, so have parked on a slope to gain a little extra elevation. I'd also haszard a guess the photo is either Italy or Korea, form the hills. They are not expecting enemy AT fire, so are not worried about getting a good hull down position.

alternately, they are fighting in an overrun enemy postion, and are enguaging a target of opitunity just as they were cresting that little ridge.

[J.Gellert]

Why is the tank in this picture positioned with its front on top of the slope?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Sherman-korea.jpg

This appears to make it harder to aim the gun down and exposes more of the tank above the small ridge in front of it. Setting it 3 meters back appears to me as being a lot more beneficial, but I would assume the crew had very goof reasons to position the tank like this.

Probably the crew is just bad.

[Autolykos]

@Tank: Besides the obvious explanation ("the driver is an idiot"), he might try to hit a target very far away and can't elevate his gun enough to get it in range otherwise. Just a wild guess though. You might try the field manuals (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/) of that time (the 17-* series).

@Primary vs. Secondary: I'm still not happy with calling a weapon "secondary" if it was meant to be used in standard tactics without something else gone wrong (like your primary weapon breaking/out of ammo, or the enemy using his initiative to make you fight on his terms). This might mean that a soldier (or unit) can have multiple primary weapons (to allow for different tactics, or use both as part of the same tactic), but that's not a big problem IMHO.

[Spiryt]

Were they really the only sword-based army?



A lot of Mediterranean people from the period of few hundreds years BC. probably had quite a lot of 'sword based' fighters Roman's had, as mentioned built their military tradition on influences of Celt-Iberians, for example.


Any pre-~1900 militaries where female combatants were more than a tiny crossdressing fraction?

As mentioned, in 15th century women fought relatively often in situations of defending camps, barricades etc.

Guns and crossbows were very handy in those cases.

http://picasaweb.google.com/102296265948107803612/Wiecino2008#5233352914868118482

[Yora]

With that tank, my guess is they are firing at a "soft" (i.e. infantry) target at or near the upper limit of thier range, so have parked on a slope to gain a little extra elevation. I'd also haszard a guess the photo is either Italy or Korea, form the hills. They are not expecting enemy AT fire, so are not worried about getting a good hull down position.

alternately, they are fighting in an overrun enemy postion, and are enguaging a target of opitunity just as they were cresting that little ridge.
Since the gun seems to be pointing down to maximum, extra range can probably be ruled out.
Too bad it's such a low quality picture, I am not sure if there's dust thrown up by the moving tracks, which would mean this was a snapshot of a tank in motion. But it does look a lot like it's just a half-second after firing the gun.

A well, not really important. But it seems that almost everyone here agrees that this is an odd way to park a tank when firing on targets on a lower elevation. :smallbiggrin:

[Matthew]

The "primary" weapon to my mind is the "first" weapon used by choice (or the weapon of first recourse), which is to say the bow for archers, the lance for lancers, the pike for pikemen, the spear for spearmen, and the pilum for Roman infantry. If we are going to talk about the weapon "most used", that is going to be a hell of a complicated discussion with very limited data points! :smallbiggrin:

[Yukitsu]

The "primary" weapon to my mind is the "first" weapon used by choice (or the weapon of first recourse), which is to say the bow for archers, the lance for lancers, the pike for pikemen, the spear for spearmen, and the pilum for Roman infantry. If we are going to talk about the weapon "most used", that is going to be a hell of a complicated discussion with very limited data points! :smallbiggrin:

I'm not sure that's a very helpful way of looking at things when considering a sort of ranged weapon used once while closing into melee. Certainly, a slinger primarily uses a sling, but the distinction is, in an ideal combat, he'll only use his sling. A legionary will ideally be using his sword to get the majority of the work done, doubly since it seems the pilum was meant mostly to disorganize an enemy formation by ruining their shields rather than cause casualties, at least according to Vegetius.

[Galloglaich]

With that tank, my guess is they are firing at a "soft" (i.e. infantry) target at or near the upper limit of thier range, so have parked on a slope to gain a little extra elevation. I'd also haszard a guess the photo is either Italy or Korea, form the hills. They are not expecting enemy AT fire, so are not worried about getting a good hull down position.

alternately, they are fighting in an overrun enemy postion, and are enguaging a target of opitunity just as they were cresting that little ridge.

I agree they are using the tank as artillery, and being up on the slope is to increase the elevation of the gun. Notice all the brass showing the huge number of shells they have been firing. And it's probably Korea, both because of the type (M4A3E8 which was ubiquitous in Korea) and the fact that they are using it as artillery. But like you said that could also be Italy.

G

[Galloglaich]

I'm not sure that's a very helpful way of looking at things when considering a sort of ranged weapon used once while closing into melee. Certainly, a slinger primarily uses a sling, but the distinction is, in an ideal combat, he'll only use his sling. A legionary will ideally be using his sword to get the majority of the work done, doubly since it seems the pilum was meant mostly to disorganize an enemy formation by ruining their shields rather than cause casualties, at least according to Vegetius.

Yeah I think this is a sort of a mistake, the pilum was definitely used to cause casualties, the emphasis on the pilum as a shield-disabling or harassing weapon is somewhat overdone. If the enemy is in good formation and has shields and helmets, they have decent protection against it, but that is most definitely a killing weapon. The sword was used to finish people off.

The importance of the sword as secondary weapon is not at all unique to the Romans. Medieval cavalry and knights used their lances first and most often, but the sword was of critical importance and was intended for use in the second stage of the fight (that they were hoping to get to... as this phase of the fight the heavy cavalry almost always won if they could get to it). This is the nature of shock warfare (that is also a term which has been overused, but I think is applicable here). The lance would break the enemy formation, the sword would literally carve it up. (The sword, axe, mace, hammer and so on).

Similarly for Iron Age armies all the way up to the Vikings, the main part of the battle was throwing rocks, darts, and javelins at each other until one side started to waver, and that is when the infantry charge would happen ... but of course the sword played the key role when the decisive close combat took place, this is when 90% of the casualties were caused.

But not all fights actually reached that phase, many did not.

Even the Swiss, so famous for their pikes and halberds, placed a heavy emphasis on the sword, both as a symbol of freedom (you had to bring a sword to vote in the landsgemeinde) and as a critical weapon for that phase of the fight when the pike square broke up. That is (again) when 90% of the killing was done.... if the fight got that far, the Swiss almost always won when they reached this phase of the battle, even when heavily outnumbered .. just like heavy cavalry did. This is why so many Swiss Reislauffer dragged around those big longswords as sidearms even when carrying a pike or a halberd. Can you imagine marching mile after mile with a four foot sword on your hip? But it was very useful, very important in the battle, as well as for personal protection.

So I think yes you can make a distinction for heavy infantry or heavy cavalry which are hoping, intending to close in and use their sidearms, vs. say light cavalry, or velites or peltasts or crossbowmen or gunners who are hoping to avoid close combat. In either case they may have a sword as a sidearm, but in the latter case it's not really part of the intended strategy. But it's still part of the defensive strategy since without swords (and body armor) these guys are much more vulnerable.


As for formation space, I think you need some space to throw a pilum you don't want to be that close together. Also the closer you are together the more likely you are to be hit by missiles launched in area fire. They would only come close together when in a purely defensive formation (i.e. testuodo)

I've got nothing against swords, I study fencing, the sword is where I live, but I just want to try to disseminate to people that these other weapons were used first and more often. The sword was frequently of critical importance in European warfare, but it was not the 'be all - end all', the actual reality was more nuanced and complex (and IMO, interesting) than that. And movies where knights are charging without any lances is are just embarrassing.

The other question to me is what put the sword above it's rivals as close combat sidearms, i.e. the saber, the mace, the warhammer, the battle axe?

G

[Storm Bringer]

I agree they are using the tank as artillery, and being up on the slope is to increase the elevation of the gun. Notice all the brass showing the huge number of shells they have been firing. And it's probably Korea, both because of the type (M4A3E8 which was ubiquitous in Korea) and the fact that they are using it as artillery. But like you said that could also be Italy.



just found that pic on wikipedia, caption reads as follows:

"Supporting the 8th ROK Army Division, a Sherman tank fires its 76 mm gun at KPA bunkers at "Napalm Ridge", Korea, 11 May 1952"

so, yes, it was korea, and yes, it was acting as a arty gun on infantry targets.

[J.Gellert]

The other question to me is what put the sword above it's rivals as close combat sidearms, i.e. the saber, the mace, the warhammer, the battle axe?

The saber... probably a few centuries.

The others, I'm guessing part of it is that swords require less room to swing (and against unarmored opponents, practically no room to maim or kill) and are all-around more versatile (in battle - because in general, axes of all kinds are awesome tools).

Actually, the "less room to swing" applies to the saber as well, probably.

[fusilier]

The "primary" weapon to my mind is the "first" weapon used by choice (or the weapon of first recourse), which is to say the bow for archers, the lance for lancers, the pike for pikemen, the spear for spearmen, and the pilum for Roman infantry. If we are going to talk about the weapon "most used", that is going to be a hell of a complicated discussion with very limited data points! :smallbiggrin:

I'm willing to agree to disagree -- as the argument will become more of semantics at this point. :-)

I agree about the "most used" argument. I look at what their tactical doctrine was and to me it implies that the sword was considered the most important weapon (emphasis on a loose formation giving each soldier room to swing a sword, but not so loose as to allow the enemy to exploit gaps -- that would require a lot of training and attention). The pila were certainly important, and probably overlooked.

[Matthew]

I'm not sure that's a very helpful way of looking at things when considering a sort of ranged weapon used once while closing into melee. Certainly, a slinger primarily uses a sling, but the distinction is, in an ideal combat, he'll only use his sling. A legionary will ideally be using his sword to get the majority of the work done, doubly since it seems the pilum was meant mostly to disorganize an enemy formation by ruining their shields rather than cause casualties, at least according to Vegetius.

Well, I would argue that the shock of the pilum would ideally be enough to break the enemy formation, bearing in mind we are not necessarily talking about one throw as a preliminary to close combat. Of course, the Roman legionary was different in 200 BC to 100 AD, and maybe that is worth discussing in itself. Certainly, Polybius attributed the success of the Roman legionary to his refusal to fight on open ground in close order.



I'm willing to agree to disagree -- as the argument will become more of semantics at this point. :-)

I agree about the "most used" argument. I look at what their tactical doctrine was and to me it implies that the sword was considered the most important weapon (emphasis on a loose formation giving each soldier room to swing a sword, but not so loose as to allow the enemy to exploit gaps -- that would require a lot of training and attention). The pila were certainly important, and probably overlooked.

Right, I would love to know more about how Roman legionaries really fought on the battlefield, but the data is just not there. What exactly their tactical doctrine was is an interesting question. Are you thinking of any sources in particular?

[Yukitsu]

Well, I would argue that the shock of the pilum would ideally be enough to break the enemy formation, bearing in mind we are not necessarily talking about one throw as a preliminary to close combat. Of course, the Roman legionary was different in 200 BC to 100 AD, and maybe that is worth discussing in itself. Certainly, Polybius attributed the success of the Roman legionary to his refusal to fight on open ground in close order.

I think "disorganize and disrupt" is a more likely situation as compared to breaking the formation. Even then however, slingers, archers and other skirmishers would likely have caused greater casualties than the legions at those ranges (and further). I think all in all when Polybius was stating the efficacy of the Roman army in those terms, he would be referring to minor actions along the borders, and not to their set piece battles against other organized nations (or even a barbarian horde that was lead by a particularly skilled leader). The fact that most actions the Romans had were likely so common and uneventful that they were barely recorded, but would have been chronic in his time probably contributed to that statement from Polybius, rather than the overall effectiveness of each weapon by contrast to one another.


Right, I would love to know more about how Roman legionaries really fought on the battlefield, but the data is just not there. What exactly their tactical doctrine was is an interesting question. Are you thinking of any sources in particular?

I'll have to double check where, (I suspect it's part of the Marian reforms, but Polybius is the one who removed the spear if I recall, sans on the triarii, whom Marian eliminated) but I do recall the switch to sword from spear being on the lines that the close, rigid formation taken from the hoplites were too inflexible for the Roman needs, and were replaced with a looser, more responsive sword based legion. I don't recall it being room for sword swinging however, as I believe Romans preferred the thrust, not slashing.

[fusilier]

Well, I would argue that the shock of the pilum would ideally be enough to break the enemy formation, bearing in mind we are not necessarily talking about one throw as a preliminary to close combat. Of course, the Roman legionary was different in 200 BC to 100 AD, and maybe that is worth discussing in itself. Certainly, Polybius attributed the success of the Roman legionary to his refusal to fight on open ground in close order.


Right, I would love to know more about how Roman legionaries really fought on the battlefield, but the data is just not there. What exactly their tactical doctrine was is an interesting question. Are you thinking of any sources in particular?

I'm primarily going off of remembrances of my college courses. :-) But, if I'm not mistaken, when they adopted the sword (and abandoned the spear), they went to a formation with about 3 feet to the side of each man and front-to-back. A much more open formation than a phalanx would employ, it allowed room for each soldier to wield his sword. This also gave room for a comrade to close up if he saw someone in trouble.

That formation was adopted after fighting the Samnites, and I've seen no mention of it being changed, but most of the discussion is about larger tactical formations.

Also, another question that I would ask, is the primary function of Roman Heavy infantry to be a missile troop or close-combat? They didn't carry many pila with them into battle like one would expect a missile troop, who is going to try to avoid close-combat, would.

[rrgg]

I would consider the pilum is a primary weapon in the same way that I consider the lance to be a knight's primary weapon. It's a heavy-hitting, armor piercing weapon used to give power to the charge. Ideally the legionary would probably want to simply kill someone from a distance with his pilum and not have to worry about getting into a risky sword-fight.

Additionally, if we accept that the whole reason for the gladius was because the legionary wasn't able to carry another spear along with his pila then I think that it should still be considered a sidearm just like any other sword.

[Yukitsu]

I would consider the pilum is a primary weapon in the same way that I consider the lance to be a knight's primary weapon. It's a heavy-hitting, armor piercing weapon used to give power to the charge. Ideally the legionary would probably want to simply kill someone from a distance with his pilum and not have to worry about getting into a risky sword-fight.

Additionally, if we accept that the whole reason for the gladius was because the legionary wasn't able to carry another spear along with his pila then I think that it should still be considered a sidearm just like any other sword.

I don't believe they dropped their spears because they couldn't use both a spear and the pilum. Regardless, the velites carried enough javalins to make it unlikely that you couldn't carry that number of spears, and at any rate, a pilum is about the same length as the old hasta. Carrying 2 pilum wouldn't be harder than carrying a pilum and a spear.

