Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X [Archive] - Page 5

Galloglaich

2012-07-21, 10:52 AM

Longswords were used as sidearms and were definitely used on the battlefield. They remained very popular from the 14th century through the 17th, by which time they had become gradually replaced by rapiers for a variety of reasons (mainly fashion). You can see a few dozen examples in historical artwork here:

http://hemaalliance.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=2070

It was a sidearm but sidearms were very important in this period. You could think of it also as the 'personal' weapon.

The whole 'swords crushing bones' thing is easily disproven by watching 30 seconds of any "Battle of Nations" bout.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifVBhKmBCt8

Armor is very effective and swords make poor bludgeons. Even axes and pole-arms. The myth arises from the Victorian era and was spread through poorly researched books, and later reinforced by RPG games and bad documentaries it remained prevalent even in academia until Oakeshott disproved it and came out with his typology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakeshott_typology), which very gradually became the academic standard from the 60's - 80's. But that has taken a very long time to filter back out into the popular culture mainstream, which seems to really love the idea that everyone born before 1600 AD was stupid and filthy.

But they weren't, the weapons they made were in many cases, exquisite. As swordsmith Peter Johnnson put it, a sword is more like an airplane wing than a crowbar (though admittedly most swords are not hollow!)

The Montante / Zwiehander / Spada a Due Mani / Claymore class of weapons (which includes a pretty wide range of weapon sizes) were used in all the above mentioned cases, against 'loose' formations (such as in hill country like in the Scottish highlands), against horses (some of the big Japanese two-handed swords were specifically called 'horse-killing swords'), against pike-squares, and also in other cases. But the best information we have for period sources is that they were primarily used, at least in Continental Europe, for cases when 'few must fight against many'. The surviving montante manuals we have, from Spain, recommend the weapon for street skirmishes if you expect to be outnumbered. On the battlefield, orders of battle indicate that the two-handed swordsmen were used to defend banners (very important), protect cannon, as bodyguards for VIP's, to protect groups of hand-gunners and skirmishers, to attack pike squares, to attack / target VIP's, and to act as skirmishers themselves. Essentially they provided extra protection for when a formation broke up, and /or they could exploit the situation when an (enemy) formation was breaking up.

Incidentally, 'dopplesoldner' did not automatically mean two-handed swordsman. A gunner or a halberdier could also be a 'dopplesoldner'. It just meant double pay. But most two-handed swordsmen were dopplesoldner. Like the longsword, it was a weapon which required more than just a few months of training.

Speaking of which, we also know that the fencing guilds, such as the Federfecther (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federfechter) of Prague (and elsewhere) and the Marxbruder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brotherhood_of_St._Mark), of Frankfurt (and elsewhere) who principally studied the longsword, were legally sanctioned to certify expert fencers as dopplesoldners. So we know a bit about how they were trained. Some of the Italian Masters also specifically show the use of Spadone or Spada a Due Mani, Marozzo and a few others. And most of the 16th Century longsword manuals show longer weapons than the 15th, presumably because they were also training to use the big 'true' two handers.

The halberdiers guild of St. Michael in Bruges also apparently trained with the longsword.

As to why the big two-handed weapons appeared, I think it's mainly due to metallurgy.

G

zorenathres

2012-07-21, 11:52 AM

The whole 'swords crushing bones' thing is easily disproven by watching 30 seconds of any "Battle of Nations" bout.

great post btw, but i have a question, i watched it & have been to SCA stuff before (even participated for a little), but how does this disprove anything? (no, my friend, im not defending swords as bludgeons :smallbiggrin:) yes its full contact & yes their using medieval weapons, but as for a completely accurate portrayal of weapons from history, i dunno... i know these guys do a lot of research & make their own weapons, so they likely know more than any of us, i just find it hard to use it as a reference for what im looking for...

Galloglaich

2012-07-21, 12:50 PM

This isn't SCA, those are steel weapons. They are hitting each other as hard as they can with steel weapons and nobody dies (or ...very few). That is the only thing that those videos prove.

Real swords would be similar but actually lighter and a bit thinner. So if these things can't break bones through armor, or at any rate do so rarely enough that they are able to do this as an (admittedly dangerous) sport all day long for a week, how are we expected to believe the myth that swords were meant to break bones through armor? If so they seem to be really bad at it.

As for expertize, a lot of us in this thread are personally familiar with period arms and armor, I've handled quite a few antiques personally, and I know I'm not alone here. I've been a HEMA practitioner for 12 years and I'm not alone in that either. For that matter, I've fought several full-contact, full-speed sparring matches using steel weapons wearing little more than a fencing mask and some cloth and foam padding for protection, and none of my bones broke. We have tournaments (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD_iG65DraI) every year now in which dozens of people fight with them.

The point I've made that swords were not designed to crush people through armor also matches the commentary of all the experts that I'm aware of at any rate in the fields of fencing, swordmaking, sword history and so on.

So I'm not sure what your argument is exactly, are you saying that real antique swords would be better at cracking skulls through helmets than modern blunt replicas?

G

Caustic Soda

2012-07-21, 02:25 PM

Dead_Jester

2012-07-21, 03:56 PM

Wasn't the mordschlag (grabbing your sword by the blade and using the handguard as a hammer) mentioned earlier in one of these threads as a way to improvise bludgeoning? If so, that doesn't seem like a technique that'd make much sense if swords could already do that just by wielding them blade-forward. Or am I remembering incorrectly?

I think it's rather more because holding the sword in reverse increased the effectiveness of the sword as a bludgeon, by placing the center of mass near the impact rather than far from it and by reducing the area of impact (the guard has a smaller profile than the blade, therefore increasing the damage at a precise point). Bludgeoning someone with the blade works (you can bludgeon with anything really if you want), but it will probably be dramatically less effective than making your sword into the equivalent of an improvised warhammer (albeit, quite a long one, which may have contributed to the effectiveness of the technique, though it is more probable that the sword was not used at full extension).

a_humble_lich

2012-07-21, 04:49 PM

When talking about supersonic bullets, does it apply only to the speed of sound in air, or also to the speed of sound waves in lead?
Wouldn't "something funny" happen when you push the back end of a bullet faster than the speed of sound waves in the lead?

So I was going to answer that it is just the speed of sound in air, as solids have a very high sound speed, but a little online research has proven me wrong. Apparently lead has a remarkably low sound speed (only 1160 m/s or 3800 ft/s) which is less than the speed of sound in water. And (according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_velocity)) modern bullets can have speeds up to 1700 m/s.

As far as "something funny" happening, you would get "funny" stuff happening if you are pushing the bullet so hard that the back part of the bullet is moving supersonic before the front part starts to move. You would get a shockwave forming in the bullet and I doubt it would stay bullet shaped for long. However, bullets will accelerate to supersonic speeds over the entire length of the barrel so I wouldn't expect the acceleration to be nearly that high. Now if you were to make a gun that somehow had rifle level muzzle velocities but whose barrel was only about the length of the bullet, then you might not want to use lead for your projectiles.

As for swords being used for bashing, my thought is if that was what swords were good for then why bother making it sword shaped. A sword length bar of steel is far easier to make than a sharpened sword so there much have been a reason so much time was spent putting a good edge on a blade.

Galloglaich

2012-07-21, 08:42 PM

great post btw, but i have a question, i watched it & have been to SCA stuff before (even participated for a little), but how does this disprove anything? (no, my friend, im not defending swords as bludgeons :smallbiggrin:) yes its full contact & yes their using medieval weapons, but as for a completely accurate portrayal of weapons from history, i dunno... i know these guys do a lot of research & make their own weapons, so they likely know more than any of us, i just find it hard to use it as a reference for what im looking for...

Hey I'm sorry I missed the part where you said you were not defending swords as bludgeons... I may have gone off on a tangent, I'm not certain what your point is exactly. I will acknowledge that generally speaking, Battle of Nations / Bohun is not the best most realistic resource for Medieval warfare, except in the one respect I mentioned. But it does illustrate that one point pretty effectively.

G

zorenathres

2012-07-21, 09:08 PM

hey its all good, i watched that vid & looked at another US vs Poland 21 v 21 match & that was much more entertaining (at the end of the first match, a US guy is in the center of the melee with a halberd, a Polish guy charges him & the man stands his ground, knocking the Polish guy to the ground), i did see a few two handed swords as well, though the quality of the videos are not much to brag about...

the halberd guy is at 4:07

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Su_D9VFBao&feature=related

anyway, this video does a better job of proving your point, the guy with the halberd stands right behind a guy & hits him hard on the head (@ 3:56), to no effect?

EDIT:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WS0mIcWDcCA&feature=related

@ 3:40 there is an example of damage to armor from two handed weapons :smallbiggrin:

Fortinbras

2012-07-21, 11:48 PM

Matthew

2012-07-22, 12:13 AM

How effective were swords at stabbing through mail? If they were not effective at doing this, why where they not supplanted by maces and hammers when mail became common place? Why did longswords remain popular as secondary weapons instead of being replaced by hammers and maces?