[Matthew]

I think "disorganize and disrupt" is a more likely situation as compared to breaking the formation. Even then however, slingers, archers and other skirmishers would likely have caused greater casualties than the legions at those ranges (and further). I think all in all when Polybius was stating the efficacy of the Roman army in those terms, he would be referring to minor actions along the borders, and not to their set piece battles against other organized nations (or even a barbarian horde that was lead by a particularly skilled leader). The fact that most actions the Romans had were likely so common and uneventful that they were barely recorded, but would have been chronic in his time probably contributed to that statement from Polybius, rather than the overall effectiveness of each weapon by contrast to one another.

Polybius is definitely not referring to minor skirmishes, it is the totality of his explanation for why the legion tacticaly beat the phalanx, and to be honest it is a bit contrived, but it is very useful for understanding the legion at that time. Under most circumstances, missile troops of any sort only ever really disrupt the enemy as a preliminary to an infantry or cavalry charge. Ideally, though, the discharge of pila will cause the enemy formation to break up enough that it will flee in the face of a charge. Of course, that is the exact tactic employed by shock cavalry in conjunction with archers. The Roman legionary was working in both roles.



I'll have to double check where, (I suspect it's part of the Marian reforms, but Polybius is the one who removed the spear if I recall, sans on the triarii, whom Marian eliminated) but I do recall the switch to sword from spear being on the lines that the close, rigid formation taken from the hoplites were too inflexible for the Roman needs, and were replaced with a looser, more responsive sword based legion. I don't recall it being room for sword swinging however, as I believe Romans preferred the thrust, not slashing.
Okay, you really need to read Polybius. :smallbiggrin:

First, Polybius was not a military reformer, just a historian. The legion he was describing specifically fought with a cut and thrust sword, preferably on rough ground, and with a frontage of 6' to the man, unlike Vegetius' later legions that fight 3' to the man. The Greek phalanx style was an import, as you might imagine, and an influence from the Greek colonies in Italy, but at some point it seems to have given way to the pilum and sword. This has to do with the mountainous or hilly nature of the combat zones (Italy and Spain) and the way the natives were fighting there. Vegetius, writing in around 400 AD or so, is the one who claimed the Romans preferred the thrust over the cut, though Roman iconography is full of "heroic blows". It is hard to imagine that any spear wielding culture would be unaware of the efficacy of a thrust, though.



I'm primarily going off of remembrances of my college courses. :-) But, if I'm not mistaken, when they adopted the sword (and abandoned the spear), they went to a formation with about 3 feet to the side of each man and front-to-back. A much more open formation than a phalanx would employ, it allowed room for each soldier to wield his sword. This also gave room for a comrade to close up if he saw someone in trouble.

That formation was adopted after fighting the Samnites, and I've seen no mention of it being changed, but most of the discussion is about larger tactical formations.

Yes, that is information derived from Polybius. It is not clear when Roman infantry formations started fighting in close order on open ground as a matter of course, but for my money it likely has to do with the incorporation of specialised auxiliary corps. Even then, it would be a mistake to imagine the legion fighting uniformly, we know that they could be variously configured, as Caesar did in his campaigns.



Also, another question that I would ask, is the primary function of Roman Heavy infantry to be a missile troop or close-combat? They didn't carry many pila with them into battle like one would expect a missile troop, who is going to try to avoid close-combat, would.

Now that is a good question. I am going to assume we are talking about on the battlefield here. The legionary in Polybius' day carried two pila, one lighter and one heavier, and I think it was the same later on (I would have to check). Now the question is how did he employ it on the battlefield? When skirmishers carry maybe six we might talk about limited ammunition, but then if every individual is carrying two, do they all throw them at once? Is there any mechanism for replenishing ammunition from the rear? How far were the legions doing the fighting by the late Imperial period? There is one line of thought that contests that the auxiliaries did most of the fighting and the legionaries acted more like an engineering core (not that I agree with this, but it has carried some weight in the past, I believe).

As a counterpoint we could ask, was the Greek Hoplite primarily a spearmen or a swordsmen? If the hoplite, like the knight, expected his spear to only be of value at the point of contact and perhaps a short time afterwards (as did the Roman cavalry, again according to Polybius) then the primary difference between the Roman infantry and Greek infantry is how they employ their "spears" before they draw their swords. One side throws them (like many Anglo-Saxons and Normans on the Bayeux Tapestry) and the other side runs them home as part of the charge themselves.

It is surely a bad idea to run onto the spears of the enemy without a spear of your own. The doctrine of the Romans seems to have been to use thrown spears in order to get into very close combat, whilst the doctrine of the Greeks was to get in close with their own spears. Of course, this is where the question gets interesting! Did the Greeks purposefully stay at spear length for a protracted period, or did they "get stuck in" as soon as possible? How long did the Roman legionaries stand in front of their enemies hurling pila? Did the entire line of up to several thousand men run forward and hurl their javelins at the same moment, or are we talking sporadic probing of weaknesses in the enemy line, followed by isolated charges to break them up? Exactly how these units fought remains tantalisingly unclear, but theories abound.

[Yukitsu]

Polybius is definitely not referring to minor skirmishes, it is the totality of his explanation for why the legion tacticaly beat the phalanx, and to be honest it is a bit contrived, but it is very useful for understanding the legion at that time. Under most circumstances, missile troops of any sort only ever really disrupt the enemy as a preliminary to an infantry or cavalry charge. Ideally, though, the discharge of pila will cause the enemy formation to break up enough that it will flee in the face of a charge. Of course, that is the exact tactic employed by shock cavalry in conjunction with archers. The Roman legionary was working in both roles.

I'm not positive how that would have played out against many of the enemies of Rome. Most would have had superior bows and general ranged capabilities, supported by troops which evidently were inferior in close quarters. Certainly, I don't think the pilum was decisive in the campaigns against the Parthians, or the Egyptians.


Okay, you really need to read Polybius. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, got the word a bit wrong. Each historian though, writes about something slightly different in terms of how the legion performs, and I'm not really sure which one is really the most accurate. Basically, there's differences in Polybius, Lucius and Vegetius, and of course, Marius changed everything. IIRC, only the last one was actually responsible for reforms, but the different eras of the legion are chronicled by all of the historians of Rome, Polybius wrote I think, about 50 years before Marius would have instituted his reforms for example, and Vegetius 300 before that.

[Matthew]

I'm not positive how that would have played out against many of the enemies of Rome. Most would have had superior bows and general ranged capabilities, supported by troops which evidently were inferior in close quarters. Certainly, I don't think the pilum was decisive in the campaigns against the Parthians, or the Egyptians.

It is probably fair to say that the Roman Legionary was not the decisive element in campaigns against the Parthians generally. Against the Egyptians I am not so sure, as I understand their military system was essentially that of the Greek successor states, but I could be wrong.



Yeah, got the word a bit wrong. Each historian though, writes about something slightly different in terms of how the legion performs, and I'm not really sure which one is really the most accurate. Basically, there's differences in Polybius, Lucius and Vegetius, and of course, Marius changed everything. IIRC, only the last one was actually responsible for reforms, but the different eras of the legion are chronicled by all of the historians of Rome, Polybius wrote I think, about 50 years before Marius would have instituted his reforms for example, and Vegetius 300 before that.

Right, historians provide varied data. Vegetius is one of the least reliable, as he was actually writing in 400 AD (six hundred years after Polybius, five hundred years after the Marian reforms) and essentially produced a synthesis of numerous predecessors, mainly without regard for context it seems. Polybius is fairly reliable, and Livy as well. I am not sure I have ever read Lucius (I know, shocking!); the memory grows fuzzier each year!

[fusilier]

Matthew, I've been doing some haphazard internet research into the subject (which is always fraught with dangers), so I wanted to ask you a question --

It appears to me, that when the Romans initially abandoned the spear/phalanx formation, and adopted the sword, they hadn't started using the pilum. Is that correct? When was the pilum introduced to Roman heavy infantry tactics? I don't see any mention of it when they were basically phalanxes.

You also asked if a hoplites primary weapon was his sword, because the spear becomes useless after the initial impact. This assumes that the initial impact leads to a melee, and isn't decisive in itself. Clearly the more interesting combat is when it does lead to a melee, and that may cause some greater emphasis on such a tactic (likewise the more interesting combat is when the Roman legionnaire closes with his gladius).

It's an interesting question, but it side-steps the question of doctrine -- which I consider to be pretty important. The phalanxes were tight formations, that didn't give much room for individual sword fighting. The close combat is often referred to as a "press" which implies to me that it could get quite tight and uncomfortable, making even fairly simple jabs with a sword awkward -- not impossible obviously, but probably more difficult than if there was a little bit of space. Returning to practice, the men of the rear-ranks could still use their spears during the press (again, how effectively given that everybody is "pressing" together is probably questionable).

So, according to doctrine, the phalanx formation doesn't seem to have favored the sword, and in practice, the spear/pike could still be used by some of the ranks if it came to a general melee.

This, interestingly enough, leads to the question of what the heck Roman soldiers in the rear ranks were doing during close combat fighting (throwing pila is impractical, and they can't really join in). Again the depths of Roman formations seem to have varied considerably (at least in sources), from 3 or 4, to 8 or 10. (I speculate that they served as immediate replacements for casualties or tired soldiers -- some phalanx tactics involved piling up men very deep on a flank, and it worked so there must be something to it)

As for the spacing distances given by historical authors we need to be careful about how we interpret them. They are sometimes written in terribly confusing fashion. I recently found a Spanish drill manual from 1595 online, and sent it over to a friend who could translate it. He didn't have time to translate the whole thing, so I asked him to translate a couple of pages that looked interesting. He gave me a rough translation of a description of the spacing between pikemen. It took me a good half-hour or more to figure out exactly what the heck the author was trying to say. Each man occupied something like five-feet left-to-right and seven feet front-to-back. I had to read through a very complicated description, several times, before it eventually dawned on me that he was basically saying that the ranks were placed every four feet, and the files every three feet. (The trick was figuring out that a soldier occupied a square foot). So Polybius and Vegetius may have been trying to communicate the same thing, but in confusingly different ways. ;-)

[Matthew]

Matthew, I've been doing some haphazard internet research into the subject (which is always fraught with dangers), so I wanted to ask you a question --

Fire away, but I am not hugely more reliable than the internet I inhabit! :smallwink:



It appears to me, that when the Romans initially abandoned the spear/phalanx formation, and adopted the sword, they hadn't started using the pilum. Is that correct? When was the pilum introduced to Roman heavy infantry tactics? I don't see any mention of it when they were basically phalanxes.

As far as I am aware, nobody really knows why or exactly when it happened. It is related to Gallic invasions, perhaps, campaigns in Spain, war with Carthage, and campaigns within Italy. Partly it may be an issue with the terminology, but some form of pilum or heavy javelin was definitely in use by 200 BC. I would have to go and look up one of the old threads on RomanArmyTalk to follow the somewhat convoluted reforms supposed to have occurred between the end of the Roman Kingdom and Polybius. It seems likely that they always had light armed javelin troops in service, an equivalent to the Greek peltast. A big change in 300 BC, though, was the widespread adoption in the Hellenistic successor kingdoms of the pike phalanx. I do not believe that was imported into Rome. Still, some sort of sword would have been a side arm at that point, but not the gladius hispanicus, which seems to have been adopted some time in the third century BC.



You also asked if a hoplites primary weapon was his sword, because the spear becomes useless after the initial impact. This assumes that the initial impact leads to a melee, and isn't decisive in itself. Clearly the more interesting combat is when it does lead to a melee, and that may cause some greater emphasis on such a tactic (likewise the more interesting combat is when the Roman legionnaire closes with his gladius).

It's an interesting question, but it side-steps the question of doctrine -- which I consider to be pretty important. The phalanxes were tight formations, that didn't give much room for individual sword fighting. The close combat is often referred to as a "press" which implies to me that it could get quite tight and uncomfortable, making even fairly simple jabs with a sword awkward -- not impossible obviously, but probably more difficult than if there was a little bit of space. Returning to practice, the men of the rear-ranks could still use their spears during the press (again, how effectively given that everybody is "pressing" together is probably questionable).

So, according to doctrine, the phalanx formation doesn't seem to have favored the sword, and in practice, the spear/pike could still be used by some of the ranks if it came to a general melee.

That may or may not be the case. What is interesting about the phalanx is that the Spartans favoured excessively short swords, almost daggers really, which suggests a very tight press for their disciplined soldiers. On the other hand, the Saxon shield wall was a similarly tight formation and saw sword fighting of various sorts. It is particularly interesting that the swords of the late Republic and early Principate were shorter than those of Polybius' time, excessively short like Spartan blades. This suggests that Vegetius' 3' frontage and "true" heavy infantry may date from that time. It may be that fighting in such close order can only be achieved by full time soldiers.



This, interestingly enough, leads to the question of what the heck Roman soldiers in the rear ranks were doing during close combat fighting (throwing pila is impractical, and they can't really join in). Again the depths of Roman formations seem to have varied considerably (at least in sources), from 3 or 4, to 8 or 10. (I speculate that they served as immediate replacements for casualties or tired soldiers -- some phalanx tactics involved piling up men very deep on a flank, and it worked so there must be something to it)

Right, and even more interestingly the Romans of 200 BC fought with two reserves, the Hastati at the front, Principes in the second line and Triarii in the third. There seems to have been a rotation system, which I know Machiavelli investigated, but I do not know about that. The chequerboard formation is more familiar to me, though.



As for the spacing distances given by historical authors we need to be careful about how we interpret them. They are sometimes written in terribly confusing fashion. I recently found a Spanish drill manual from 1595 online, and sent it over to a friend who could translate it. He didn't have time to translate the whole thing, so I asked him to translate a couple of pages that looked interesting. He gave me a rough translation of a description of the spacing between pikemen. It took me a good half-hour or more to figure out exactly what the heck the author was trying to say. Each man occupied something like five-feet left-to-right and seven feet front-to-back. I had to read through a very complicated description, several times, before it eventually dawned on me that he was basically saying that the ranks were placed every four feet, and the files every three feet. (The trick was figuring out that a soldier occupied a square foot). So Polybius and Vegetius may have been trying to communicate the same thing, but in confusingly different ways. ;-)

Heh, yes it can be tricky. In this case we can be pretty sure of the distances, as Polybius uses his calculations to compare the maniple with the Phalanx, asking why when each phalanx soldier occupied half the space of the Roman soldier [i.e. 3' to 6'], the latter was able to win out. Vegetius, if I recall, actually gives a calculation for the total frontage occupied by a legion after his 3' per man statement, so we can be pretty sure about that too.