Well, the question is kind of its own answer, really. Generally speaking, swords, axes, maces, hammers and picks were all available, but there was no clear winner in terms of which was the most effective secondary killing weapon because each presents its own advantages and disadvantages. Exactly what those might be is a matter of some debate, but obviously impact weapons are somewhat slower to recover, and have less thrusting ability than swords.

As far as the two-handed swords go, what advantages did they have over poleaxemen or hammer-and-shield men when fighting in loose formations?

Pretty much the same as above, though exactly how weapons were used remains open to interpretation, discussion and experimentation. My view is that a sword is basically more versatile than the other options, which is why they ended up with combination heads.

Also, how effective was the murder-stroke at damaging men in "transitional" plate armor? Would a sword with sharpened quillons be at all feasible?
Not very, it seems to me. No doubt somebody else has a better understanding of its use than I, but one advantage of using a sword this way is that you can unexpectedly hook and pull down an opponent, finishing him off with a dagger or something.

Conners

2012-07-22, 01:47 AM

With fighting techniques and counters... are there unlimited possible counters, or do you get to a point where the fourth counter puts someone in a corner?

Hawkfrost000

2012-07-22, 02:58 AM

With fighting techniques and counters... are there unlimited possible counters, or do you get to a point where the fourth counter puts someone in a corner?

I'm not really sure what you are asking. Do you mean blocks and counter attacks?

Conners

2012-07-22, 04:10 AM

Like, with this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a839l7fIYBU&feature=relmfu

They tend to mention four "plays" with exchanges. What I'm wondering is, are there a limited number of plays possible for a given situation, or is it possible to have a 40th play?

Spiryt

2012-07-22, 04:21 AM

Hey I'm sorry I missed the part where you said you were not defending swords as bludgeons... I may have gone off on a tangent, I'm not certain what your point is exactly. I will acknowledge that generally speaking, Battle of Nations / Bohun is not the best most realistic resource for Medieval warfare, except in the one respect I mentioned. But it does illustrate that one point pretty effectively.

G

It's 'bohurt' Bohun is antagonist of "With Fire and Steel". :smallbiggrin:

Anyway, there's plenty of of injuries, even pretty serious ones in events like that, but generally well fitting armor seems very effective at stopping even wild roid hog type of smacking.

So all kind of thrusts and dagger work on hurt/outwrestled opponents was probably very important with well armored opponents.

Like, with this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a839l7fIYBU&feature=relmfu

They tend to mention four "plays" with exchanges. What I'm wondering is, are there a limited number of plays possible for a given situation, or is it possible to have a 40th play?

Those "plays" are interpretations of sequences found in manuals.

It's obviously possible to have even 459th play, but without armor, and with obviously chaotic nature of actual combat, someone would pretty much certainly got killed/injured badly or the fight would get broken up, before it would last that long.

Fortinbras

2012-07-22, 04:37 AM

Okay, let me rephrase my question. My understanding is that at any time between about 1200 and 1500 or so, if two fully-armored knights had a fight and one of them was armed with a sword and the other with a impact weapon, the knight with the sword might be able to utilize the superior versatility of his weapon to land more hits, but short of a thrust through the eye or a whack to the groin, he would be unable to actually inflict a serious injury. This would be particularly true after 1300 or so, but even mail, which by 1200 could be used to armor an entire body, was able to nullify any major damage from a sword stroke.

The fighter with an impact weapon would have a slower, clumsier weapon, but he would have the ability to cause very serious damage to his opponent if he scored a hit. This is, I believe, a fairly basic necessity for any weapons system to be effective.

A man using a sword in two hands could do some damage with murder-strokes or half-swording, essentially using the sword as a poleaxe, but an actual poleaxe which is longer and has a heavier head is better at this. Besides being cheaper to make, a poleaxe has greater reach and allows its wielder to transfer swiftly between strokes with the butt and head, giving it several notable advantages. The main thing a sword can do that a poleaxe cannot do, slicing with the edge, is not especially effective against an armored foe.

When employing a single sword against a soldier with a shield and impact weapon, one runs into a whole host of troubles. One of the most effective techniques normally used in this situation, a swift cut or thrust to the lower leg, is not especially effective against an armored foe.

Now, I must be missing something otherwise, swords would have disappeared as a military weapon after about 1200. Swords hold an important place in martial culture, but Western militaries are a pragmatic lot and would have done in the 13th century what they did in the 19th when swords lost all relevance on the battlefield and retired them.

Instead, swords were an extremely popular military side-arm for the entirety of the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Longer, two-handers like the the claymore were used as primary weapons.
So, what did I miss?

GraaEminense

2012-07-22, 04:41 AM

In the Army Museum in Athens I found what I believe may be a contender for the "most fantasy weapon idea" championship: The stirrup cannon:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x226/GraaEminense/DSCN0460.jpg

Since no one at the museum had bothered to put up signs at most of the exhibits, I wonder if anyone here could help me make sense of these strange things.

-Does anyone know if these things were used to any extent, or are they as novel as I think they are?

-What's the idea behind them? Breaking up infantry formations seems most likely but would require widespread use. Pointing them rearwards to make the horse go faster?

-To me, it looks like these are percussion weapons fired by a string releasing a spring. Am I right? That would make them no older than the 1830s at most, which seems... odd, for something like this.

Spiryt

2012-07-22, 04:47 AM

Now, I must be missing something otherwise, swords would have disappeared as a military weapon after about 1200. Swords hold an important place in martial culture, but Western militaries are a pragmatic lot and would have done in the 13th century what they did in the 19th when swords lost all relevance on the battlefield and retired them.

Instead, swords were an extremely popular military side-arm for the entirety of the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Longer, two-handers like the the claymore were still used as primary weapons up until the Battle of Killiecrankie in 1689.
So, what did I miss?

From that point of view, one rather simple thing - depending on battle/situation minority or vast minority combatants would be armored head to toe with mail, plate or whatever else. Plenty of them would be vulnerable, especially in skirmish/rout or similar chaotic situations. Throughout the pretty much whole Medieval, infantrymen very rarely had any serious lower leg armor for example.

And claymore example's even easier - pretty much noone at Killiecrankie would have any serious armor.

Got to remember than armor generally started to disappear trough the 17th century, full armor in particular.

Yora

2012-07-22, 10:39 AM

I imagine getting shot in the arm and leg in a gun battle is much less likely that getting them slashed in a sword fight. That makes a cuirass a valid choice of armor.

Dead_Jester

2012-07-22, 12:08 PM

I imagine getting shot in the arm and leg in a gun battle is much less likely that getting them slashed in a sword fight. That makes a cuirass a valid choice of armor.

There is also the fact that using (and reloading) an early firearm with full armor is harder than with only a breastplate, and damn near impossible with full protective gauntlets and a closed helmet.

Storm Bringer

2012-07-22, 01:02 PM

Plus, it is very hard to make an armour that is both light enough to wear while still protecting the body agianst bullets. the effort and skill needed ment that it was very expensive, even compared to "normal" plate armour, so many people simply could not afford armour that good for all the body.

so they do what people have done since the dawn of time, and armoured those parts that you can least afford a wound to: the chest and the head.

Spiryt

2012-07-22, 01:23 PM

There is also the fact that using (and reloading) an early firearm with full armor is harder than with only a breastplate, and damn near impossible with full protective gauntlets and a closed helmet.

Infantrymen generally were wearing open helmets, similarly archers probably didn't use much gauntlets from this reason.

Majority of gunmen didn't have very complete, quality armor because they simply didn't have means.

Still, some gunmen quite certainly had pretty solid armor.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Lgehumble_1400.jpg

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=56249&stc=1

http://www.freha.pl/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=21341

I really don't think that armor would interfere much with operating a gun - gauntlets most probably, but not armor in itself. Reloading a gun would require much less rapid and violent movements than fighting with any two handed weapon - and that quite obviously was more than possible in armor.

I imagine getting shot in the arm and leg in a gun battle is much less likely that getting them slashed in a sword fight. That makes a cuirass a valid choice of armor.

I don't think so - bullets had pretty flat trajectory and good range, so with adequate angle they were just as likely to hit and leg as the torso...

While in melee, especially in formation, hitting the legs can be challenging without exposing too much - that's why even very well armored infantry in medieval left lower legs unprotected, while cavalry was armoring them if possible.

Aside from the fact that infantry would have to walk and fight on those own legs of their, unlike raiders.

Fortinbras

2012-07-22, 01:45 PM

Spiryt

2012-07-22, 01:56 PM

Okay, I wasn't really asking about swords in the 17th century on. My point was that soldiers in the 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th centuries who could expect to find themselves clashing with fully armored opponents brought swords, both as primary weapons and side arms, into battle. This seems like an extremely poor choice of weapon compared to its rivals for the reasons I mentioned in my earlier post. People did this a lot anyway so it cannot be as poor a choice as I think it is. What am I missing?