[Galloglaich]

The Hastatii's principle weapon was, of course, the spear (hasta), later they were re-equiepped with pila and gladius.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasta_%28spear%29

The Romans had peltast-like light infantry called "Velites", they were basically the soldiers too poor to afford armor. After the Marian reform they were folded into the regular infantry (as the State supplied the armor)

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

The Romans picked up the Pilum from the Iberians or Celit-iberians, apparently. It existed long before use by the Romans and persisted long after (as the Angon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angon)) well into early Medieval times. Contrary to popular belief, though primarily an armor-piercing javelin it was also used as a spear. it had smaller / lighter (plumbata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plumbata)) and heavier (soliferrum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliferrum)) cousins.

G

[Yora]

Out of curiosity: This seems to be a quite small group of "regulars" who do by far most of the posting.
What are your backgrounds from which you have your knowledge?

As for me, I studied Cultural Studies and Intercultural Interaction, picking lectures and seminars focused on religious history and Asian philosophy. Now I branch out into Japanology to become an "interpreter or mediator", assisting with adjusting to foreign societies and avoiding backlash from misunderstandings for buiness, tourists, and migrants.
Military technology and tactics is really only a hobby, but from my academic background I am used to always question if any activity that people do is actually what it appears to be and done for the purpose I assume, or if there is something going on that you only notice when you know the context and the believes of the people. I am also fascinated by physics, and in military technology you have these two things come together like nowhere else, especially when there is a lot of material in form of movies and video games that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. And I was born in the early 80's. Nothing on TV did make any sense. :smallamused:
So every time I see a movie or play a game, and there's tactics or special weapons involved, I always have to know what the reasoning behind it is.
And just this year I've been found to be affected by ADD, which actually makes it that I HAVE to know! Once I'm hooked, finding the answer is the only thing that matters. :smalltongue:

And I have to say, every time I arrive at an answer that I still have doubts about, I ask you guys if you think it's plausible. :smallbiggrin:

[Galloglaich]

I'm only an amateur historian with no real formal education beyond a few semesters in college.. I am a military veteran and was stationed in Germany in the 80's.

I have about 12 years experience in the historical fencing community. I placed in international fencing tournaments in 2010 and 2012, so did two people I trained (one in Houston and one in Göteborg, Sweden). I was also an instructor in two HEMA events, in 2011 and 2012.

I wrote a historical book on the Medieval Baltic. I also wrote some stuff in the RPG world, mainly historically based combat rules and weapon statistics for The Riddle of Steel and for my own game, Codex Martialis.

G

[Autolykos]

though Roman iconography is full of "heroic blows".I wouldn't use depictions as evidence on the most-used combat style. Thrusts are generally more efficient at killing, but wide swings look flashier - so that's what people paint/sculpture. I sure hope future historians won't use the Rambo movies as a source on modern infantry tactics.

As to my background, I'm currently writing my PhD thesis in physics and have about a decade of experience in various martial arts (Kickboxing, Escrima and Ju Jutsu mostly, but I dabbled in a few others). My knowledge in history is mainly cobbled together from lots of less-than-reliable sources (school included, but facts are few and far between in German history classes... hated it back then), so I will be wrong or at least wildly inaccurate most of the time (that's why I like this thread, lots of people to point out mistakes in my information and/or reasoning). The main interests that lead me here are strategy, geopolitics and weapon technology (history just provides a lot of material to study these).

[Yukitsu]

Out of curiosity: This seems to be a quite small group of "regulars" who do by far most of the posting.
What are your backgrounds from which you have your knowledge?

As for me, I studied Cultural Studies and Intercultural Interaction, picking lectures and seminars focused on religious history and Asian philosophy. Now I branch out into Japanology to become an "interpreter or mediator", assisting with adjusting to foreign societies and avoiding backlash from misunderstandings for buiness, tourists, and migrants.
Military technology and tactics is really only a hobby, but from my academic background I am used to always question if any activity that people do is actually what it appears to be and done for the purpose I assume, or if there is something going on that you only notice when you know the context and the believes of the people. I am also fascinated by physics, and in military technology you have these two things come together like nowhere else, especially when there is a lot of material in form of movies and video games that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. And I was born in the early 80's. Nothing on TV did make any sense. :smallamused:
So every time I see a movie or play a game, and there's tactics or special weapons involved, I always have to know what the reasoning behind it is.
And just this year I've been found to be affected by ADD, which actually makes it that I HAVE to know! Once I'm hooked, finding the answer is the only thing that matters. :smalltongue:

And I have to say, every time I arrive at an answer that I still have doubts about, I ask you guys if you think it's plausible. :smallbiggrin:

I have a large collection of university level textbooks on military history, focusing on politics, tactics and strategy. My primary focus is in Canadian military history, but the second largest ones are Japanese military history and WWII general history. The high end courses I've actually taken were political in nature. My exposure to Roman accounts is mostly through Vegetius reading the de re militari, as I figured it would be appropriate to read it along with On War, The Art of War (both Machiavelli and Sun Tzu), the Book of 5 Rings and the 36 Stratagems. (Forgot the Strategicon)

My general view of the individual kit has tended to be that every soldier is well equipped assuming the worst, and that they're equipped the best that they can be, not the best that is possible.

One of my favourite readings, is any scenario where significant technological, tactical and strategic revolution altered war enough to be noteworthy.

[Galloglaich]

I think some people may find this interesting.

The real life fencer, magician, and mercenary soldier, Henrich Agrippa. This is perhaps the historical equivalent of the DnD "Fighter / Magic User" :smallcool:

http://www.hroarr.com/heinrich-cornelius-agrippa-a-fine-student-black-magician-and-a-freyfechter/

G

[Yora]

Well, not really. The type of magic he dealt with would not have been combat spells as in AD&D. I know this because we did a long analysis on his work in the seminar or arcane and divine magic. I mean "Magic and Religion". :smallbiggrin:

[Spiryt]

I pretty much read books and Internet for most part. Some bow shooting, etc. no real professional knowledge/exp.

Would be nice to know how many historians/military historians/archaeologists are here, there's always quite a few on boards like Myarmoury or Freha.pl

Although education is, sadly or not, completely non equivalent to knowledge, I had privilege to hold some discussion with student of military history from prestige university on one forum.

He had held some most hilariously inane and lunatic opinions on antique warfare I've ever seen - after some spectacular deduction work, he had deducted that Partian arrows would fly at around ~ 600 m/s. Quite a lot of such ridiculous things, extracted from perfectly legit historical fact, before he got banned. :smallbiggrin:

[Yora]

As I learned quite early on in University, "History" is not really a science. :smallamused:
It mostly is about supporting the narrative you want to be true. History books can tell you a lot about culture, believes, values, morals, and ethics. But in regard to the writer, not the subject he writes about. :smallbiggrin:
Very few texts can stand up to the standards of the present day. And there's no reason to believe that after 5000 years of History, we suddenly overcame all predjudices and personal agendas in the mid 90s.

[Tyndmyr]

Out of curiosity: This seems to be a quite small group of "regulars" who do by far most of the posting.
What are your backgrounds from which you have your knowledge?

I am an avid user of weapons and reader of books in the WW2 era especially. Having gone through a few hundred of those, and done some original research with pilots in the pacific theater when I was younger, I've got a fair bit of knowledge on certain topics. Anything WW2 era or modern era, I'm pretty solid on. I also have a good practical working knowledge of most medieval weaponry from a "I've used it" standpoint.

However, there are other topics, like this one, where I mostly just lurk and read, since I really don't have the expertise to contribute further.

[Matthew]

Out of curiosity: This seems to be a quite small group of "regulars" who do by far most of the posting.
What are your backgrounds from which you have your knowledge?

For what it is worth, I did a BA in Ancient and Medieval History, an MA in Medieval Studies, and have written (but am yet to submit) a PhD thesis titled "Middle English Literature and the Crusades". My early interest in ancient and medieval warfare is partly what inspired me to undertake these studies. It both supplements and overlaps them, which is to say if I am not studying it as part of these endeavours, I end up studying it for its own sake. I am an avid war and adventure gamer, as well as sword & sorcery enthusiast. However, I have no practical training in any martial arts, experience as a reenactor or anything like that.



I wouldn't use depictions as evidence on the most-used combat style. Thrusts are generally more efficient at killing, but wide swings look flashier - so that's what people paint/sculpture. I sure hope future historians won't use the Rambo movies as a source on modern infantry tactics.

Ha! I am not sure that is quite the same thing, more like using a chanson de geste as a model for medieval warfare. Of course, there are dangers in using iconography as a reference, but it can be a useful adjunct and sometimes it is used as primary evidence (take Trajan's Column for the most famous example). The Romans are described as using the cut or chop and depicted doing so, I am not sure there is any more evidence outside of Vegetius for them despising it (maybe there is).

[Galloglaich]

Well, not really. The type of magic he dealt with would not have been combat spells as in AD&D. I know this because we did a long analysis on his work in the seminar or arcane and divine magic. I mean "Magic and Religion". :smallbiggrin:

True, though you never know what he was really into, all we have for sure is what he published which was enough to almost get him hanged for heresy. But we also know that there were some other more sinister / DnDish books like this around in his day.

http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Rites-Necromancers-Fifteenth-Century/dp/0271017511/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1341869171&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=clm+849

... which do have a few D&D ish spells like summoning a Magic horse you can ride, flying and invisibility. And I know of at least two other ones like that from the 15th Century, one from England and one from Holland. There are also many older books he would have had access to which are a bit DnDish, for example there is an old Arab magic book which has recipes for summoning magic scorpions to attack people. Written by an Arab scholar who was very well known to medieval alchemists.

And at the very least he was also an alchemist himself, and alchemists had stuff like pyrotechnics, strong acid, smoke bombs, explosives, drugs, poisons and so on.. for real.

Enough I think that you could have a pretty cool template for an interesting character in an RPG. At least, it would fit well in one of mine ;)

G

[Joran]

Out of curiosity: This seems to be a quite small group of "regulars" who do by far most of the posting.
What are your backgrounds from which you have your knowledge?


I mostly lurk, but I have a B.A. in History with a concentration in Military History. That concentration was a grand total of 4 classes, two of them on Modern Military History (1494, the start of the Italian Wars, to the present day). The other two were advanced reading classes, one completely devoted to Clausewitz's On War. Tactics was a pretty small part of the class. Instead, the professor preferred to talk more about strategy and logistics. He liked to distill his class down to answering two questions: "Who fought and why? Who paid, how much and why?"

Since I've been out of college for almost a decade now, a lot of my knowledge has lapsed, but I'm interested in reading everything posted here. I occasionally like to dig up an old textbook and read through it again.

[fusilier]

Out of curiosity: This seems to be a quite small group of "regulars" who do by far most of the posting.
What are your backgrounds from which you have your knowledge?


I have a minor in History with a concentration in Ancient history -- and another one in the American West, and almost had one in Asian history. I took as many history courses as I possibly could as an undergrad (and even managed to sneak a couple in as a grad student)! I had a really good Ancient history professor, and I tried to take as many classes as I could from him. He was basically the only professor at the University who focused on ancient history, and a great lecturer. I would not have ended up with a concentration in Ancient history if it hadn't been for him. I never got a chance to take his class on Ancient/Classical warfare unfortunately, although a couple lectures were always devoted to warfare in his classes.

I have a BS and MS in Computer Science. I'm a reenactor and have about half-a-dozen impressions. I read, investigate, and talk to others as much as possible.

[fusilier]

Fire away, but I am not hugely more reliable than the internet I inhabit! :smallwink:

Haha, I'm tempted to make this my signature line -- which is saying something, because I've never used sig lines. :-)

[Joran]

I have a BA and MS in Computer Science.

/high5. I also have a BS and MS in Computer Science. Computer Science is much better at paying the bills and I realized after doing my senior thesis that I didn't much like archives diving.

[Fortinbras]

Crecy, 1346
Philip is able to persuade his knights that it is wiser to wait a day to attack. The following day, the Genoese crossbowmen are able to advance under the cover of their pavises and are able to shelter behind them while reloading.

What happens?

Do you folks think that crossbowmen equipped with pavises would have been a match for English longbowmen?

[rrgg]

I don't believe they dropped their spears because they couldn't use both a spear and the pilum. Regardless, the velites carried enough javalins to make it unlikely that you couldn't carry that number of spears, and at any rate, a pilum is about the same length as the old hasta. Carrying 2 pilum wouldn't be harder than carrying a pilum and a spear.

The skirmisher's javelins were only finger thick and much shorter. They also didn't pack nearly as much punch.

If the legionaries carried one pilum and one spear then they would have one less pilum to throw. Not to mention that less than 30 yards doesn't nescessarily give you a lot of room to fiddle around with many bulky weapons.

[Yora]

Crecy, 1346
Philip is able to persuade his knights that it is wiser to wait a day to attack. The following day, the Genoese crossbowmen are able to advance under the cover of their pavises and are able to shelter behind them while reloading.

What happens?

Do you folks think that crossbowmen equipped with pavises would have been a match for English longbowmen?

Hard to say. I imagine they would be used quite differently.
What is their effective range? What is the rate of shots? How compares their mobility? How much ammunition does each soldiers carry? How does armor penetration compare?
My best guess would be that it depends on the situation which one would be more valuable to have.

If the longbowmen and crossbowmen are shoting at each other, then the pavises would make a very big difference. But I don't know if this happened often, or even at all.

[Spiryt]

Crecy, 1346
Philip is able to persuade his knights that it is wiser to wait a day to attack. The following day, the Genoese crossbowmen are able to advance under the cover of their pavises and are able to shelter behind them while reloading.

What happens?

Do you folks think that crossbowmen equipped with pavises would have been a match for English longbowmen?

Froissart suggested that the very first charge of the French was clunky mess, and all following ones had to be even worse, with casualties and battlefield chaos raising.

Also says that English were very well positioned and organized. Dunno what other chronicles say about it.

So the question is if Phillip and other French commanders would be actually able to actually launch more coherent attacks and break English lines despite charging uphill - considering that French forces were supposedly ill-disciplined and disordered.

If crossbowmen had pavises, it wouldn't be wise for English to get into shooting exchange, certainly, with opponent ducking behind 4 foot (or more) high shield, percentage of successful hits would drop dramatically.

[Norsesmithy]

The French are actually sitting on the only line of retreat for an English army that's been cut off from its logistical corps.

There is zero reason to attack the English position at all, apart from vainglory.

[Storm Bringer]

Out of curiosity: This seems to be a quite small group of "regulars" who do by far most of the posting.
What are your backgrounds from which you have your knowledge?

As for me, I studied Cultural Studies and Intercultural Interaction, picking lectures and seminars focused on religious history and Asian philosophy. Now I branch out into Japanology to become an "interpreter or mediator", assisting with adjusting to foreign societies and avoiding backlash from misunderstandings for buiness, tourists, and migrants.
Military technology and tactics is really only a hobby, but from my academic background I am used to always question if any activity that people do is actually what it appears to be and done for the purpose I assume, or if there is something going on that you only notice when you know the context and the believes of the people. I am also fascinated by physics, and in military technology you have these two things come together like nowhere else, especially when there is a lot of material in form of movies and video games that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. And I was born in the early 80's. Nothing on TV did make any sense. :smallamused:
So every time I see a movie or play a game, and there's tactics or special weapons involved, I always have to know what the reasoning behind it is.
And just this year I've been found to be affected by ADD, which actually makes it that I HAVE to know! Once I'm hooked, finding the answer is the only thing that matters. :smalltongue:

And I have to say, every time I arrive at an answer that I still have doubts about, I ask you guys if you think it's plausible. :smallbiggrin:



I'm a serving solider in the British army, working as a comms specialist. I have a working knowledge of some elements of modern combat, but as i am a classic REMF i don't claim to be an expert in current infantry tactics, or urban armoured warfare formations, or correct FAC procedures, etc.

My knowledge of military history is mostly gathered by a mix od osprey books, this thread, and general military books and internet reading, I have a preference for the "redcoat" era (ie. ~1700-1900AD).

[Conners]

I have an odd question as to whether something is scientifically/physically possible. What I'm wondering, is if you could use the speed of a projectile against itself, via some kind of barrier. So, the faster an object is going when it hits the barrier, the more likely it is to be deflected. That kind of thing.

[Telok]

I have an odd question as to whether something is scientifically/physically possible. What I'm wondering, is if you could use the speed of a projectile against itself, via some kind of barrier. So, the faster an object is going when it hits the barrier, the more likely it is to be deflected. That kind of thing.

A couple of pages back someone mentioned Whipple Shields, designed to protect against high velocity micrometeorite impacts.

One thing I've read (but haven't tried) is cornstarch. Supposedly if you mix up some cornstarch and water in a bowl and punch it hard enough the mixture will solidify and crack. Even simply violently shaking it should get it to stiffen up. The theory behind this is that the cornstarch mixture is full of long chain molecules that slide past each other, as more energy is applied the molecules start to knot up and interlock. So if enough energy is applied fast enough the mixture should act like a solid for a short amount of time.

Let me know if it works.

[Spiryt]

I have an odd question as to whether something is scientifically/physically possible. What I'm wondering, is if you could use the speed of a projectile against itself, via some kind of barrier. So, the faster an object is going when it hits the barrier, the more likely it is to be deflected. That kind of thing.

The greater the velocity, the greater drag, or resistance of the medium.

And since it depends on velocity squared, for the same kinetic energy, the object that flies faster, will generally be stopped way more violently. Of course in real situation, it's usually way more complicated than that.

So "speed of projectile" against itself is pretty much built into the universe for us. :smallwink:

Very quick, but light bullets (like 5.56 nato from more 'solid' barrel) tend to have very high energy, that's upon hitting something more substantial, is getting spend very rapidly due to it - usually resulting in severe deformation of object and bullet itself.

So there certainly would be the way to use this effect to stop such missile, using such an effect - back in the WWII improving armor penetration with 'normal' cannons via improving the velocity hit the dead end when 'standard' shells started shattering while penetrating the armor.

[Yukitsu]

Chobham type armour works on that principle. Increasing the kinetic penetrator's velocity doesn't correlate very highly to an increase in the armour penetration against Chobham armour. Explosive reactive can as well to a point.

[Galloglaich]

Isn't this ... chemically, something similar to how kevlar and silk work?

G

[GraaEminense]

Not strictly a weapons/armour question, but definitely real-world:

Does anyone know of a good source for pictures (photos, drawings, paintings... anything) to illustrate places? Especially dark age, medieval and renaissance cityscapes?

After a session where the GM used photos of the area to give us a feel of the place (the game was CoC, set in England in the 40s, so material was readily available) I've been wanting to build up a portfolio of pictures to be able to do the same in other settings.

I could of course Google away, but there's so much chaff -especially since I need pictures without obvious anachronisms like a million tourists.

So, if anyone got any ideas I'd be happy to hear them.

[fusilier]

Not strictly a weapons/armour question, but definitely real-world:

Does anyone know of a good source for pictures (photos, drawings, paintings... anything) to illustrate places? Especially dark age, medieval and renaissance cityscapes?

After a session where the GM used photos of the area to give us a feel of the place (the game was CoC, set in England in the 40s, so material was readily available) I've been wanting to build up a portfolio of pictures to be able to do the same in other settings.

I could of course Google away, but there's so much chaff -especially since I need pictures without obvious anachronisms like a million tourists.

So, if anyone got any ideas I'd be happy to hear them.

I don't think this exactly what you are looking for, but they do have some cityscapes from the Renaissance:

http://historic-cities.huji.ac.il/

[Conners]

So "speed of projectile" against itself is pretty much built into the universe for us.:smallwink: Was hoping that was the case:smallsmile:. Can that principle be used to protect a spaceship from space-dust at light-speed travel?

[The Boz]

Most likely no. Even if you could safeguard the ship from the penetrating impact, you'd still have a large heat buildup on your hands.

[Conners]

With body armour, could it become that you need to use slower, bigger weapons like a pole-axe?

[Yukitsu]

With body armour, could it become that you need to use slower, bigger weapons like a pole-axe?

Not realistically. The amount of energy per unit of area being deformed is what honestly matters, not the velocity compared to the mass of the impact.

A slower, larger weapon could penetrate more armour, so long as the amount of energy it can convert into work over the same target area is higher, but all things otherwise equal, faster always = better.

[Conners]

Hmm... what is a plausible way to deal with a space-dust when travelling at high speeds, speculatively speaking?

[The Boz]

Ablative multilayered shielding, if we're talking very long trips. That way the little strikes can be easily deflected, the larger ones are absorbed, and a fair amount of the "armor" ablates, taking with it excess heat. A key element with this is shape and weight balance. You only ever need forward facing armor, nothing can really come at you from behind, and smart design should reduce the chances of side impact to 0.
Also, applied phlebotinum force fields.

[Telok]

There is one reasonable "force field" model using current technology, for a certain value of "reasonable" and enough cash to fund the engineering.

If you can give matter an electrical charge then you can shove it aside with a sufficiently powerful magnetic field. The Earth's natural magnetic field does this with charged particles coming off the sun. The best application would be to protect interstellar spacecraft from dust and random atoms at the speeds required to reach another star.

The power output, of course rises, dramatically as the speed, mass, and flow rate increase. And this is assuming that you have at least ten thousand kilometres of empty space to play with.

[Yukitsu]

There is one reasonable "force field" model using current technology, for a certain value of "reasonable" and enough cash to fund the engineering.

If you can give matter an electrical charge then you can shove it aside with a sufficiently powerful magnetic field. The Earth's natural magnetic field does this with charged particles coming off the sun. The best application would be to protect interstellar spacecraft from dust and random atoms at the speeds required to reach another star.

The power output, of course rises, dramatically as the speed, mass, and flow rate increase. And this is assuming that you have at least ten thousand kilometres of empty space to play with.

IIRC, that requires that the dust or atoms be displaced a distance away from the ship fast enough that any dust headed dead center will have time to bypass the front facing surface of the ship. That means the force field has to displace the dust sideways faster than light, or has to project the field out several hundred times further than the width of the ship. Either way, you're going to wind up with some fairly massive power requirements.

[fusilier]

. . . Either way, you're going to wind up with some fairly massive power requirements.

If you're travelling at "light-speed travel" you can probably meet those power requirements! ;-)

[GraaEminense]

I don't think this exactly what you are looking for, but they do have some cityscapes from the Renaissance:

http://historic-cities.huji.ac.il/
Not quite what I was looking for, but quite a useful resource.

Bookmarked, and thanks!

[Conners]

Hmmm... how much power would it require to travel at light-speed? Are there are loop-holes which seem plausible?

[Xuc Xac]

Hmmm... how much power would it require to travel at light-speed? Are there are loop-holes which seem plausible?

All of it.

[Autolykos]

All of it.Even that won't be enough (unless, of course, you don't have a rest mass).

Depending on whom you ask, "wormholes" are the only plausible way to cut interstellar travel times. Not by going faster, but by taking a shortcut. The problem is that there is no known way to shape space-time in a controlled way at these scales.

[Conners]

I see you point o.o".

All right, let's change the question: What are the most plausible speculative ideas for space travel which come to mind?

[Tarinaky]

I see you point o.o".

All right, let's change the question: What are the most plausible speculative ideas for space travel which come to mind?

The most plausible speculative idea is sublight travel using sufficient quantities of handwavium to keep the crew alive over the centuries it'd take to get anywhere interesting (suspended animation, advanced cloning). This requires only the assumption that it's probably easier to change the rules of human biology than it is to change the rules of physics ('design' a better human as it were).

Depending on your philosophy - if you can reduce a single person into nothing more than a stream of analogue data (DNA, personality... et al) beaming that information with a laser would be a very energy efficient way of travelling long distances.

A less philosophically challenging version of this is to send smart machines to explore the stars - sufficiently advanced machines that can suspend their function in the same way a laptop does. During the long journey we can perfect the software and send out firmware updates... and they can return information or even resources.

[Knaight]

The most plausible speculative idea is sublight travel using sufficient quantities of handwavium to keep the crew alive over the centuries it'd take to get anywhere interesting (suspended animation, advanced cloning). This requires only the assumption that it's probably easier to change the rules of human biology than it is to change the rules of physics ('design' a better human as it were).
Generation ships are significantly more plausible speculative ideas.

[Spiryt]

Not realistically. The amount of energy per unit of area being deformed is what honestly matters, not the velocity compared to the mass of the impact.

A slower, larger weapon could penetrate more armour, so long as the amount of energy it can convert into work over the same target area is higher, but all things otherwise equal, faster always = better.

Well, really, what matters depend on material deformed, displaced, torn apart etc.

Depending on material, it's thikness, support etc. time in which energy is being spent can really matter a lot.


With body armour, could it become that you need to use slower, bigger weapons like a pole-axe?

Well, type II bulletproof vest can hold off bullets of quite considerable energy.

While it probably wouldn't help at all against pole axe, despite it much lower 'energy output'.

But with modern military there's 3039 responses to light vest, before damn polleaxe. Starting with more powerful gun. :smallwink:

[Autolykos]

What are the most plausible speculative ideas for space travel which come to mind?
These are my guesses, sorted by plausibility.

1. Bite the bullet and accept long travel/communication times. - very likely
2. Finding a way to create stable and passable wormholes in a controlled way (you'd need materials with negative energy density for that, and we have no idea what they would look like). - hard, but perhaps possible
3. Finding a flaw in general relativity and exploiting it. - unlikely, the theory held together fine until now
3a. Finding a way for FTL communications (it is already proven that quantum entanglement will not work, even though it seems to be FTL), and replicating the object where you want it to arrive. - if 3. works, this is the most likely candidate IMHO

- At this point we're definitely crossing the crackpot threshold (if we haven't already) -

3b. Finding a way to remove an object's inertial mass. - How would one even do this, and what side effects could that have?
4. Removing the ship from our space-time completely (perhaps by enclosing it in a "bubble" of it's own space), so it doesn't need to travel in our universe at all. - If we can build wormholes, why don't we take one with us?
5. Using hypothetical FTL particles ("tachyons") as reaction mass. - Do they even exist? How could we catch, store and use them?
6. Find a way for "true" teleportation. - How is that even supposed to work? No theories or observations even hint at such a possibility.


If you're just interested in plausible-sounding ways for interstellar travel that don't immediately fall apart once a physicist looks at them (even though they aren't based on actual science), you could take a look at Sword of the Stars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_of_the_Stars). They have (in the latest expansion) six different alien races, each with an own semi-plausible way of interstellar travel.

[Yukitsu]

If you're travelling at "light-speed travel" you can probably meet those power requirements! ;-)

Not necessarily. Moving that fast requires certain "cheats" to get around Einstein. Cheating to get around Newton's laws is probably going to prove to be harder.

[Tarinaky]

Not necessarily. Moving that fast requires certain "cheats" to get around Einstein. Cheating to get around Newton's laws is probably going to prove to be harder.

In the universe there are large numbers of high-energy events, daily. Any such 'cheat' is (by logic) one of threefour things:

1) Requires energy in excess of that released by even the most energetic stellar events (and thus of dubious practical use).
2) So unstable as to disappear before it can be measured (and thus of dubious practical use).
3) Occur frequently in nature (begging the question of why no empirical evidence of such exists)

Edit: Just thought of a fourth one...

4) Or require some exotic material not present in abundance in nature... (again... making it of dubious practical use)

[Yukitsu]

Well, really, what matters depend on material deformed, displaced, torn apart etc.

Depending on material, it's thikness, support etc. time in which energy is being spent can really matter a lot.

Not as much as you'd really think. Energy lost over time works equivalently as both projectiles do work. Unless the pole-axe does less work on the body armour, but does the same amount on the body underneath, it's not considerably more efficient than the bullet.


Well, type II bulletproof vest can hold off bullets of quite considerable energy.

While it probably wouldn't help at all against pole axe, despite it much lower 'energy output'.

But with modern military there's 3039 responses to light vest, before damn polleaxe. Starting with more powerful gun. :smallwink:

A type 2 vest stops only around 7545.888 joules of energy, the approximate energy of a bullet.

A magical 2 kilogram halberd flying through the air (Ie, ignoring the body weight behind it) needs to be moving at only 180 or so meters per second to match that energy. For reference to that, my golf swing clocks in at 3 times faster.

[Yukitsu]

In the universe there are large numbers of high-energy events, daily. Any such 'cheat' is (by logic) one of threefour things:

1) Requires energy in excess of that released by even the most energetic stellar events (and thus of dubious practical use).
2) So unstable as to disappear before it can be measured (and thus of dubious practical use).
3) Occur frequently in nature (begging the question of why no empirical evidence of such exists)

Edit: Just thought of a fourth one...

4) Or require some exotic material not present in abundance in nature... (again... making it of dubious practical use)

That's not actually logic. :smallconfused: Stating that you must use high energy events to exceed light (a losers bet) is basically playing it by Einstein's rules and losing. If we do find a way around the speed of light barrier, it'll probably involve something other than "pour in more energy" since that squares off to pretty high values once you start to get to within a chunk of the speed of light.

[Spiryt]

A type 2 vest stops only around 7545.888 joules of energy, the approximate energy of a bullet.

A magical 2 kilogram halberd flying through the air (Ie, ignoring the body weight behind it) needs to be moving at only 180 or so meters per second to match that energy. For reference to that, my golf swing clocks in at 3 times faster.