Reasons were mentioned quite a lot already:

- Majority of opponents were not fully armored at all
- sword is a versatile and handy weapon for many different situations other than pressed battle
-defeating armor was anyway very hard, no matter if one had sword, spear or mace. Precise attack to the place where blood can be drawn would be probably always preferred, and swords, particularly with decent thrusting capabilities are precise weapons.

All in all, we don't know how much swords were used in battlefields, and how much as 'sidearms' during majority of war - so marching, raids, acquiring provision, scouting, marauding around and so on...

Galloglaich

2012-07-22, 06:18 PM

Fortinbras

2012-07-22, 11:21 PM

Conners

2012-07-22, 11:30 PM

Going to add a question as to how effective Mike's strike would've been. A two-handed strike to the spine seems pretty good, to me (regardless of the mail). Aside from targeting unarmoured areas, which places do you target? Spine, neck, groin, shins?

Matthew

2012-07-22, 11:39 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdPt2ZVk4Yg

Does anybody know if what Mike Loades is doing at the beginning of the video, essentially switching between sword-and-shield and two-handed sword strokes was an actual combat style? It seems like it could be a wonderfully versatile way of fighting, provided the transitions are as smooth as Loades makes them look?

There is manuscript evidence for knights gripping their swords in two hands, and letting the shield "hang", so something like that was going on at least in the thirteenth century for sure. The Codex Manesse has some great images.

http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglitData/image/cpg848/1/321v.jpg

Fortinbras

2012-07-23, 12:07 AM

Would you describe Mike's sword as being an "arming sword" or a longsword or does it fall somewhere in between?

Matthew

2012-07-23, 12:14 AM

In modern parlance that would be an arming sword, I believe; in AD&D it would be a "long sword".

The Boz

2012-07-23, 07:05 AM

There's a difference between the DnD longsword and real world arming sword?

Matthew

2012-07-23, 08:19 AM

Sure, the D&D long sword stands in for pretty much any single handed double edged sword with a blade in excess of 24". Usually, as an edition goes on it starts subdividing the initial abstraction. Way back in the days of OD&D there was just sword and two-handed sword, then there was short sword, long sword, bastard sword and two-handed sword, then there was added broad sword, scimitar, and various others.

Mind, I think Fortinbras was distinguishing between what are now commonly referred to as "arming swords" and "long swords", and not referencing D&D.

eulmanis12

2012-07-23, 09:15 AM

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.

not necesarily. assuming the same degree of armor on both sides a man with a sword would not be at much of a disadvantage to a man with one of the polearms you mentioned. An axe hits with more force, but as a consiquence is more difficult to recover with. A halberd has more reach, but should the swordsman get in close it becomes very difficult for the halberdier to continue fighting effectively.

A man with a sword and shield would have more tactical options. Remember, the shield is a weapon no less deadly than the sword. With a shield you can block your opponent's attacks, push him back, and deliver many different blows. The sword is just part of a two part weapon system.

this goes for both onehanded and twohanded swords, both of which could be used with a shield. Though it is more prevalent with one handed swords.

I'm personally not a fan of two handed swords, however this is not because I think they are useless, its because of a difference in fighting style. I prefer one handed weapons because I like the additional options they offer.

Ashtagon

2012-07-23, 10:44 AM

Spiryt

2012-07-23, 11:00 AM

Exactly how durable were shields? I've seen reports of boiled leather shields surviving for 3000 years, and I've seen reports of shields being rendered useless after a single combat. Where does the truth lie?

Surviving decay in the ground/riverbed obviously doesn't have much to do with surviving repeating impacts from javelins and stuff.

And shields were so varied throughout the time and places that it's impossible to answer it generally.

There's a lot of indication that in 'Dark Ages' Europe plenty of shields were built to be somehow disposable - made of thin planks just butted together, without any particular reinforcing - with just a boss being valuable part of it all.

On the other hand, we have finds of more durable ones.

Roman scuta were pretty certainly designed to take quite a mauling, for example.

Here's pretty good article about it:

http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_shields.htm

rrgg

2012-07-23, 02:40 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsZnTCQptWc
This is the video I usually bring up.

The shield at around 4:30 is pretty similar to how the vast majority of European shields would have been made. Notice that it works extremely well at stopping penetration, but too many heavy bows might eventually cause the wood beneath to fail and turn the shield sort of limp.

fusilier

2012-07-23, 07:16 PM

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=56249&stc=1

any idea the provenance of this image? I'd really love to use it in my book, that looks like a Hussite style war wagon though it could be an Italian Carroccio

G

Hmmm . . . it doesn't quite look like an Carroccio, but I can see why you asked that.

The Spanish used war carts, reportedly equipped with scythes, spears and organ guns at the Battle of Ravenna (there's no report on how they did, but they don't seem to have been fielded again). While the Hussites made war wagons famous, there's evidence that they were used by others, and certainly Leonardo da Vinci designed some. The style of the armor and weaponry looks too late to be a Carroccio -- if I recall correctly they fell out of favor in the late 14th century/early 15th century. It does look Italian, but Italians usually used Oxen for draft. Although that changed during the Italian Wars. (It could still be Italian as horses would be faster on the battlefield).

Conners

2012-07-24, 02:01 AM

On the earlier stuff about the swordsmen, I'm a bit confused on one point. I've heard that spear wielders have a big advantage over swordsmen in duels. If that is true, why are swordsmen better for loose-formation combat?

Matthew

2012-07-24, 06:35 AM

The Montante / Zwiehander / Spada a Due Mani / Claymore class of weapons (which includes a pretty wide range of weapon sizes) were used in all the above mentioned cases, against 'loose' formations (such as in hill country like in the Scottish highlands), against horses (some of the big Japanese two-handed swords were specifically called 'horse-killing swords'), against pike-squares, and also in other cases. But the best information we have for period sources is that they were primarily used, at least in Continental Europe, for cases when 'few must fight against many'. The surviving montante manuals we have, from Spain, recommend the weapon for street skirmishes if you expect to be outnumbered. On the battlefield, orders of battle indicate that the two-handed swordsmen were used to defend banners (very important), protect cannon, as bodyguards for VIP's, to protect groups of hand-gunners and skirmishers, to attack pike squares, to attack / target VIP's, and to act as skirmishers themselves. Essentially they provided extra protection for when a formation broke up, and /or they could exploit the situation when an (enemy) formation was breaking up.

Nice to see this spelled out; I have been developing a War & Battle supplement for OSRIC and have often been wondering whether I am really on the right track with two-handed swords and weapon frontage.

On the earlier stuff about the swordsmen, I'm a bit confused on one point. I've heard that spear wielders have a big advantage over swordsmen in duels. If that is true, why are swordsmen better for loose-formation combat?

Wrong way around. In a duel, the swordsman will usually have the advantage, because the spear wielder will usually be compelled to be constantly on the back foot trying to keep his opponent from getting past the spear point.

Knaight

2012-07-24, 06:44 AM

Wrong way around. In a duel, the swordsman will usually have the advantage, because the spear wielder will usually be compelled to be constantly on the back foot trying to keep his opponent from getting past the spear point.

Silver disagrees, at least as regards using a spear in both hands. Based on my own experience, I'm inclined to disagree as well; spears are fast weapons and the highly variable reach can keep swordsmen somewhat off balance. If you're trying to use a 16 foot pike in single combat you are going to have problems, yes, but with a shorter spear you're good.

Matthew

2012-07-24, 06:46 AM

Silver disagrees, at least as regards using a spear in both hands. Based on my own experience, I'm inclined to disagree as well; spears are fast weapons and the highly variable reach can keep swordsmen somewhat off balance. If you're trying to use a 16 foot pike in single combat you are going to have problems, yes, but with a shorter spear you're good.

Well, that is interesting, as it runs contrary to what I have heard up until now. How short are we talking?

Knaight

2012-07-24, 06:50 AM

Well, that is interesting, as it runs contrary to what I have heard up until now. How short are we talking?

I've heard five and a half to eight feet as a rule, though I'd be extremely uncomfortable with a spear less than six feet. That said, I'm 6' 3" and have fairly long arms, so I'd imagine I have an edge when it comes to longer spears there.

Matthew

2012-07-24, 06:51 AM

I've heard five and a half to eight feet as a rule, though I'd be extremely uncomfortable with a spear less than six feet. That said, I'm 6' 3" and have fairly long arms, so I'd imagine I have an edge when it comes to longer spears there.

Are we talking about armoured combat, and are shields being considered for the sword wielder (sorry to ask all these qualifiers, just interested)?

Knaight

2012-07-24, 06:57 AM

Are we talking about armoured combat, and are shields being considered for the sword wielder (sorry to ask all these qualifiers, just interested)?

We're talking about unarmored or relatively lightly armored combat, and I was assuming we were talking about two handed swords. That said, it's basically the same with one handed swords and shields. Taking an arming sword up against a spear without a shield while lacking anything but really nice armor is a gigantic mistake. You'll have less reach, you'll be able to effectively aim at less of the body, and you'll probably be slower on top of all that. It's the sort of thing you'd only want to do if the spearman was incompetent, or you were bringing friends to the fight.