7545 J is energy of some really serious heavyweight/long barrel bullet so I'm pretty sure that you mixed something up.

Also, there's no possible way that 2kg halberd will be even approaching that energy, with or without wielder....

Tiger woods solid hits had been clocked at around 60m/s at the club head, so I somehow doubt that you do it 3 times faster than 180. :smallconfused::smallconfused:

Dr. Williams in his armor tests clocked halbers etc. at about 200J

Absolutely top level throwers give javelins about 360 J of starting KE.

And so on, and so on - you really mixed something up big here.


And in the end, shape, velocity, material, and generally how energy is being spent will have drastically more meaning than total energy.

Football kicked by powerful player can easily exceed energy of most arrows etc. and it obviously won't penetrate any armor any time soon, nor harm anybody seriously - for extreme comparison.

In terms of bullet vs pollaxe -

pollaxe spike thrust will have way more momentum, among other things, than bullet, less drag from material penetrated (less velocity) way higher sectional density, etc.

So with way lower energy, it can stab trough things that will disperse bullet energy and stop it.

[Tarinaky]

That's not actually logic. :smallconfused: Stating that you must use high energy events to exceed light (a losers bet) is basically playing it by Einstein's rules and losing. If we do find a way around the speed of light barrier, it'll probably involve something other than "pour in more energy" since that squares off to pretty high values once you start to get to within a chunk of the speed of light.

I didn't say it was logic. I said it followed from logic. I didn't show the argument because I'm lazy.

Something other than "pour in more energy" is Option 4) Exotic matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive#Difficulties).

[Yukitsu]

Yeah, early morning physics when you start with miles as your unit generally leads to some form of failure (I forgot what a mile was when doing that, off by magnitude of 10). On the other hand, I found a calculator. :smalltongue:

Now that I don't have to eyeball it, 2kg*m^2/1=7545, m=(7545/2)^-2, m=61 (eyeballing without checking to a diff of 120 was pretty bad, but it does take a while doing square roots by hand. :smalltongue:)

Which happily is the velocity of Tiger Wood's golf swing.

I'm going to still contest that the 200 joule halberd swing is nonsense, as that implies the halberd was traveling at about m=(200/2)^-2, m=10. 10 meters per second. Unless that was only 200 joules of energy imparted on the target after impact, using an accelerometer, rather than 200 joules of kinetic energy, but the bullet number I gave above isn't work, it's the total kinetic energy of the bullet in flight.

As a further, when you say "has more momentum", the calculation for momentum to work is identical to converting momentum to joules, then joules to work. If the halberd has more momentum, it ends up having more energy, not less. I'm guessing just like how ballistic vests are actually stab resistant (a poor wiki search getting 109 joules of work imparted being blocked) more energy on a stab, and more energy on the bullet will cause more damage.

[Spiryt]

Halberd weights way more than Tiger's club, so it cannot be expected to be swung nearly as fast.

10 m/s is perfectly reasonable, some 7-9 m/s is pretty typical for fully committed punch of trained boxers. Halberd head has a lot of advantage in velocity due to leverage, but with it's mass and arms moving way slower holding the haft, being close to body, it's shouldn't beat those significantly.

Momentum of halberd also is perfectly simple thing:

Bullet of 8 g and velocity of 400 m/s will have energy of 640 J and momentum of about 3.2

Some simple model of halberd with about 3kg of whole weapon and hand moving about 12 m/s on average will be 216 J with momentum of about 36

Of course, there will be subtleties in it, but generally, due to way lower mass, and energy due to great velocity, bullet will have way lower tendency to stay on course, it's energy will be likely spent up for many other interactions.

[Yukitsu]

Halberd weights way more than Tiger's club, so it cannot be expected to be swung nearly as fast.

10 m/s is perfectly reasonable, some 7-9 m/s is pretty typical for fully committed punch of trained boxers. Halberd head has a lot of advantage in velocity due to leverage, but with it's mass and arms moving way slower holding the haft, being close to body, it's shouldn't beat those significantly.

Halberd's still have about a meter distance from the point at which it's held. That distance makes a big difference in terms of how fast it will be moving. Slower than 61 probably (though Tiger by no means has the world's fastest swing speed.), but I'd have to say a 10 m/s based on trying to finish a guy off, trying to get through his armour would be too slow for the job.


Momentum of halberd also is perfectly simple thing:

Bullet of 8 g and velocity of 400 m/s will have energy of 640 J and momentum of about 3.2

Isn't this the kind of bullet that gets stopped by a type 1 vest? At those lower energy ranges, the way the armour works, there's a case that lower energy, more weight makes a difference, as the flexible armour doesn't stretch at all when cut (meaning it doesn't have the same work applied to it.) In that case however, even the mass is largely irrelevant, it's the fact that they're doing different types of work.


Some simple model of halberd with about 3kg of whole weapon and hand moving about 12 m/s on average will be 216 J with momentum of about 36

Of course, there will be subtleties in it, but generally, due to way lower mass, and energy due to great velocity, bullet will have way lower tendency to stay on course, it's energy will be likely spent up for many other interactions.

I think modern vests are stab resistant at those energy ranges though, so unless you're hitting harder, that may very well not bypass the body armour. After all, solid plates are currently used to stop serious rounds, not soft cloth armour, though I may be confusing type 2 and 3 with type 1 and 2 here.

*As a note, we're using slightly different equations here. I'm going with the SI unit for joule instead of the Ek calculation, which is simply 1/2 the SI unit, but since it's basically a linear relation, not much of a difference in terms of comparison.

[Spiryt]

Isn't this the kind of bullet that gets stopped by a type 1 vest?


no, those are getting stopped by better II and IIa, according to data I've found. Velocity stated mentions that at 400 m/s there would be still decent chance of penetration.


I think modern vests are stab resistant at those energy ranges though, so unless you're hitting harder, that may very well not bypass the body armour. After all, solid plates are currently used to stop serious rounds, not soft cloth armour, though I may be confusing type 2 and 3 with type 1 and 2 here.

The test apparently require level 3 to resist 45 J from 10 - 20m/s knife with some weight simulating arm holding, so I don't think 216 is very unrealistic.

According to Wiki, but I guess they wouldn't fail at coping these nij standards.

To endure higher energies, one needs metal additions generally. Completely different material, so is being penetrated differently.

[Yukitsu]

no, those are getting stopped by better II and IIa, according to data I've found. Velocity stated mentions that at 400 m/s there would be still decent chance of penetration.

The test apparently require level 3 to resist 45 J from 10 - 20m/s knife with some weight simulating arm holding, so I don't think 216 is very unrealistic.

According to Wiki, but I guess they wouldn't fail at coping these nij standards.

To endure higher energies, one needs metal additions generally. Completely different material, so is being penetrated differently.

OK, NM, as I'm apparantly shifting numbers down 1 slot each based off lousy memory. Type 3 can probably resist a pole axe, but I'm thinking type 2 just gets cut instead, since it's IIRC mostly soft.

[Spiryt]

Some data for quick reference:

95% of knife attacks averaged around 70 J (http://www.fsijournal.org/article/S0379-0738(99)00117-6/abstract)


http://www.nij.gov/nij/pubs-sum/183652.htm

Here's mentioned data about resistance from dropped weight that simulates knife and an arm.


As far as "resisting pollaxe" goes, it must be noted that even "typical" pollaxe could vary quite a bit in dimensions, and provide at least 3 different 'modes' of attack : top spike, axe blade and hammer with very different protrusions possible.

[eulmanis12]

Generation ships are significantly more plausible speculative ideas.

you might not need generational ships at first. Just ships with large supplies of food/water

Say "Near" and I use the term loosly future, colonization of "close" solar systems such as the Centari system. It is about 4 light years away. Suppose that hypotheticly a ship is built capable of .5 c, half light speed. That would make just a 8 year trip. A long time for a person to be cooped up aboard a ship, but its doable. Accelerating to .5 c can be done with no breaches of the laws of physics. It would need a huge amount of energy to accelerated the ship, but I'm assuming that a society advanced enough to plan a colonization of another solar system wouldn't have much difficulty putting a few nuclear reactors aboard a space ship


for "startrek level" future civilizations, teleportation is theoreticly possible, so is moving space around the ship instead of moving the ship through space. However these are only possible in "theory" and my source is sketchy at best about them. (Science Channel on TV)

edit, fixed error

[Conners]

Hmm... what is the feasibility of shrinking surrounding empty space? Like, not the objects in that space--just the space itself. I also wonder what the effects of moving through shrunken space might be.

[Tarinaky]

Hmm... what is the feasibility of shrinking surrounding empty space? Like, not the objects in that space--just the space itself. I also wonder what the effects of moving through shrunken space might be.

From what I understand... 1) It'd require matter with a negative mass-energy, and nobody knows what that means.
2) It'd require a lot of this unobtanium.
3) Once you hit light speed or more anything inside the 'bubble' is instantly cooked alive by Hawking radiation.

[Knaight]

Say "Near" and I use the term loosly future, colonization of "close" solar systems such as the Centari system. It is about 4 light years away. Suppose that hypotheticly a ship is built capable of .5 c, half light speed. That would make just a 4 year trip.
There are a few major problems with this.
1) If it is 4 lightyears away, and the ship is going .5 c it takes 8 years, and not 4.
2) You have to accelerate up to .5 c, and accelerate back down. Which puts this at .25 c and 16 years looking at averages, assuming that there is constant acceleration then constant deceleration. Given that accelerating to .5 c in 8 years involves accelerating at nearly 1g (9.5 ms^-2), the power requirements are fairly absurd. 9.5 ms^-2 is several orders of magnitude higher than anything likely to be realistic for a while. This actually ignores relativistic effects, which just make it worse.
3) The energy required to accelerate a ship at nearly 1g for 16 years straight is completely ridiculous.

[Telok]

It would need a huge amount of energy to accelerated the ship, but I'm assuming that a society advanced enough to plan a colonization of another solar system wouldn't have much difficulty putting a few nuclear reactors aboard a space ship

Just off the top of my head, there are two known ways to turn electricity into thrust. Lasers are the first way, but this site (http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#photon) (which is reasonably accurate) lists the power requirements at 300 megawatts per Newton of thrust. The other way is to use a Bussard ramjet (http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/slowerlight.php#bussard), which means you already had to accelerate to at least 0.1c in the first place.

The other engine types all require physical propellant of some sort. The rule of thumb here is that any such rocket will be about 2/3 propellant and 1/3 everything else.

[eulmanis12]

There are a few major problems with this.
1) If it is 4 lightyears away, and the ship is going .5 c it takes 8 years, and not 4.
2) You have to accelerate up to .5 c, and accelerate back down. Which puts this at .25 c and 16 years looking at averages, assuming that there is constant acceleration then constant deceleration. Given that accelerating to .5 c in 8 years involves accelerating at nearly 1g (9.5 ms^-2), the power requirements are fairly absurd. 9.5 ms^-2 is several orders of magnitude higher than anything likely to be realistic for a while. This actually ignores relativistic effects, which just make it worse.
3) The energy required to accelerate a ship at nearly 1g for 16 years straight is completely ridiculous.

Sorry about the very obvious math error, its fixed. As far as the acceleration goes, I'm assuming you could get up to speed before exiting our solar system, and decelerate in the same amount of time, leading to a total travel time of 8-9 with a round trip of about 17 years. As for energy, yes it would take an absurd amount. But aquiring absurd amounts of energy is just difficult, breaking the laws of physics is impossible. And even then, what makes you think that energy would be a problem for a civilization with enough spacefaring epericance to colonize a foreign solar system, Anti-matter, nuclear fusion, a new type of power generation that hasn't even been contemplated yet? These things could possibly provide more than enough energy given sufficent research and development. 700-800 years from now I don't see energy as being a problem.

[Tarinaky]

Sorry about the very obvious math error, its fixed. As far as the acceleration goes, I'm assuming you could get up to speed before exiting our solar system, and decelerate in the same amount of time, leading to a total travel time of 8-9 with a round trip of about 17 years. As for energy, yes it would take an absurd amount. But aquiring absurd amounts of energy is just difficult, breaking the laws of physics is impossible. And even then, what makes you think that energy would be a problem for a civilization with enough spacefaring epericance to colonize a foreign solar system, Anti-matter, nuclear fusion, a new type of power generation that hasn't even been contemplated yet? These things could possibly provide more than enough energy given sufficent research and development. 700-800 years from now I don't see energy as being a problem.

Handwaving a new power source counts as breaking the laws of physics (as we understand them). If you're going to do that you might as well pull an infinite improbability drive (quantum tunnelling) along with it...

[Yora]

Hmm... what is the feasibility of shrinking surrounding empty space? Like, not the objects in that space--just the space itself. I also wonder what the effects of moving through shrunken space might be.

I think the general concept is, that you don't actually notice any change. It's not that everything gets pulled closer together, but that the "surface" of space itself shrinks and with it everything inside that space. And if I understood this single one thing of string theory, matter is actually energy which means you can shrink sub-atomic particles withouth affecting their behavior.
((But then the whole cosmic background radiation thing does not work, since the density of the universe would always have been the same. Damn... :smallsigh: )

[Galloglaich]

Keep in mind the amount of energy in joules that it takes a sharp steel blade to penetrate something vs. a lead bullet are very different. As Alan Williams pointed out, arrows would penetrate with about 1/5 the energy of musket bullets. Knives tend to rather easily pierce almost all modern 'soft' body armor. In fact, interestingly, most modern 'knife-proof' vests, such as those used by US prison guards and English police, incorporate some element of mail (i.e. 'chainmail') in them, as that is one of the only designs which has proven reliably capable of stopping a knife thrust.

I think a 200j halberd strike would have devastating results against a threat level II or IIa vest! Especially with the beak.

G

[Knaight]

I'm assuming you could get up to speed before exiting our solar system, and decelerate in the same amount of time, leading to a total travel time of 8-9 with a round trip of about 17 years.
This isn't happening. I'm going to assume that by Solar System you mean the typical use of the planetary range, and aren't looking at the outer boundary of the oort cloud or similar. Even including Pluto at maximum distance, that is a mere 7.4 billion kilometers. Given that uniform acceleration within the Solar System means travel at .25c given prior assumptions, it takes all of 24000 seconds (rounded to 2 significant figures). Accelerating to .5c in 24000 seconds means accelerating at over 12,000 meters per second squared. That's not even remotely survivable.

[Tarinaky]

This isn't happening. I'm going to assume that by Solar System you mean the typical use of the planetary range, and aren't looking at the outer boundary of the oort cloud or similar. Even including Pluto at maximum distance, that is a mere 7.4 billion kilometers. Given that uniform acceleration within the Solar System means travel at .25c given prior assumptions, it takes all of 24000 seconds (rounded to 2 significant figures). Accelerating to .5c in 24000 seconds means accelerating at over 12,000 meters per second squared. That's not even remotely survivable.

Isn't the edge of the Heliosphere/the heliopause normally regarded as 'the edge of the solar system'?

Although I'm not sure it makes a massive difference on your figure since it's only a factor of 2 difference.

[Autolykos]

A type 2 vest stops only around 7545.888 joules of energyI'm curious where you found that number, and how your source can be sure it won't stop 7545.889 J. :)

[Knaight]

Isn't the edge of the Heliosphere/the heliopause normally regarded as 'the edge of the solar system'?

Although I'm not sure it makes a massive difference on your figure since it's only a factor of 2 difference.

There are a few edges that get used, and I was using the one most people go by (hence including Pluto, despite it being a dwarf planet). Still, given that survivable accelerations are over two orders of magnitude lower than what I cited, switching to the heliopause isn't really significant. Any humans aboard are still dead, as are any other macroscopic animals. I can't really comment on the extent to which microscopic animals can survive high accelerations, but I wouldn't be optimistic.

[Yukitsu]

I'm curious where you found that number, and how your source can be sure it won't stop 7545.889 J. :)

Off memory (of a velocity and weight, not that number), but mixing up a type 2 and type 3 vest. Keep forgetting type 1s are the ones that basically don't get used anymore.

[Spiryt]

According to those NIJ standards, 7500 J is energy at which type IV (armor piercing rifle) vests will generally start to fail quite often.

Those are powerful loads, obviously from long barrels.

[Yukitsu]

According to those NIJ standards, 7500 J is energy at which type IV (armor piercing rifle) vests will generally start to fail quite often.

Those are powerful loads, obviously from long barrels.

They have theirs in the proper Ek calculations though, whereas I'm lazy and just using the SI unit. :smalltongue: 7500 at the SI unit is an Ek of 3750 Joules.

[Autolykos]

WTF? A Joule is a Joule is a Joule. There is only one kinetic energy, and that doesn't depend on whether you use SI, Imperial, CGS, or some other weird unit system.
The correct way to calculate it is E=1/2 m*v², and nothing else (unless you insist on correcting for special relativity...). Using another formula (like m*v²) is just plain wrong. Whatever you're calculating there, it's not the kinetic energy of the projectile, and shouldn't be called that.


Sorry, but that just had to be said. My earlier point was more about the implausible precision (7 significant digits when even the second one was probably already inaccurate). I didn't mean to pick on you, but stuff like that really gets my goat.

[Yukitsu]

Ek is calculated as 1/2 mv^2 (1/2md^2/t^2), and is referred to in Joules (the SI unit), where 1/2 is a constant that doesn't have anything to do with joules, but is related to Ek.

A Joule as an SI unit of measurement is mxd^2/t^2.

I'd have to double check why, but I'd have to dig up my old text books.

Number is "precise" because putting through a number with a possibly inaccurate decimal in the kg portion of the equation didn't get a perfect number.

Either way though, Ek is expressed in Joules, but you don't get to say that the calculation for Ek is identical to the derivation for Joules.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/energy/u5l1c.cfm

[Conners]

With all the crazy inventions we have nowadays... what would a proper war be like? Stuff like the Javelin seems to make Armour (tanks and vehicles) completely useless, since an infantryman can take out about as many tanks as they have javelin rockets. Artillery can also shoot incredibly precisely at incredibly long ranges, now... and you get all those stealth drones which drop more drones, all of which have killing capabilities.


Any ideas what a full-out war would be like nowadays? If it were America against a non-super power, I can see it being more of a slaughter rather than a war. But I have trouble fathoming what a war between two super powers would be like nowadays.

[Tarinaky]

With all the crazy inventions we have nowadays... what would a proper war be like? Stuff like the Javelin seems to make Armour (tanks and vehicles) completely useless, since an infantryman can take out about as many tanks as they have javelin rockets. Artillery can also shoot incredibly precisely at incredibly long ranges, now... and you get all those stealth drones which drop more drones, all of which have killing capabilities.


Any ideas what a full-out war would be like nowadays? If it were America against a non-super power, I can see it being more of a slaughter rather than a war. But I have trouble fathoming what a war between two super powers would be like nowadays.

The trouble with things like the Javelin is there are anti-missile-missiles that will pick up a laser designator and fire first.

[Autolykos]

Either way though, Ek is expressed in Joules, but you don't get to say that the calculation for Ek is identical to the derivation for Joules.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/energy/u5l1c.cfm
No. These are to different things. Kinetic energy is a physical quantity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_quantities), Joule is a unit of measurement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_measurement). You can express a specific quantity in different units of measurement (kinetic energy can be expressed in Joules, Erg, or whatever strange unit the Americans use), but saying "I calculated Joules, not kinetic energy" just doesn't make any sense.

[Yora]

There was a question in the Friendly Banter forum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13558126), which I copy here since you guys might have some answers:

In short, I discovered my grandfather owns a shotgun. But not any kind of shotgun; apparently it's a family heirloom he inherited from his father. As to know whether his own father inherited it from his own father is up to speculation. So we know the weapon is pretty old.

Being the sole direct male heir of this branch of the family, I know I will be entrusted the weapon in the future. I wanted to know what sort of gun it is. For what they've told me, it's a shotgun of Germany origins, capable of shooting 6 shots. But for what my grandparents told me, the 6 shots aren't loaded in a barrel (the way a revolver would).

From that alone, anyone have any idea what this gun's brand might be?.

[eulmanis12]

There was a question in the Friendly Banter forum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13558126), which I copy here since you guys might have some answers:

so we know that the gun fits this description.
Very Old, at least 1800's
German
Multi-shot
a shotgun
not a revolver
not magazine fed

Not much detail to go on, but I can think of some firearms that might fit the bill.
There were numerous specialty guns manufactured in the late 1700's up through the mid 1800's that fired multiple charges by "stacking" the rounds, ie. lining them up one after the other inside the barrel. Most of those didn't have a specific "type", instead they were one offs made for a specific client by a gunsmith that was pretty much just showing off.

more detail, and if possible a picture would be helpfull. The above is just a theory and is probably incorrect.

[Triscuitable]

so we know that the gun fits this description.
Very Old, at least 1800's
German
Multi-shot
a shotgun
not a revolver
not magazine fed

Not much detail to go on, but I can think of some firearms that might fit the bill.
There were numerous specialty guns manufactured in the late 1700's up through the mid 1800's that fired multiple charges by "stacking" the rounds, ie. lining them up one after the other inside the barrel. Most of those didn't have a specific "type", instead they were one offs made for a specific client by a gunsmith that was pretty much just showing off.

more detail, and if possible a picture would be helpfull. The above is just a theory and is probably incorrect.

When he says "very old", he meant his grandfather owned it. That means going back roughly 80 years. If his great-grandfather owned it, go back another 40. That's the late 1800's that he would've been born in, so it's safe to assume the gun is an 1887 or 1900's manufactured shotgun. If it was pump, then it's almost definitely an 1887. Of course, that last sentence is just a guess, but hey, we have almost nothing to go by.

[fusilier]

When he says "very old", he meant his grandfather owned it. That means going back roughly 80 years. If his great-grandfather owned it, go back another 40. That's the late 1800's that he would've been born in, so it's safe to assume the gun is an 1887 or 1900's manufactured shotgun. If it was pump, then it's almost definitely an 1887. Of course, that last sentence is just a guess, but hey, we have almost nothing to go by.

I would guess it's some sort of pump action as well, based upon the original post. Note, that he didn't say it lacked a magazine, just that it wasn't loaded like a revolver.

Super-imposed loads are dangerous things, and six would be a lot of them! Unless it was designed to fire all six in immediate succession, it would require too many locks to be wieldy. If it was designed to fire all six loads immediately, then it would probably only have utility as a military weapon.

[huttj509]

No. These are to different things. Kinetic energy is a physical quantity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_quantities), Joule is a unit of measurement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_measurement). You can express a specific quantity in different units of measurement (kinetic energy can be expressed in Joules, Erg, or whatever strange unit the Americans use), but saying "I calculated Joules, not kinetic energy" just doesn't make any sense.

Indeed, it's like saying "I calculated the meters of the bus, not the length." "The meters" could refer to length, width, height, diagonal, etc. It's not a physical attribute of the bus. "The Joules" could refer to kinetic energy, potential energy, rotational energy, temperature (yes, temperature can be measured in units of energy, threw me when I heard people measuring temperature in eV).

One Joule is one kilogram*meter/second^2. That is the unit. It's like saying 1 foot is 12 inches. If you calculate 1/2 mv^2 with m in pounds(mass), and v in furlongs per fortnight, you don't get an answer in Joules, you need to convert the Furlongs to meters, fortnights to seconds, and pounds (mass) to kilograms.

[Conners]

How quickly do war horses tire, generally? Do you need to change horses once every hour, or ten minutes?

[Autolykos]

How quickly do war horses tire, generally? Do you need to change horses once every hour, or ten minutes?I don't know about warhorses specifically, but in general, horses tire slightly faster than humans. The Romans didn't like cavalry very much because they found it reduced their strategic mobility. Training and breeding can make a lot of difference, though. The Mongols were a lot more mobile on the strategic level than most infantry-heavy armies of the time.
If you're talking about the late-medieval warhorses with heavy armor and an armored knight on top, I just don't know. They were probably bred for strength (and stupidity) rather than endurance, so they'd tire a lot faster than Mongol horses (or even the average saddle horse).

[Galloglaich]

The Mongols were mobile because they brought as many as 6 horses per rider with them on raids and war deployments.

Knights also brought many horses with them on campaign and generally didn't travel on their warhorses, they would travel on a horse like an ambler which was for walking in the (easy on the rider and horse) ambling gait, or a courser which also knew that gait but could run if necessary.

When they went into battle they would mount their charger (destrier or palfrey, or a courser).

A typical heavy cavalryman in the late Medieval period would have at least 3 horses, plus another horse or a mule as a pack animal, plus horses for their armed attendants of which they would normally have 2-5 with them.

G

[Joran]

With all the crazy inventions we have nowadays... what would a proper war be like? Stuff like the Javelin seems to make Armour (tanks and vehicles) completely useless, since an infantryman can take out about as many tanks as they have javelin rockets. Artillery can also shoot incredibly precisely at incredibly long ranges, now... and you get all those stealth drones which drop more drones, all of which have killing capabilities.


Any ideas what a full-out war would be like nowadays? If it were America against a non-super power, I can see it being more of a slaughter rather than a war. But I have trouble fathoming what a war between two super powers would be like nowadays.

I think everyone is having trouble fathoming what a war between super powers would look like. The last great war was World War 2 and since then there have been a couple of proxy wars (U.S. in Vietnam, Soviet Union in Afghanistan), but no real head to head conflict between equally matched opponents. Technology has rapidly advanced.

Well, actually, "full-out war" is pretty easy to imagine: ICBMs on every major city. Assuming a conventional war, it's going to really hinge on what the objectives are, where it's fought. A war between the U.S. and China over Taiwan is going to be mostly fought in the air and in the water. A war with Russia and Europe is going to be fought mostly on the ground and in the air.

Wherever the war is fought, air superiority is pretty much key. I don't think we've had advanced fighters like the F-22 (when it's not suffocating the pilots) against the best of the best either, so that's a major question mark.

The battle over electronics might get ugly, with counter-attacks via the Internet on civilian and military infrastructure and especially nasty if one side decided to shoot down satellites.

To sum it, I don't think anyone really knows how the next great war will be fought and which counter-measures will work and how all these advanced weapons will affect it. A lot of the specifics will be based on where the war is fought and for what objectives. I for one hope I never see it in my lifetime.

[Galloglaich]

me either.

The other big factor besides the ones you mentioned: robots.

G

[Joran]

me either.

The other big factor besides the ones you mentioned: robots.

G

Very true, autonomous robots. Drones piloted by humans may play a key role, or they may be obsoleted quickly because the enemy attacked the communications infrastructure =P

[fusilier]

How quickly do war horses tire, generally? Do you need to change horses once every hour, or ten minutes?

It depends upon what the horse is doing. Ideally you want to keep your horse "fresh" for that perfect moment to charge, which would entail a sudden burst of speed but be over fairly quickly. How much equipment the mounted soldier is carrying on himself and the horse will also be a factor. A knight would often have several horses on campaign, although I suspect only one would be the preferred battle horse, the others primarily intended for riding long distance. The Spanish presidial troopers in Northern Mexico took 5 to 6 horses with them on campaign -- a lamentable practice because the dust kicked up announced their presence well in advance, and the herds were too large to effectively guard. 19th century American cavalry, each man having only one horse, would spend one hour riding and the next hour marching next to their horses.

[Yukitsu]

No. These are to different things. Kinetic energy is a physical quantity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_quantities), Joule is a unit of measurement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_measurement). You can express a specific quantity in different units of measurement (kinetic energy can be expressed in Joules, Erg, or whatever strange unit the Americans use), but saying "I calculated Joules, not kinetic energy" just doesn't make any sense.

You can say it all you want, but a Joule is J=m*d^2/t^2, while Ek=1/2m*d^2/t^2 and is in Joules. I honestly just used the former when I shouldn't have, as while I know offhand what a Joule is, I didn't remember the constant for Ek.

It's pretty much exactly like how surface area is in m^2, but the surface area calculation for a right angle triangle is ab/2, but is still referred to in the unit metres squared. If you just did ab, you'd end up with metres squared, but you're doing it for a square, not a triangle.

[Autolykos]

a Joule is J=m*d^2/t^2
Now there's your problem. Joule is kg*m²/s², and a unit (just like kilogram, meter and second are). Kinetic energy is a quantity, and 1/2*m*v² (just like mass and velocity are quantities). Having quantities on one side of the equation, and units on the other doesn't make any sense. The formula you found describes the unit "Joule", and says *nothing* about any quantities expressed in the unit.
The confusion might stem from you misreading the second equation in your source. It says: One Joule is one kilogram multiplied by one meter squared, divided by one second squared. No more, no less. In particular, it doesn't say *anything* about any energies, masses or velocities. That's in the first equation.


surface area is in m^2Here, you actually did it right. Saying "surface area is m^2" doesn't make any sense. Surface area is a quantity, m^2 is a unit. The correct way to put it is "surface area is in m^2", like you (instinctively?) did here.

But I'm beginning to think that if you neither understand (or care to read) the Wiki articles I linked to, nor the very good explanation by huttj509, there isn't much hope left to explain you the difference. As it's starting to become quite off-topic (even though physics will regularly come up in this thread), I'll leave it at that.

EDIT: Probably the best I can do is give you a practical guide: If you want to calculate quantities (like kinetic energy), look for a formula containing quantities. If you want to convert units (like meters per second to miles per hour), look for a formula containing units. Mixing those up gives meaningless results and makes physicists very sad.