Matthew

2012-07-24, 07:00 AM

Knaight

2012-07-24, 07:12 AM

Ah right, lightly armoured combat I would think Silver would be right, the reach of the spear is a huge initial advantage in that situation. Conners' question seemed to be spear versus sword in general, so I assumed both two-handed and one-handed swords were being considered.

The reach can last surprisingly long if the spearman is any good, and has room to backpedal. In pure mechanics one can move forward far faster than backwards, but the rate at which one moves forward is somewhat reduced when there's a spear head in the way. It's a nearly guaranteed initial advantage, but it can last for a while - and with shorter spears*, you can fight effectively within sword range, with significantly better lunging potential than a sword has.

*Against shorter arming swords, I'd say 7 foot or less, against longer arming swords you can use 8 foot spears reasonably well. Two handed swords have comparable range to shorter spears anyways, so this becomes a non-issue, though the spears have a longer lunge.

Spiryt

2012-07-24, 07:15 AM

In most reenacting duels spear does seem to have advantage, however, in most of those situation is abstract, and spearman can backtrack and keep distance pretty much indefinitely, in some gym hall or hedged plain.

Referring to 'loose formation' in battle generally still refers to battle - a lot of people fighting around, rocks, roots, uneven terrain, not so much place to maneuver.

Although in such situations it may often be worth to grapple once the distance's closed instead of using the sword, so it will vary. Using the sword would generally mean giving chance for spearman to gain the distance back.

In pure mechanics one can move forward far faster than backwards, but the rate at which one moves forward is somewhat reduced when there's a spear head in the way. It's a nearly guaranteed initial advantage, but it can last for a while - and with shorter spears*, you can fight effectively within sword range

Even with very limited armor though, the danger presented by spear in the way drops drastically though. Jab once one's closing in will no longer end in the gut with 'standard' mail shirt on.

Knaight

2012-07-24, 07:18 AM

Referring to 'loose formation' in battle generally still refers to battle - a lot of people fighting around, rocks, roots, uneven terrain, not so much place to maneuver.

The thing about rocks and roots is that they also slow down people closing in the first place. I quite like fighting with them around actually, though they aren't nearly as useful as deep snow or significant amounts of water. It is amazing how easy it is to maintain a range advantage in knee deep water, and unlike waist deep water or higher the water isn't going to remove all that many useful angles of attack.

eulmanis12

2012-07-24, 08:14 AM

The thing about rocks and roots is that they also slow down people closing in the first place. I quite like fighting with them around actually, though they aren't nearly as useful as deep snow or significant amounts of water. It is amazing how easy it is to maintain a range advantage in knee deep water, and unlike waist deep water or higher the water isn't going to remove all that many useful angles of attack.

rocks and roots will slow down the one closing as well as the one backing up. but the one backing up will have to navagate them backwards, making the obstructions on the ground more hazardous to the man giving ground.

Knaight

2012-07-24, 08:24 AM

rocks and roots will slow down the one closing as well as the one backing up. but the one backing up will have to navagate them backwards, making the obstructions on the ground more hazardous to the man giving ground.

That really depends on how bad the terrain is. Generally speaking, you probably have a decent knowledge of the area you're fighting in (given that you've at the very least traveled over it once when getting there), so this can be surprisingly irrelevant, particularly if you're defending a picked area in the first place. I find that it's low branches more than anything that cause problems, and can usually give ground in a controlled manner on bad terrain easily enough for it to be a slight benefit. That said, I do use the same bad terrain quite frequently, so I might be underestimating the level of unfamiliarity.

Galloglaich

2012-07-24, 09:29 AM

Ah yes... bohurt not Bohun, typo... I've been reading an English translation of ogniem i mieczem and I'm about in the middle, Bohun is up to a great deal of mischief chasing Helena Kurcewiczówna and Zagłoba around the Steppe.

With regard to why the sword remained so popular compared to other weapons.

The first answer is that other weapons were used a lot, a lot more than we see depicted in the media. You have to understand that the current depictions of Medieval warfare, life etc., in modern films, tv, video games, and even documentaries, is equivalent to showing a movie about World War 1 with helicopters, people wearing furs, and fighting in hoplite phalanxes. It's really that badly screwed up.

People did use other weapons, a great deal. And if you were certain that all you were going to face was a fully armored opponent, a poleaxe or poll hammer make a lot of sense and would often be used, as you see here in this judicial combat.

http://www.the-exiles.org/Images/lejuepoleaxe/image10.GIF
http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/LeJeuArt.JPG

However on the open battlefield full cap-a-pied armor wasn't as common, in fact even a fully armored person typically would not have his face covered, and gauntlets appear to also be relatively rare. On a lot of full harness, much of the backs of the thighs are not covered at all, as well as other areas. All of these places are vulnerable to cuts and thrusts from swords.

So were the horses (even armored horses were vulnerable on their legs), the half armored soldiers, and the unarmored soldiers who always made up a large part of any army.

But of course they are also vulnerable to cuts or thrusts from a pole axe or a spear, or crushing blows from a mace or hammer. So why use swords at all? The short answer is that the sword is more versatile. But what does that mean in practice?

I can only guess, really, but I think this goes to the brutal reality of warfare that we don't often think about in a re-enactment or historical fencing context, because of the one thing we have to leave out, i.e. a sharp edge. We know from FBI statistics that when people are killed with blades they almost always have 'defensive wounds' on their hands. People being killed, cut or smashed to pieces, will tend to grab whatever is striking them.

Any hafted weapon is vulnerable to being grabbed below the business end. Here is where the sword, any sword, has a major advantage. Yes you can grab a sword blade, especially from within a bind, but you have to really know what you are doing, or be really lucky, not to get seriously injured in the process. This is why swords were, as Peter Johnnson has recently pointed out, made very sharp before battle... all the way down the blade at least to the ricasso, if there was one. This is partly, I think, to make it more difficult to grab. Not that you won't try if you are being murdered, all niceties go out the window, but your hands will be sliced to pieces and blood will be everywhere, the sword will be slippery, you'll die before you can get control of it in most cases.

By contrast a spear, an axe, a mace, or any polearm is vulnerable to being grappled as soon as it loses momentum. Now it's still not easy to grab one that is being used against you, but I would guess it's a bit easier. I know from experience it's much easier in fencing, though of course there we don't have the added panic of imminent death, either as a stimulus to action or to despair. A sword can also cause injuries at zero speed, with a slice or a draw - cut. In other words, unlike an axe or a mace, it doesn't have to be moving fast to hurt you.

And this is also where the weakness of the spear showed through in my own fencing experience, you can easily grab a spear haft from a bind.

The other major factor is that with certain swords, such as a rapier or a longsword, there is an enormous scope for advancement by a skilled fighter.

That speaks to another question upthread about whether there is such a thing as a 'final' counter. The answer is yes and no... You see fencing techniques with say, 8 opening attacks, 4 possible counters for each, 3 counters to those counters, 2 responses to each of those counters, and 2 more responses to that... it ends up being hundreds of possibilities you would have to train for. Not just enough to know how to do it, but enough that you can recognize the situation in an instant, think of the appropriate counter immediately, and put it into practice without hesitation and with no major error. In practice, at least so far, to master say 20 or 30 techniques to the point that you can pull them off under the pressure of a tournament is extremely rare. The best fighters might be able to execute counters, and counters to counters, maybe 2 or 3 levels deep, to the most common attacks. I think I'm in the top 10% of longsword fighters in the tournament circuit in the US, and I can only do probably 8 or 10 techniques effectively under that kind of pressure.

But the system I'm studying, Liechtenauer longsword, offers me hundreds of techniques I could do in a fight, if I trained enough. Big if :). It's the same for rapier, the smallsword, the katanna, the jian, and a few other weapons, mainly swords, for which very advanced fencing techniques have been developed in certain cultures. So the trick is to learn to effectively do enough techniques so that you have more tools in your repertoire. The theoretical Bruce Lee of fencing who can do them all perfectly does not seem to have been invented yet. So if you know more than your opponent does, you have a big advantage. I think that is what separates out the guys who make it to quarter finals in a HEMA tournament today from the guys who can't get out of their pools - the former can do a dozen or more techniques while the latter, can also fight pretty well, but can only do two or three techniques at full speed without any hesitation. It's a subtle difference but it stands out.

And there are also differences between one weapon and another, because some just seem to be simpler. Most saber systems, for example, are very simple, with only a few guards, a handful of counters and basic attacks. A very small number of specific techniques compared to a rapier or a longsword. This was partly in order to train conscripts in as short a time as possible, but it's also partly due to the nature of the weapon. It's just a simpler weapon to use.

This is how I see the spear. I know there are some martial arts system which include pretty advanced spear techniques, but I've never seen anybody fight at any tournament or other open format contest, formal or informal, where they could pull them off at the level of the top longsword guys. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist of course, I'm only speaking to my own experiences.