[Yukitsu]

Here, you actually did it right. Saying "surface area is m^2" doesn't make any sense. Surface area is a quantity, m^2 is a unit. The correct way to put it is "surface area is in m^2", like you (instinctively?) did here.

I do it the same way with Ek. Ek is in Joules.


But I'm beginning to think that if you neither understand (or care to read) the Wiki articles I linked to, nor the very good explanation by huttj509, there isn't much hope left to explain you the difference. As it's starting to become quite off-topic (even though physics will regularly come up in this thread), I'll leave it at that.

I'm not sure why I would care about those wiki articles I (and if I do look it up, I'll use a text book), as I've already mentioned I used the unit measurement when I should have used the Ek calculation. You're the one who jumped down my throat because apparently, you think they should have identical values or something, I don't know. The only difference in any event, is a constant that I noted after the fact.

[fusilier]

I do it the same way with Ek. Ek is in Joules.

I'm a bit confused by all this, and rather hesitant to get involved, but I just want to make sure we are all clear on one thing:

Kinetic Energy (Ek), doesn't have to be expressed in joules. In the US it's common to use foot-pounds -- which is also a measurement of torque (turns out that torque and energy have the same dimensions, and 1 joule = 1 Newton-meter).

There are many many units of measurement we could use to measure kinetic energy, although some tend to be used only in special circumstances/conditions. Nevertheless, we could talk about kinetic energy in terms of watt-hours, BTUs, and electron volts. Although it would be pretty silly: How many calories did that bullet have when it contacted the armor plate?

[Autolykos]

@Fusilier: That's completely correct (except for the tiny bit with energy and torque, which I'll explain later). 3750 J = 895 cal, by the way. Or roughly 20 sextillion electron Volts.
It's just not the point I was fighting over. Maybe I explained it badly (English is not my native language). The important point was that you can't insert quantities (like the mass of a projectile, or a specific value like 50 grams) in a formula containing only units (like his 1J=1kg*m²/s²), since there are no quantities in that formula to replace. The reason I was getting so upset about it is that this misconception is quite common among pupils and a huge hindrance in understanding physics. I didn't want to let that go uncommented.

As to energy and torque using the "same" units, explaining that requires some math. I try to put it as simple as possible, but feel free to ask (or look it up on Wikipedia) if I'm unclear. Also, the limited set of characters in this forum might make the formulas hard to read.
Force and distance are both represented by vectors. That means they have a value and a direction. There are two ways to multiply vectors, commonly called "dot product" and "cross product". If a is the angle between the vectors, the dot product of the vectors v and w (with non-bold v and w being their length) is:
v.w=v*w*cos(a)
which is a scalar (it doesn't have a direction). The cross product (z=vxw) has the length
z=v*w*sin(a)
and is perpendicular to v and w. Especially, it's still a vector.
Now, energy is the dot product of force and distance, while torque is the cross product. So the units *should* be written as N.m and Nxm, but this is commonly left out, and both are read as "Newtonmeters", which can be the source of some confusion.

[Brother Oni]

Very true, autonomous robots. Drones piloted by humans may play a key role, or they may be obsoleted quickly because the enemy attacked the communications infrastructure =P

Not neccesarily - I know some work on autonomous drones are being done, so they can idle/patrol but still detect threats while the operator can catch a quick breather.

The next step I've heard, is giving these drones independent authorisation to engage targets, so all you need to do is send up a bunch of drones to patrol this area and they'll automatically destroy any targets that enter, making it a potentially effective area denial system.
Knocking out the comms won't have an effect since they're pre-programmed to patrol this area for x hours then automatically return to base.

There's also the automated sentry guns that I've seen prototypes on youtube for. I'm not sure how effective they are, but the fact that somebody's built a prototype indicates that somebody thinks there's potential in the idea.

[Dead_Jester]

The next step I've heard, is giving these drones independent authorisation to engage targets, so all you need to do is send up a bunch of drones to patrol this area and they'll automatically destroy any targets that enter, making it a potentially effective area denial system.
Knocking out the comms won't have an effect since they're pre-programmed to patrol this area for x hours then automatically return to base.

And there is no way that can go wrong... Any glitch in the video system, or in the identification system, and you have a major political incident on your hands. Plus, you'd have to account for variable rules of engagement on the fly, including from the presence of innocent civilians and/or hostages, and the possibility of your enemies surrendering.

I do think that we will see in increase in robotics in military fields, but mostly in indirect roles (piloting, target acquisition, reconnaissance); letting a robot find a target is one thing, letting it pull the trigger is another one entirely.

[Tarinaky]

Not neccesarily - I know some work on autonomous drones are being done, so they can idle/patrol but still detect threats while the operator can catch a quick breather.

The next step I've heard, is giving these drones independent authorisation to engage targets, so all you need to do is send up a bunch of drones to patrol this area and they'll automatically destroy any targets that enter, making it a potentially effective area denial system.
Knocking out the comms won't have an effect since they're pre-programmed to patrol this area for x hours then automatically return to base.

There's also the automated sentry guns that I've seen prototypes on youtube for. I'm not sure how effective they are, but the fact that somebody's built a prototype indicates that somebody thinks there's potential in the idea.

The really interesting thing with drones is the Information Security. I've heard tales that the video feeds from predator drones are unencrypted, or encrypted weakly and there's some speculation among left-wing news outlets that they may even have been intercepted during operations by the enemy.

It's certainly an interesting avenue for speculative fiction regardless of whether real-world examples exist presently.

[Autolykos]

I've heard tales that the video feeds from predator drones are unencrypted, or encrypted weakly and there's some speculation among left-wing news outlets that they may even have been intercepted during operations by the enemy.That's not rumors, that's a pretty well-known fact. Basically, the operators find it more important that their own guys have access to the video feed at all times without the need to exchange codes (which can, and will go wrong in something as chaotic as a war) than denying enemies that access (they don't profit that much anyway, since they can't choose where the drone is looking). A simple analog feed will also make the construction more reliable, less expensive and easier to repair and maintain.
The commands sent to the drone are properly encrypted, of course. Here, distributing access to people in other units is pretty much a non-issue and the damage an enemy could cause is much bigger.

As for the general question, I don't think a drone should be allowed to decide what to shoot and what not. The systems are not reliable enough, and a human should still have the last word (except maybe for areas where humans have absolutely no business going, like in the border strip between South- and North Korea). Flagging stuff on screen as probable friends/enemies, yes. Pulling the trigger, no. Guiding the projectile/assisting aim, yes.

[Brother Oni]

I do think that we will see in increase in robotics in military fields, but mostly in indirect roles (piloting, target acquisition, reconnaissance); letting a robot find a target is one thing, letting it pull the trigger is another one entirely.

Oh, I fully agree that letting target acquisition software made by the lowest bidder, choose what it shoots is a terrible idea, but that's the rumours I've heard.

Hopefully somebody with sense (ha!) will knock this aspect of the project on the head.

[Tyndmyr]

And there is no way that can go wrong... Any glitch in the video system, or in the identification system, and you have a major political incident on your hands. Plus, you'd have to account for variable rules of engagement on the fly, including from the presence of innocent civilians and/or hostages, and the possibility of your enemies surrendering.

I do think that we will see in increase in robotics in military fields, but mostly in indirect roles (piloting, target acquisition, reconnaissance); letting a robot find a target is one thing, letting it pull the trigger is another one entirely.

Same, same for people. And people aren't 100% failsafe either. If you can get the drones good enough, that's still a win.


Oh, I fully agree that letting target acquisition software made by the lowest bidder, choose what it shoots is a terrible idea, but that's the rumours I've heard.

Hopefully somebody with sense (ha!) will knock this aspect of the project on the head.

Cost is only one factor on military acquisition contracts. There is no guarantee that the lowest cost bidder will in fact be chosen.

[Joran]

Oh, so new to me, maybe not new to you.

There's a website called the Internet Movie Firearms Database, which catalogues every firearm used in movies and TV shows. So, if you've ever wondered "Hey, what weapon was that I just saw?", you can look it up.

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Main_Page

[Joran]

Same, same for people. And people aren't 100% failsafe either. If you can get the drones good enough, that's still a win.


In a war against a rival superpower, I think autonomous robots with authorization to kill will be developed, especially if the communication systems aren't reliable.

In today's military, I can see development going into it, but short of actually letting a machine decide to fire. It's easier legally for the chain of responsibility if a human is behind the decision.

[Yukitsu]

@Fusilier: That's completely correct (except for the tiny bit with energy and torque, which I'll explain later). 3750 J = 895 cal, by the way. Or roughly 20 sextillion electron Volts.
It's just not the point I was fighting over. Maybe I explained it badly (English is not my native language). The important point was that you can't insert quantities (like the mass of a projectile, or a specific value like 50 grams) in a formula containing only units (like his 1J=1kg*m²/s²), since there are no quantities in that formula to replace. The reason I was getting so upset about it is that this misconception is quite common among pupils and a huge hindrance in understanding physics. I didn't want to let that go uncommented.

This is probably an English thing then, as I commented as such myself well before you got involved here. I simply pointed out in addition, that I don't care as the only tangible difference is a constant of 1/2.

[GM.Casper]

How much does nuclear power plants aboard submarines and carriers usually weight?

[Brother Oni]

How much does nuclear power plants aboard submarines and carriers usually weight?

Given that's probably highly classified information, it's going to be tricky to get exact numbers on current reactors.

This page (http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Nuclear/US_Naval_Reactors.htm) has some numbers on older reactors and they range from ~300 tons up to ~2750 tons.

[Conners]

If you had large subterranean cultures... how would weapons have developed to deal with this? I can imagine re-directing rivers in early periods to wash away underground dwellers, and sapping of buildings/forts from the underground. Later, surface people might be able to pump toxic gas into the tunnels below?

Any other interesting thoughts on what this situation would present?

[GraaEminense]

If you had large subterranean cultures... how would weapons have developed to deal with this? I can imagine re-directing rivers in early periods to wash away underground dwellers, and sapping of buildings/forts from the underground. Later, surface people might be able to pump toxic gas into the tunnels below?

Any other interesting thoughts on what this situation would present?
A lot depends on the subterranean culture. Are they just people underground, or something fantastic? Unless they have super-tunnelling-skills their impact would be limited I'd think.

Quick thoughts:

Defensive structures would have to be built on rock, as it is harder to tunnel through.

Landmasses separated from the troglodytes by deep waters would be prized, if they were hostile.

Warfare would take on more aspects of traditional sieges: mining and countermining, collapsing tunnels and walls, using gas or smoke to chase away or kill underground enemies. Listening posts to detect digging (the Chinese used drums dug into the ground, I know).

Close combat and personal armour would likely stay relevant for longer, as underground combat would be at short distances.

[Dead_Jester]

If you had large subterranean cultures... how would weapons have developed to deal with this? I can imagine re-directing rivers in early periods to wash away underground dwellers, and sapping of buildings/forts from the underground. Later, surface people might be able to pump toxic gas into the tunnels below?

Any other interesting thoughts on what this situation would present?

If in a volcanic area, weakening some areas to favor the creation of lava flows and geysers is also an option.

As far as weaponry itself, you would probably see a preponderance of very heavy armor, but mostly only in the front (you can't really maneuver to flank while underground, and combat should mostly be linear). Phalanx tactics with big infantry blocks at major entrances and exits, and smaller ones in the caves themselves. Most pre-industrial combat would degenerate into extremely bloody melee if fought underground, and I could see the surface dwellers trying to limit underground combat as much as possible.

Pre-gunpowder, ranged weapons would be relatively rare in the underground, but effective for the outsiders at the exits (although the undergrounders would probably have even heavier armor, so their effectiveness may be lessened). Heavier, direct fire weaponry, such as ballistae and, later, cannons, would be very effective in the relatively straight and confining environment. Machineguns would also be useful in the natural chokepoints created by tunnels, as well as area denial with mines. Flamethrowers are also an option, although they may cause oxygen problems for everyone involved (although the heavy use of gas weaponry and the inevitably extremely dusty environment in tunnel warfare should lead to an almost universal use of gas masks).

Cavalry and vehicles would be rare if not nonexistent because of the roughness of the terrain and the lack of maneuvering space, although specially designed armored vehicles could be quite deadly (maybe armored and weaponized tunnel boring machines, or things resembling super-heavy tank hunters with additional frontal armor and front facing anti-infantry weapons).

[GraaEminense]

Phalangists would be very situational in underground combat. A pike or even a long spear is problematic to lug around in closed spaces, and a weapon that can't turn around a tunnel corner isn't very useful except in large caves or as a set defensive position.

In natural cave systems and ones dug by any pre-modern society, shields, hammers and maces (to counter heavy armour) would likely dominate. Grenades and short-range missile weapons (and certainly flame throwers) if technologically feasible.

In all honesty though, I'd expect this kind of warfare to consist of smoke, gas, flooding and cave-ins more than personal combat.

[Spiryt]

Like mentioned, huge underground systems where even medium scale battles/skirmishes can be fought are mostly fantasy invention - so it's hard to really visualize it.

Still, phalanxes and all kinds of other firm polearm formations could very well be potent indeed - as long as cave is of somehow bigger proportion.

Absolute impossibility in flanking such formation would make it great defensively.

But their offensive use would be very limited - hard to advance in tight order on cave ground, where ceiling and walls are completely irregular as well.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Were swords ever used as a primary mass combat weapon?

If they were, how did the tactics of such armies differ from those that primarily used pikes/spears?

[Tarinaky]

Were swords ever used as a primary mass combat weapon?

If they were, how did the tactics of such armies differ from those that primarily used pikes/spears?

There's the Doppelschneider?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppels%C3%B6ldner

[Spiryt]

Were swords ever used as a primary mass combat weapon?

If they were, how did the tactics of such armies differ from those that primarily used pikes/spears?

Romans legions trough good part of it's history are probably only really save answer here - pilum, or perhaps some other weapons as well were important part of their warfare, but swords were primary means of close combat.

In their case, it was obviously about getting really close, grapplelike and personal, compared to any formation using polearms to strike from some distance.

During the 16th century, many armies had employed somehow similar idea of sword and board troops that were getting close behind their shields and engaging enemy formation with swords.

Troops with two handed sword in Landsknecht regiments were on the other hand different in working, as large two handed swords is not close quarters weapon in any way.

Those were obviously used by rather small part of armies, not majority of infantry.

Most of other 'sword' armies I can think of weren't really nearly 'standardized' enough to talk about swords being main weapon.

[Sidmen]

I have a quick question that came up last session. Tis' about warships and fighter craft.

The game was set in the Mass Effect universe and the party just boarded a Cruiser and set off the alarms.