I think in the SCA or re-enactment context, you tend to have a lot of rules limiting how you can fight, which gives the spear a bit more of an advantage. And you also tend to not have a lot of really well trained fencers. Experienced yes, but well trained, no, at least not in the sense that they know dozens of techinques. An average spearman fighting against an average swordsman, the spearman has the edge. An average spearman against an average 'sword and board' guy with a little experience, I think the sword and shield guy might have a slight advantage because the shield gives you enough of a defensive edge to give you a decent chance to stop that first spear thrust, and if the sword and shield guy can bind with his shield, which he's always trying to do, he'll rush in and make that cut an the spearman is helpless. An average spearman against a trained fencer with a longsword, from my experience the longsword has the advantage, consistently. Not decisive, but an advantage.

In theory the highly trained spearman, who can really fence with a spear, could turn the tables again, but I haven't seen this spearman yet. A trained longsword fencer strikes fast with that weapon. You've seen the videos like this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln94E9AGYTc). Sword blades are thin and cut through the air a little faster than a pole does. The reach advantage of the spear is very real, but a good fencer can displace strikes and thrusts very effectively ... an experienced guy isn't as likely to get skewered in that first opening attack at onset, and that is where the spear has it's best advantage. A spear can displace too, but as soon as there is a bind the spear is much more vulnerable to being grabbed, by my experience, or wound into, or caught up on the cross and etc.

The point is a real threat on a longer weapon, but an experienced fighter can get past the point in the onset part of the fight and won't lose to the first thrust. Once you are past the point, the longsword seems to just be faster and more versatile. and more dangerous to grab.

G

Galloglaich

2012-07-24, 10:29 AM

One other thing about half-swording; it is not just about the two-handed thrust and the mortschlag, it's mainly about displacing attacks (esp. thrusts) and using the sword as a lever for grappling, holds, disarms and throws. Ringen am schwert, or kriegsringen. This is the principle reason why you see half-swording done in blossfechten or unarmored fencing.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EiZItKzy6eI/TwcClUX3TyI/AAAAAAAAANQ/EPJ4ABw2ngQ/s1600/mair_KM_halfsword1.jpg

G

Dead_Jester

2012-07-24, 10:58 AM

Any hafted weapon is vulnerable to being grabbed below the business end. Here is where the sword, any sword, has a major advantage. Yes you can grab a sword blade, especially from within a bind, but you have to really know what you are doing, or be really lucky, not to get seriously injured in the process. This is why swords were, as Peter Johnnson has recently pointed out, made very sharp before battle... all the way down the blade at least to the ricasso, if there was one. This is partly, I think, to make it more difficult to grab. Not that you won't try if you are being murdered, all niceties go out the window, but your hands will be sliced to pieces and blood will be everywhere, the sword will be slippery, you'll die before you can get control of it in most cases.

Wouldn't most types of hand protection (even light leather gloves) offer decent protection against a blade with little relative motion? Improving the sharpness only does so much, as you need displacement to cut. Of course, peasants probably weren't wearing gloves of any kind, but I would assume most soldiers would, as they allow a better grip on weapons and prevent your hands from tearing up and blistering in combat (from experience, it's not pleasant at all, and can be quite distracting). I would rather attribute the sharpening to the fact that a sharper sword should penetrate deeper and more efficiently into unarmored targets, making successive cuts quicker and more effective.

A sword can also cause injuries at zero speed, with a slice or a draw - cut. In other words, unlike an axe or a mace, it doesn't have to be moving fast to hurt you.

Again, this relies heavily on not wearing any sort of hand protection; you can try it yourself, by using a sharpened sword or, for that matter, a chef's knife, and holding the blade in a leather gauntlet (preferably one you don't mind damaging much, like an old work glove), and having a friend try to move the blade, and to simply cut through without you holding it (you might want to use a human body analogue for this one tough); the difference a bit of padding makes is quite profound.

Also, on the topic of a "final" counter to a series of exchanges, in my experience (in both unarmed and armed sparring), a trained opponent knows the logical sequence of the exchange, and will usually attempt to mix it up, by breaking the sequence or by choosing different actions, often a seemingly "bad" one (the impact of a non-logical action, on a concentrated opponent can be quite profound). As such, in actual combat, there is rarely a "fixed" series of actions, and you rarely have time to plan your use of techniques. Rather, you want to practice until your reaction to the events is instinctively the "right" one (which, incidentally, is entirely variable depending on the combat itself and your opponent); at that point, you can stop thinking about the fight, and simply "feel" what is happening, attacking and counter-attacking reflectively until one of the opponents makes a mistake or until the exchange is broken by one of the two fighters stopping his attacks.

Japanese martial arts tend to call this mushin (Miyamoto Musashi explains some of it in his book, but it's rather hard to understand without doing it), and, if both opponents become sufficiently good, the challenge becomes not to apply the correct technique at the right time, but rather to break the cycle by surprising or destabilizing the opponent with an unexpected maneuver. As such, there is no "maximal" amount of maneuvers in an exchange, but also no "minimal" amount for it to be effective, and it only ends when a decisive blow is struck or if one of the parties disengages from it. Of course, all of this depends immensely on both opponents, as some fighters are naturally adept at predicting the flow of battle, while others are great at improvisation, and as such, understanding your opponent is one of the most important steps towards defeating him.

Galloglaich

2012-07-24, 01:44 PM

Wouldn't most types of hand protection (even light leather gloves) offer decent protection against a blade with little relative motion? Improving the sharpness only does so much, as you need displacement to cut. Of course, peasants probably weren't wearing gloves of any kind, but I would assume most soldiers would, as they allow a better grip on weapons and prevent your hands from tearing up and blistering in combat (from experience, it's not pleasant at all, and can be quite distracting). I would rather attribute the sharpening to the fact that a sharper sword should penetrate deeper and more efficiently into unarmored targets, making successive cuts quicker and more effective.

One would think. But gloves can also make it more likely that you will drop your weapon. Ultimately we can't know for sure but in period art there is little evidence of the widespread use of gloves, people either wear gauntlets (or half-gauntlets) or they are usually depicted with bare hands. Beyond that I can't say.

On the other hand in some dueling contexts, notably in Italy in the 16th and 17th Century, they explicitly wore gloves with mail-lined palms, so that they could grab their opponents sword blade. You even see this in some manuals if I remember correctly.

However, I contest your suggestion that a glove is good protection against a sharp sword. Yes if the sword is stable, i.e. completely stopped, and you manage to get a good grip on it, you can get away with this. If it's moving at all and / or you have a loose grip, I don't think it's sufficient protection. I damn sure wouldn't grab my Albion Constable unless I was certain I was in control of it. It's really scary easy to cut through all kinds of things with that using a slice just as much as with a cut or a thrust. Anyway, I guess it is a matter of opinion since I for one will not be testing this any time soon, I need my hands for too many things.

Again, this relies heavily on not wearing any sort of hand protection;

No it doesn't because there are still so many other parts of the body unprotected by armor. The face, the back of the thigh or the calf (in a hamstringing slice, ala coup de jarnac which is taught in several fencing systems) and so on.

you can try it yourself, by using a sharpened sword or, for that matter, a chef's knife, and holding the blade in a leather gauntlet (preferably one you don't mind damaging much, like an old work glove), and having a friend try to move the blade, and to simply cut through without you holding it (you might want to use a human body analogue for this one tough); the difference a bit of padding makes is quite profound.

yeah you can test that and let me know how it works out ;)

Also, on the topic of a "final" counter to a series of exchanges, in my experience (in both unarmed and armed sparring), a trained opponent knows the logical sequence of the exchange, and will usually attempt to mix it up, by breaking the sequence or by choosing different actions, often a seemingly "bad" one (the impact of a non-logical action, on a concentrated opponent can be quite profound).

I think in a more formalized type of fighting, like some versions of Kendo say or Olympic style sport-fencing, there is a more limited set of 'good' options, in a more open rules lite system, ala HEMA or MMA, there are far more.

As such, in actual combat, there is rarely a "fixed" series of actions, and you rarely have time to plan your use of techniques.

I agree with the former though not necessarily the latter.

Rather, you want to practice until your reaction to the events is instinctively the "right" one (which, incidentally, is entirely variable depending on the combat itself and your opponent); at that point, you can stop thinking about the fight, and simply "feel" what is happening, attacking and counter-attacking reflectively until one of the opponents makes a mistake or until the exchange is broken by one of the two fighters stopping his attacks.

Training-in muscle memory for responses and specific techniques is basically what I was trying to describe above, but having said that, I don't think it's as simple as just training your body and letting it do your fighting for you, with all due respect to Musashi. In the KDF, there are three timing concepts both for thought and action: Vor (before), Nach (after), and Indes.

So for example, if I see you are telegraphing an overhand cut, I may take a provocative guard, let you strike, move my sword out of the way, and cut you as your blade goes past. This is a common tactic in both German and Japanese fencing, in the former it's known as a Nachreisen, i.e. 'travelling after'. I'm thinking in the Vor, acting in the Nach. In the KDF ideally you are supposed to both think and act in the Vor if possible, but you are also advised to be flexible.

What you are describing above is acting Indes, which the Masters put great importance upon, but even here you have conscious thinking involved, regardless of how fast the action is (although sometimes you don't realize what you actually did until afterward, there is still thinking involved). What the training does is reduce the mental clutter so that you have the techniques you need 'available' to you, you can do them cleanly with one impulse. Against each guard, I know that there are a limited number of attacks I can make. As I'm observing my opponent, I can pressure him or her in various ways, and typically when they are changing guards, I can make the attack they appear most vulnerable to before they have 'loaded' the next series of appropriate defenses into their memory. By my experience, you are constantly queuing up little clusters of actions for use like this, and a lot of the fight is interrupting the mental preparation your opponent is making during the chess game of the fencing match. Musashi himself described it as moving through the gaps in his opponents thoughts.

But in the fechtbucher I'm also advised to evaluate my opponent, I can't fight everyone the same way. Meyer describes four roles: Frenzied, Artful and Sharp, Cunning and Deceitful, and 'The Fool'. If my opponent is Frenzied, an Artful and Sharp approach (something like a loaded bear-trap) may be a good idea, I pay very close attention to measure and can cut him or stab him the second he enters range. If he is Artful and Sharp, for example tightly wound up into a defensive guard, I'll shift to Cunning and Deceitful, stay at the edge of range and feint and probe as I try to spring his trap before I move in. All these thoughts are very much in your mind as you are fighting, at least in the HEMA tournament world.

Japanese martial arts tend to call this mushin (Miyamoto Musashi explains some of it in his book, but it's rather hard to understand without doing it), and, if both opponents become sufficiently good, the challenge becomes not to apply the correct technique at the right time, but rather to break the cycle by surprising or destabilizing the opponent with an unexpected maneuver.

In a way we are talking about the same thing, I think, but I believe you have a more literal understanding of this, or at any rate a different one.

As such, there is no "maximal" amount of maneuvers in an exchange, but also no "minimal" amount for it to be effective, and it only ends when a decisive blow is struck or if one of the parties disengages from it. Of course, all of this depends immensely on both opponents, as some fighters are naturally adept at predicting the flow of battle, while others are great at improvisation, and as such, understanding your opponent is one of the most important steps towards defeating him.

Yes, but if am lucky enough to have time to gain some insight into your fencing, and can see that you can't properly respond to certain attacks (because you don't 'have' the techniques) I can use this to my advantage and eat you alive.

http://grauenwolf.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/image.png

For example, lets say you are an aggressive fencer and like to make an overhead cut. I can try a variety of strategies but one of the more obvious is to cut into your cut with an overhead cut of my own, achieve a bind, and wind my point into your face or throat. There is a counter to this, (and a counter to the counter) but if you don't know it, no matter how 'unpredictable' or unorthodox your fighting style is, once you have made that cut I can exploit it by controlling your weapon while stabbing you. Now my initial reaction (cutting into your attack) might be Indes (i.e. automatic, muscle memory), if you were say, unpredictable enough to surprise me, but once we are in a bind I will recognize that and exploit it consciously. If you counter my exploitation I'll have something else ready very quickly... if you don't, I'll just stab you in the face. That is how the decision tree works.

Of course the the most basic level of any 'techniques' are fundamental things like simple reach and measure (timing and distance), and if one of us is out of distance without realizing it, or telegraphs their intent to attack or defend in an obvious way, the other will exploit that and the fight will be over in one cut. As it often is especially with less experienced fighters.

G

Knaight

2012-07-24, 02:00 PM

In theory the highly trained spearman, who can really fence with a spear, could turn the tables again, but I haven't seen this spearman yet. A trained longsword fencer strikes fast with that weapon. You've seen the videos like this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln94E9AGYTc). Sword blades are thin and cut through the air a little faster than a pole does. The reach advantage of the spear is very real, but a good fencer can displace strikes and thrusts very effectively ... an experienced guy isn't as likely to get skewered in that first opening attack at onset, and that is where the spear has it's best advantage. A spear can displace too, but as soon as there is a bind the spear is much more vulnerable to being grabbed, by my experience, or wound into, or caught up on the cross and etc.

I've seen a few extremely good spearmen (the sort who I'll lose to when using a spear in both hands and they use it in one without anything in the other), and I'd posit that the lack of them is more due to the lack of training than anything else. The infantry spear has always been associated with lower class fighters in Europe, and the cavalry spear isn't exactly something someone fences with. The sword, meanwhile, is romanticized, so that alone is likely to see that it sees a disproportionate amount of training, and insures that many of the best people are swordsmen. I'd also note an advantage that hasn't been mentioned yet, that I suspect is major - spears tend to break. Sure, them getting hacked through by one sword in one strike is pure Hollywood (particularly when said sword cuts through a dozen spears), but over the course of a battle they're going to break. Swords are more durable, and are less likely to suddenly break on you, which is particularly critical for loose formation troops that are going to see heavy fighting.

Talakeal

2012-07-24, 02:12 PM

A question that came up in my game this weekend: Can a spear be used as a quarter staff with full effect?

A spear armed player was engaged against an adjacent foe and could not strike with their spear (a reach weapon) and claimed that he could just use a spear as a quarter staff (a non reach weapon) with full effectiveness. He went on to claim that it was common practice, and some Asian fighting styles are based around using full sized spears and alternating between using the pointy end as a spear and the blunt end as a staff. Any truth to this?

Galloglaich

2012-07-24, 02:21 PM

Knaight you very well might have a point about training. And cutting through or breaking spear-hafts, though a lot of the historical ones in Europe at any rate had langets near the business end to protect them.

A question that came up in my game this weekend: Can a spear be used as a quarter staff with full effect?

A spear armed player was engaged against an adjacent foe and could not strike with their spear (a reach weapon) and claimed that he could just use a spear as a quarter staff (a non reach weapon) with full effectiveness. He went on to claim that it was common practice, and some Asian fighting styles are based around using full sized spears and alternating between using the pointy end as a spear and the blunt end as a staff. Any truth to this?

Yes this is possible, some people call this half-staffing. A trained fighter will use a spear a lot like a staff, and vise versa (use a staff a lot like a spear), especially if he can hold it with both hands. The general strategy was to hold it from the back quarter when at distance (i.e. 'quarter staff') and poke and strike at your opponent, then choke up when the fight got close so you could defend better (irrelevant in most RPG systems since you can't defend with your weapon, mysteriously) and attack from both ends.

Here is a helpful FAQ

http://quarterstaff.home.comcast.net/~quarterstaff/faq.html

and a glossary of terms

http://quarterstaff.home.comcast.net/~quarterstaff/glossary.html#halfstaffing

Whether the game system in question allows any of this is another matter entirely.

G

Spiryt

2012-07-24, 02:23 PM

I guess that spearhead would make the handling awkward, there's somehow dead weight on the opposite end when one's trying to hit opponent with other parts. But yeah, it could work.

The thing is that to use it effectively one still must move his weapon around, change the grip, work the angles and distance etc.

One can just hold the spear 'normally' and just move it 'other way around for quick stab/strike with other end, but it won't be attack of very much potential.

So for purposes of gaming, I really don't think that this should be equivalent to full scale weapon damage, one can easily see how unbalanced it is anyway.

Perhaps improvised weapon penalty?

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll

2012-07-24, 02:29 PM

I can't think of any reason why a spear couldn't be used as a rough quarterstaff. The balance probably would be off though, hence the improvised weapon penalty.

Talakeal

2012-07-24, 02:30 PM

I can't think of any reason why a spear couldn't be used as a rough quarterstaff. The balance probably would be off though, hence the improvised weapon penalty.

Oh, I totally allow it with an improvised weapon penalty. That is not what I am asking.

The player insisted there is NO mechanical disadvantage for using a spear as a quarter staff and that all spears should also double as staffs with no penalty.

Galloglaich

2012-07-24, 02:32 PM

I really don't see why it would be any penalty at all personally, that is how all polearms inicluding spears were actually used. It's just like a staff, only very slightly different balance. A real spearhead doesn't weigh that much. The only problem would be if you were using it one -handed (though they made even that look plausible in Troy). In DnD terms I'd say if you had weapon proficiency with a spear you should be able to use it, at least based on the logic of actual combat and historical use. Of course, that is a big if, the rules aren't based on either of those so how you rule it is another matter entirley.

In the fechtbucher, it's common for all polearms to be used this way in fact, (a mix of quarter and half-staff guards) and also to lead with the queue or butt of the weapon rather than the business end. This is one of the reasons why most spear butts were pointed..

From Marozzo, holding a spear or partisan at half-staff

http://grauenwolf.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/image_thumb3.png?w=376&h=501

leading with the queue

http://grauenwolf.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/image_thumb5.png?w=378&h=514

EDIT: had to change images because angelfire is a bad website

Peter Falkner, pollaxes
http://talhoffer.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/falkner.jpg

Paulus Kal, pollaxes
http://talhoffer.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/paulus-kal.jpg

Goliath, spears
http://talhoffer.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/download.jpg

G

Yora

2012-07-24, 02:33 PM

Naginata Championships often get pretty close up. Even considerably closer than kendo fight.