Now, the question is: Assuming an intruder has been spotted - do ships lock their interior doors?

And the second question: To Jet fighters have keys/keycodes/locks of any kind?

[Fortinbras]

Romans legions trough good part of it's history are probably only really save answer here - pilum, or perhaps some other weapons as well were important part of their warfare, but swords were primary means of close combat.

In their case, it was obviously about getting really close, grapplelike and personal, compared to any formation using polearms to strike from some distance.

During the 16th century, many armies had employed somehow similar idea of sword and board troops that were getting close behind their shields and engaging enemy formation with swords.

Troops with two handed sword in Landsknecht regiments were on the other hand different in working, as large two handed swords is not close quarters weapon in any way.

Those were obviously used by rather small part of armies, not majority of infantry.

Most of other 'sword' armies I can think of weren't really nearly 'standardized' enough to talk about swords being main weapon.

What was the role of two-handed swordsmen on the Medieval battlefield. Longswords and the like seem to have been fairly popular and were sometimes known as "war-swords" but it seems like they would be pretty well outclassed by pole-arms. What did the "double-men" bring to pike/halberd formations that warranted such high status and pay?

[Bhu]

do any of these have official d20 stats:

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

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

http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/perkgun/index.html

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flintlock_mechanism#Gunlocks

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

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Artillery_ammunition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fougasse_%28weapon%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_%28submersible%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coach_%28carriage%29

[Dienekes]

What was the role of two-handed swordsmen on the Medieval battlefield. Longswords and the like seem to have been fairly popular and were sometimes known as "war-swords" but it seems like they would be pretty well outclassed by pole-arms. What did the "double-men" bring to pike/halberd formations that warranted such high status and pay?

While they're effectiveness is in some dispute, they got double pay because they had possibly the most dangerous job. There job was to charge the enemy pike line and break the pikes. Basically, while a pike can kill the doppelsoldner before the doppelsolder can kill the pikeman, the doppelsoldner can destroy the pike far easier than the pikeman can break the man's sword.

And a pikeman without a pike is a big gaping hole to be exploited by the rest of the army.

[Fortinbras]

Aside from the Renaissance zweihannder where earlier medieval hand-and-a-half swords actually used on the battlefield or where they primarily for skirmishing and dueling? If so, what was their role?

[Thiel]

I have a quick question that came up last session. Tis' about warships and fighter craft.

The game was set in the Mass Effect universe and the party just boarded a Cruiser and set off the alarms.

Now, the question is: Assuming an intruder has been spotted - do ships lock their interior doors?
Yes.

And the second question: To Jet fighters have keys/keycodes/locks of any kind?
I believe so. And even if they don't, you don't just start a jet fighter. It takes a considerable amount of time several people and an APU

[Spiryt]

While they're effectiveness is in some dispute, they got double pay because they had possibly the most dangerous job. There job was to charge the enemy pike line and break the pikes. Basically, while a pike can kill the doppelsoldner before the doppelsolder can kill the pikeman, the doppelsoldner can destroy the pike far easier than the pikeman can break the man's sword.

And a pikeman without a pike is a big gaping hole to be exploited by the rest of the army.

This theory is generally considered very dubious, and even if actually destroying the pikes was possible at any larger scale, it couldn't be considered real 'job' on the field. Goal of such an attack would be to take out the pikemen, quite simply.

Other than that, the job of soldiers with two handed swords was to defend flanks, banners, camps, and all other places where combat was expected to be 'looser' due to many circumstances, I believe.


zweihannder where earlier medieval hand-and-a-half swords actually used on the battlefield or where they primarily for skirmishing and dueling? If so, what was their role?

I don't think that anyone can really know for sure - sources suggest that they could be just personal' battlefield weapons - to fight outside of tighter formation, where main weapon was 'spent' from whatever reason.

Knight dismounted, spear broken etc.

There's theory, originating from Ewart Oakeshott at least, that longswords roots lie in large cavalry sword, that would be used for powerful sweeping mounted strikes, and as two handed weapon on feet, if there was necessity to dismount.

And indeed a lot of XIII type swords are pretty hard to classify decisively as one handed weapon or longsword.

[J.Gellert]

From what I understand, the "point" of two-handed swords is that in swords, as in many weapons, "bigger is better" most of the time.

Once armor got so damn good that you no longer needed a shield (read: full plate) then everyone was happy to use the free hand for a bigger sword!

And that's pretty much just it. Would the two-handed swordsman have a special role on the battlefield? Not really. The pikemen have a special role, because a block of pikes is hard to maneuver and requires special attention to deploy. The swordsmen can simply do everything else better, so they would probably be doing everything else.

I am certain they would also be charging pike blocks from time to time. It wasn't even rare for cavalry to charge pike blocks, so why wouldn't the swordsmen? Sure, it can be avoided if you have missile troops, but when does everything go according to plan? (Never). Besides, I would think it's better to have your swordsmen charge the enemy pikes, than having your pikemen fight the enemy pikes...

[rrgg]

If you're talking about most two-handed longswords then then weren't necessarily all that long and allowed a knight to wear them at his hip while also carrying a lance or some other primary weapon.

The really huge greatswords used in later times I imagine falls in a category with the many "specialized" polearms such as the billhook, longaxe, war hammer, swordstaff, etc.


Somewhat interesting is that a lot greatsword-wielders apparently still saw the need to carry another, shorter sword, as a sidearm.
http://www.st-max.org/images/woodcuts/unmodified/Doppelsoldner-1.jpg

[Deadmeat.GW]

Keep in mind that the Dopple soldiers would be not charging a pikeblock in singles or such.

I cannot get my hands on it but I saw a story about a pikeblock that got charged by two dozen of them and they shattered the pikeblock and caused the battle to be lost to their side if it was not for the timely intervention of the Paymaster who hired the attackers instead of fighting them...

Turns out they were being paid a lot less on the opposing side so when they suddenly got real double pay they turned sides.

And yes, they would be using another sword or long dagger for close quarters fighting.
which is why they were so dangerous, they were to take on any battlefield tasks short of recon and ranged fighting instead of any specialists.

[Fortinbras]

I guess my main question about true two-handers (claymore, montante, etc.) is if they were inferior to polearms, and they were more expensive to produce, and they were to long to be side arms or comfortably carried in civilian life, why did two-handed swords continue to be produced for hundreds of years?

[Spiryt]

I guess my main question about true two-handers (claymore, montante, etc.) is if they were inferior to polearms


They were inferior to polearms in being a polearm...

They weren't generally 'inferior' whatever should that mean, evidently, as they were indeed being used in some situations, on many battlefields.

Seems that they were particularly popular in Scotland and Ireland too, presumably in more small scale raids and skirmishes.

[Mike_G]

I guess my main question about true two-handers (claymore, montante, etc.) is if they were inferior to polearms, and they were more expensive to produce, and they were to long to be side arms or comfortably carried in civilian life, why did two-handed swords continue to be produced for hundreds of years?

They aren't "inferior." They serve a purpose that pikes don't.

Pikes are better for keeping cavalry at bay, they have more reach, and they can put a lot of deadly points in a small area, which can be a big advantage at the point of contact, but in a loose formation, the sword will have an advantage.

Combined arms win battles, in pretty much all periods. A thousand pikemen are good at forming a block, but 700 pikemen, 200 archers and 100 swordsmen are a much more flexible army that will probably beat the thousand pike army.

[Deadmeat.GW]

Keep in mind my recollection of the story where 24 soldiers with two-handers went up to a pike block and broke it to the point the pike block needed help from the reserves...

Once you get past the danger zone and start breaking the pike block up in dispersed formation then the two-handers suddenly get the advantage.

All in all however a VERY dangerous job to do, you need to break the pike block in the first place after all.

[Deadmeat.GW]

I guess my main question about true two-handers (claymore, montante, etc.) is if they were inferior to polearms, and they were more expensive to produce, and they were to long to be side arms or comfortably carried in civilian life, why did two-handed swords continue to be produced for hundreds of years?

The comparisson here would be like saying that anti-tank guns are worse then normal artillery for shooting at infantry and completely ignoring what else you could do with the anti-tank guns that the regular artillery would have trouble with.

Not that current day anti-tank guns are really used since they got replaced by tow's and such but I am sure you understand what I mean.

[Eldan]

Not really a weapon question, but something I was wondering about:
How does heavy cavalry, and horses in general, fare on loose desert sand? Walking on sand dunes can be quite slow on foot, so, how much does it slow down horses?

I was playing Mount and blade and invading the desert nation with plate-clad knights, hence the question.

[Joran]

I believe so. And even if they don't, you don't just start a jet fighter. It takes a considerable amount of time several people and an APU

According to various sites on the Internet, it depends on the type of plane. Private jets and small airplanes seem to have keys, similar to a car, while jet fighters and airliners don't appear to have any sort of lock.

http://www.airwarriors.com/community/index.php?threads/do-fighter-jets-have-climate-control.29875/

However, there is a really long start-up process for modern aircraft and it's hard to launch a plane by oneself. For the Mass Effect universe, if you've played Mass Effect 3, the Cerberus launch system required a hack into the system to launch a fighter.

[eulmanis12]

Keep in mind my recollection of the story where 24 soldiers with two-handers went up to a pike block and broke it to the point the pike block needed help from the reserves...

Once you get past the danger zone and start breaking the pike block up in dispersed formation then the two-handers suddenly get the advantage.

All in all however a VERY dangerous job to do, you need to break the pike block in the first place after all.

another good example of something similar happening would be the battle of Cynoscephalae during the second Macedonian war. The Romans were able to get into the side of the phalanx where their short swords were able to reach the enemy but the Macedonians could not respond due to the length of their pikes.

[zorenathres]

I guess my main question about true two-handers (claymore, montante, etc.) is if they were inferior to polearms, and they were more expensive to produce, and they were to long to be side arms or comfortably carried in civilian life, why did two-handed swords continue to be produced for hundreds of years?

heavy two-handed swords like the claymore were never designed for cutting or slashing, they were designed to crush the bones of armored foes (see full plate), who could not be harmed by smaller/ lighter weapons. if you look at IRL fighting styles from then, they used the claymore in many ways (the main swings for armored foes, hilt/ half strikes for up close, & they would hold the sword like a spear to pierce heavily armored opponents once they were knocked to the ground).

which is why i find it confusing that greatswords are slashing weapons in the manual

[Spiryt]

heavy two-handed swords like the claymore were never designed for cutting or slashing, they were designed to crush the bones of armored foes (see full plate), who could not be harmed by smaller/ lighter weapons. if you look at IRL fighting styles from then, they used the claymore in many ways (the main swings for armored foes, hilt/ half strikes for up close, & they would hold the sword like a spear to pierce heavily armored opponents once they were knocked to the ground).

which is why i find it confusing that greatswords are slashing weapons in the manual

They had edges, they mostly had cutting optimized geometries, they weren't usually used against fully armoured opponents, and so on...

Many claymores, especially earlier ones wouldn't be really very useful in halfswording, due to spatulate points and very broad blades.


Swords used mainly, or at all to break bones by impact is weirdly persevering myth, but a myth still.

Slashing greatswords are all right, although 'in reality' most of them should have thrusting option as well, and some were mainly thrusting too.

[Conners]

Not everyone wears plate armour, so the swords are fine for slashing a good number of people (of course, mail with padding would take a lot of the punch out of it, still).

[Yora]

Some once posted a demonstration that compared sword against slightly dried up pig skin against the same pig with chainmail without padding. Even that made a huge difference and with soft living skin versus chainmail with padding, it should be even bigger.

[Conners]

Most of the punch would be in blunt-trauma, with large swords against mail (most of the punch is taken out).

How do you mean, by dried up pig skin?

[Spiryt]

It was me, and pigs and other animals quite inevitably dry after slaughtering, if you remove entrails etc. Changing properties and all.

I would guess that remedy would be weapon test against freshly slaughtered, warm and completely 'unaltered' pig, but it doesn't seem that many people are willing to enjoy the smell and the rest of the bouquet. :smallbiggrin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juIw20z5p0c

Axe pretty much cuts carcass in half without that much effort, while even completely "Conan style" worn mail stops the cutting entirely.

So while there are some historical sources about mail being 'slashed open" it doesn't really seem very feasible.

As far as blunt trauma goes, broken collarbone or even hurt neck bones are survivable, while two pounds of axe in lungs probably not really. :smallbiggrin:

[zorenathres]

so where did that myth start? i am curious since i seem to be misinformed, i guess it made sense to me... but using the swords point as a spear is still accurate yes? i always thought about giving certain weapons the option to choose between slashing/ piercing etc... like the warhammer with the spike/ pick on the reverse side for piercing armor.

[Fortinbras]

The comparisson here would be like saying that anti-tank guns are worse then normal artillery for shooting at infantry and completely ignoring what else you could do with the anti-tank guns that the regular artillery would have trouble with.

Not that current day anti-tank guns are really used since they got replaced by tow's and such but I am sure you understand what I mean.

Fair enough, but anti-tank guns are very clearly for destroying tanks.

The two uses for a two-hander that I have seen proposed are a) Cutting through a polearm formation and/or b) Cutting the legs off horses. Both of these are very, as someone on here mentioned, quite dubious. So, what were these swords designed for.

As for being inferior to polearms, a number of people, most notably George Silver, say that in a man to man fight, a man with a quarterstaff or axe or halberd would have an advantage over a swordsmen.

[Spiryt]

so where did that myth start? i am curious since i seem to be misinformed, i guess it made sense to me... but using the swords point as a spear is still accurate yes? i always thought about giving certain weapons the option to choose between slashing/ piercing etc... like the warhammer with the spike/ pick on the reverse side for piercing armor.

Using sword as a "spear" by grabbing the blade or ricasso is well documented, as much as something like that from Medieval/Renaissance can be documented.:smallbiggrin:


Huge image warning!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Battle_of_Poitiers.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/De_Fechtbuch_Talhoffer_078.jpg



Manuals etc. suggest both use as additional 'stiffening' the blade during the thrust, as well as better control of the point right before the impact, help in binds and similar engagement.

And of course, ability to thrust in close quarters, when stabbing with both hands on the handle would be challenging.

It would be pretty hard to find a sword without some "piercing" ability anyway, swords have points, and even clearly cutting ones are rods of sharpened steel after all.

As far as myth about crushing swords goes - not sure, I guess that people just saw big sword, heard some myth that those "weighted 30 pounds" and assumed that they were to maul things like with hedge post.

Solid strike with sword could certainly have nasty "mace like" effect, but it was pretty much never their intended purpose.

[zorenathres]

ouch! that second pic made me cringe,

that's what i was wondering about swords in D&D, & why dont they have the piercing option in the manual? im assuming simplification.