But then, these tournaments are about scoring points, not life and death or keeping all your limbs while there are people with sharp thing running around behind your back. Scoring systems are preferedly set to reflect lethal techniques, but still take that with a grain of salt.
Also, naginata are have sabre-shaped blades, which should make "scratching" the enemy with the tip probably more effective than with a thrusting spear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8J_IkuUbak
In this match, white uses the back end a lot. Didn't work out, but when you make it to the world finals it can't all bad.
At about 3:30 they get really close up and agressive.
At 4:15 gets a good opportunity to go for the head, by keeping reds attention to the floor.

I also noticed that red is often switching hands. Would that be common? I imagine with a sword that would requite a lot of training to get used to.

rrgg

2012-07-24, 03:12 PM

The big issue in my experience is that people tend to greatly underestimate the amount of speed a spear has. With a longer weapon you are not only getting significantly more reach, but a ton of leverage as well meaning that the tip of a light spear could easily end up moving far faster than the tip of a dagger or even a bare hand could. It can still be caught of course but the pressure is really on for the person with the shorter weapon to find ways to outsmart the spearman. Simply flailing in circles as you chase after the tip A. generally won't work and B. makes you look pretty stupid.

The real advantage of a sword compared to so many other weapons is that you can put it in a scabbard, freeing your hands to do other things or wield something more useful. It was a good personal defense weapon, a skilled man with an arming sword could hold his own against almost anything else but there aren't many situations where the sword has an inherent advantage.

An important thing to keep in mind is that even during "violent" periods proper battlefield combat would have been extremely rare. Instead, even for someone like a knight the vast majority of actual fighting he was involved in over the course of his life would have been more akin to muggings or bar fights. And so, since he generally wouldn't want to be hauling a polearm around every time he went to the market or went on a trip just on the off chance that a fight brakes out (no, there is no evidence that they were ever strapped to the back either), the iconic image of the nobleman became the important-looking guy strolling around with a big ol' sword on his hip.

The role of the sword as a reactionary self-defense weapon is why, for instance, Samurai martial arts placed so much emphasis on the quick-draw.

Galloglaich

2012-07-24, 03:14 PM

I also noticed that red is often switching hands. Would that be common? I imagine with a sword that would requite a lot of training to get used to.

That is basically what you learn to do in half-swording, especially in blossfechten where you don't normally wait in a half-sword guard, but transition into it when certain opportunities present themselves.

It's also what you do when you get a bind with a spear, you seize their weapon with one hand, while cutting them single-handed with the other. Hence the versatility of the 'hand-and-a-half' sword. The Germans called that Ubergreiffen..

G

Essence_of_War

2012-07-24, 04:53 PM

I was wondering if anyone could direct me to some reading materials on modern stab-resistant vests/armor.

I'm familiar with how bullet-resistant vests/armor work. Basically, a tightly interwoven (and perhaps twisted, or resin coated!) net of light but strong fibers disperse the impact energy of a bullet over a wide area.

I'm also aware that, to some degree, the problem of "how to minimize damage from cuts/stabs" has been solved by mail, brigandine, etc.

Are there more efficient solutions using modern fibers? Or do modern stab resistant vests basically look like dressed up mail/brigandine?

Tarinaky

2012-07-24, 05:04 PM

of leverage as well meaning that the tip of a light spear could easily end up moving far faster than the tip of a dagger

You've actually got your physics wrong. A longer lever will rotate slower under the same torque. Hence why ice skaters spin faster when they tuck their limbs in and slower when they splay out.

fusilier

2012-07-24, 05:41 PM

And this is also where the weakness of the spear showed through in my own fencing experience, you can easily grab a spear haft from a bind.

I think it was in the plates of H. H. Angelo's mid-nineteenth century bayonet manual, that I saw this technique called for (i.e. grabbing the musket just behind the bayonet).

Those plates are at the bottom of this page:
http://www.thortrains.com/getright/drillbayang1.htm

fusilier

2012-07-24, 05:43 PM

You've actually got your physics wrong. A longer lever will rotate slower under the same torque. Hence why ice skaters spin faster when they tuck their limbs in and slower when they splay out.

That assumes constant torque, instead of constant angular velocity. The limiting factor in this case may be the angular velocity that the human can impart, and not the torque?

a_humble_lich

2012-07-24, 06:09 PM

That assumes constant torque, instead of constant angular velocity. The limiting factor in this case may be the angular velocity that the human can impart, and not the torque?

I was just going to say the same thing. I know there are many missile weapons (such as the sling or the Atlatl) that at least in part work by giving you more leverage. The speed you can throw a stone or spear in many cases is limited not by how much force you can generate but how fast you can move your hand.

Galloglaich

2012-07-24, 06:42 PM

I think it was in the plates of H. H. Angelo's mid-nineteenth century bayonet manual, that I saw this technique called for (i.e. grabbing the musket just behind the bayonet).

Those plates are at the bottom of this page:
http://www.thortrains.com/getright/drillbayang1.htm

http://www.thortrains.com/getright/angbayswrd1.jpg

http://www.thortrains.com/getright/angbaysword2.jpg

ah yes... a bit harder with a saber than a longsword but essentially the same principle.

I see he also has a counter for the bayonett wielder. :P

G

fusilier

2012-07-24, 07:15 PM

I see he also has a counter for the bayonett wielder. :P

G

Yeah, which is basically pull back and "shorten the stock" -- I've only trained with McClellan's bayonet manual which, as I understand it, is pretty much a direct translation of the French manual of the time. In that manual shortening the stock involves a change in the grip positions. Angelo's looks interesting though.

Raum

2012-07-24, 08:57 PM

You've actually got your physics wrong. A longer lever will rotate slower under the same torque. Hence why ice skaters spin faster when they tuck their limbs in and slower when they splay out.This is correct...yet false. ;)

Angular velocity does increase as you reduce the radius - it's a measure of how large an angle you travel over time. Speed (linear velocity) however, increases with radius - it's a measure of how much distance you travel over time. Kinetic energy increases with linear velocity.

Conners

2012-07-25, 01:10 AM

Knaight

2012-07-25, 02:05 AM

I was just going to say the same thing. I know there are many missile weapons (such as the sling or the Atlatl) that at least in part work by giving you more leverage. The speed you can throw a stone or spear in many cases is limited not by how much force you can generate but how fast you can move your hand.
I'd note that the sling is highly limited in this regard - the pouch drags, and ends up trailing where it would be expected to be, with this being a problem with longer slings. Past a certain point, length no longer increases range effectively - I'd generally place that at a 4 foot sling or so, keeping in mind that slings are usually measured from the end of the finger loop/wrist loop/gripped knot to the middle of the pouch.

Is it possible that a master swordsman would have an advantage over a master spearman? Or, that a swordsman has advantages when outnumbered which a spearman doesn't?

I'm trying to understand why they wanted to hire sword-masters instead of spear-masters.
This brings us back to the crux of my previous argument - spear masters never appeared to be an option in the first place, as the role of swords and some of the material advantages of them essentially made sure that the highly trained masters of a weapon were using swords.

Yora

2012-07-25, 03:40 AM

That is basically what you learn to do in half-swording, especially in blossfechten where you don't normally wait in a half-sword guard, but transition into it when certain opportunities present themselves.

It's also what you do when you get a bind with a spear, you seize their weapon with one hand, while cutting them single-handed with the other. Hence the versatility of the 'hand-and-a-half' sword. The Germans called that Ubergreiffen.
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. Do you have any visual examples of Übergreifen? It's such a common German term that google does not produce anything useful except for a single use in Talhofer about Messer, that seems to me to mean something entirely different.

Edit: Oh, I see. When I looked at a demonstration of half-swording to look for anything that might fit, I noticed it in the first half second. In half swording, you keep your main hand on the hilt, so the other one has to become the forward hand.
Still leaves the question about the term übergreifen.

The role of the sword as a reactionary self-defense weapon is why, for instance, Samurai martial arts placed so much emphasis on the quick-draw.
I would go so far to say that "Samurai on the street attacked by 10 ninja" is actually the most accurate situation in which a samurai sword would be used. On the battlefield, one would rather have used spears or naginata.

Brother Oni

2012-07-25, 05:57 AM

I would go so far to say that "Samurai on the street attacked by 10 ninja" is actually the most accurate situation in which a samurai sword would be used. On the battlefield, one would rather have used spears or naginata.

Or ambushed while he is in the tea house. I've seen and practiced a fair few techniques where you are in a sitting/kneeling position and your opponent is either standing or kneeling/sitting as well.

It's why there's a substantial amount of ettiquette of how a samurai would place his sword on the ground while sitting; to his left side indicates that he doesn't really trust his host (very easy to reach and draw), while on the right hand side means he does (harder to draw and use effectively with the wrong hand). Having it with the hilt towards you means you don't think much of your host's skill with the blade (very difficult to draw quickly).

Of course this was for mostly informal or private meetings as most establishments (or anybody with even hald an ounce of sense) required samurai to surrender their blades before entering the premises.

Galloglaich

2012-07-25, 09:58 AM

There is a whole martial art devoted to fighting from a sheathed sword

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

But while the katana was indeed kind of a "court-sword", it was also a very important military sidearm and it was (along with the similar but a bit heavier and more curvy tachi) widely used on the battlefield.

Of course during the Tokugawa Shogunate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokugawa_shogunate) from 1603-1868 there weren't that many large scale battles in Japan so more of the fighting was part of courtly intrigue, ambushes in tea houses as you said, assassinations and so on.

G.

Knaight

2012-07-25, 10:12 AM

Of course during the Tokugawa Shogunate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokugawa_shogunate) from 1603-1868 there weren't that many large scale battles in Japan so more of the fighting was part of courtly intrigue, ambushes in tea houses as you said, assassinations and so on.

G.

Most of the fighting involving warrior classes anyways. I'd be willing to bet that most fighting was entirely between people of the peasant class (largely on account of them being the vast majority of the population), and bore a lot more resemblance to modern street fighting than martial arts.

Galloglaich

2012-07-25, 11:36 AM

I just meant that there were no more full scale wars during that period.

But I think the Tokugawa government was pretty strict toward peasants and in many cases they were not allowed to be armed, violence and any crime was harshly punished. Though of course you still had the Yakuza... The descriptions by Europeans in the 17th Century like William Adams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Adams_%28sailor%29) 'The English Samurai' make it sound like a pretty tightly regulated society, kept that way through a heap of executed corpses on the edge of every town and village. But there was violence among the merchant class especially later in the 18th and 19th Centuries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edo_society#Challenges_to_the_social_order).

In Europe I think one of the most common misconceptions is that there was this big divide between peasants and the knightly aristocracy and that is all there was. The reality was much more mixed up, and of course varied enormously from region to region and in different time periods, but in many places there was probably as many people in the 'middle class' as there are today. But unlike today back then the middle class (burghers, merchants, free peasants) were quite warlike and would fight on the drop of a hat if they felt their rights or honor were threatened.

It's a common misconception that only knights walked around with swords on their hip or owned body armor, but nothing could be further from the truth.

G

Spiryt

2012-07-25, 11:46 AM

Galloglaich

2012-07-25, 11:49 AM

Is it possible that a master swordsman would have an advantage over a master spearman? Or, that a swordsman has advantages when outnumbered which a spearman doesn't?

I'm trying to understand why they wanted to hire sword-masters instead of spear-masters.

They did in a way... it's just that by the time people were documented as hiring master fencers in the 15th and 16th Centuries (it may very well have happened long before that but we don't have records for it) spears as such had been kind of replaced by other types of polearms.

But they did hire expert halberdiers and quite often, halberdiers were also dopplesoldners. The two-handed sword was maybe a little more 'elite' and I think that is just because it took more training (and had more potential for more advanced training). Anyway that is my theory. But the halberd and other polearms were more ubiquitous. A late medieval infantry army might break down to like 50% pikes, 20% halberds, 20% gunners / crossbowmen cannoneers, and 10% two-hand swordsmen.

There were also all the other variations on the spear like the glaive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaive), the partisan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partisan_%28weapon%29), the awl-pike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlspiess) (see also this thread (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11402) on Myarmoury) and so on which were all very popular in this era and tended to be used by experts. Not to mention the javelin, which remained in use, and the lance which was the principle weapon of the knight and all heavy cavalry. So I wouldn't say the spear went away or fell out of favor, it just got a bit more specialized.

G

Galloglaich

2012-07-25, 11:58 AM

I keep reading that Edo period Japan was pretty horrible place indeed, with really few things one could do without some kind of permission....

That being said, most European countries turned that way as well post Medieval - on lesser scale, but still peasants and generally dependent people had gradually lost the freedom to travel and live in chosen place, to be judged by local juries, began to getting practically sold and bought and so on.

This did happen gradually during the Early Modern period, in some places especially after 1648 with the rise of the modern State. But it was always more complex in Europe, you still had republics like Holland and Venice, places like the Swiss confederation and so on, as well as quite a few free cities.

You can still see quite a few Free Cities in 1648 (these are just the ones in the HRE)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Holy_Roman_Empire_1648_Imperial_cities.png

The political terrain was still quite complex even as late as 1789

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HRR_1789_fr.png

And even in many strong monarchies like in England, peasants retained a lot of rights. The harshest treatment tended to be in places like southern Spain or the Ukraine or much of the Balkans, where the peasants were nominally of a different ethnic / religious group than the ruling class, or in the most highly centralized States, like France increasingly became. But of course that led directly to the French revolution.... which led to Napoleon and the even more centralized modern state we know and love so well today.

G

Togath

2012-07-25, 02:48 PM

A few weapon technique questions which I've ended up curious about while trying to design an rpg;
1: was slashing with a sword as viable a combat tactic as stabbing with one?, And did either require more training then the other?(for straight bladed swords such as "longswords"[I'm not 100% sure what the correct term for that category is]), I'm also curious about the inverse, was stabbing with a curved bladed sword such as many Japanese swords as viable as slashing with them?
2: how common was slashing with partisans and similar flat tipped spears?
3: were punches or kicks with gauntlets or sabatons, or strikes with a weapon's hilt or handhold a viable way of getting an enemy away from you if they charged into very close combat?

These questions mainly came up because I was trying to decided if I should stat a few weapons(such as swords or certain spears) as being able to do either slashing or piercing damage, depending on how you wielded it , and whether or not I should make an punch or kick with gauntlets or sabatons stronger then one without anything covering your feet or hands.

Galloglaich

2012-07-25, 02:54 PM

It depends a lot on the actual shape of the weapon, but assuming it has an edge and a point, 'slashing' and thrusting are both viable. Some weapons (falchion) are much more specialized for the former and others (smallsword) are more specialized for the latter, but your generic fantasy RPG type sword would be equally good at both.

You can also cut with spears. Spears with large blades like partisans doubly so.

And yes, you can smash with pommels, knuckleguards, and so on and cause pretty serious damage.

G

Spiryt

2012-07-25, 03:02 PM

A few weapon technique questions which I've ended up curious about while trying to design an rpg;
1: was slashing with a sword as viable a combat tactic as stabbing with one?, And did either require more training then the other?(for straight bladed swords such as "longswords"[I'm not 100% sure what the correct term for that category is]), I'm also curious about the inverse, was stabbing with a curved bladed sword such as many Japanese swords as viable as slashing with them?
2: how common was slashing with partisans and similar flat tipped spears?
3: were punches or kicks with gauntlets or sabatons, or strikes with a weapon's hilt or handhold a viable way of getting an enemy away from you if they charged into very close combat?

.

Swords can, generally, stab and chop/slice indeed.

Depending on geometry and general character, some of those might be less feasible, up to very limited options with certain swords.

As far as punching and kicking goes, I really don't think that armored fist/leg would be any better at pushing someone away, really.

Would be most obviosuly better at hurting someone with a strike though.

Togath

2012-07-25, 03:03 PM

I'll include stats for both stabbing and slashing with the swords(other then things such as falchions or rapiers, or other specialised swords) then.
I'll also come up with something for the pommel strikes as well.
Thank you for helping me with the sword technique question and the gauntlet/sabaton/pommel one

Conners

2012-07-25, 10:51 PM

Someone in another thread brought up an interesting point. If the swordsman has armour, they basically have the advantage over spearmen (whether they have armour or not), right? Reach doesn't help a ton, if you can't stab in the correct places, and I'm not sure an 8-foot spear would be handy for wrestling.

You might also say armour gives the swordsman more advantages than the spearmen? With armour, you can get really close without worry for a lot of common slashes and thrusts. When up close, you disadvantage people with spears, but are fine with your sword.

Also, if you used a spear with armour, it doesn't really increase your attacking ability as much, I suppose? All it changes with your attack, is you don't need to be as worried about thrusts at you, and can take riskier thrusts. Even so, the situation remains largely the same as an unarmoured spear duel--you both stay at your range and thrust at each other till someone gets got.

Finally: If you stay at range with a spear, you are also staying at range for other polearms like the poleaxe. Since polearms such as those are probably armour's worst enemy, it seems better if you are up close where the enemy will have more trouble utilizing their polearms.

Does this conclusion seem correct? It's a hypothesis I helped someone make, as to why spears (other than lances on horseback) might've been less popular than swords with some battles (if you're going up against other people with armour, poleaxes are probably the best thing).

Deadmeat.GW

2012-07-26, 12:16 AM

A sensible hypothesis which a lot of people subscribe to.

The quality of armour and training did mean that armour stayed in use long after we had firearms in volley fire and fairly decent artillery becuase if it did not protect against artillery it helped against pretty much everything else.

I still think expense is the deciding factor why armour started to disappear from soldiers equipment.

The benefits versus the cost was considered not worth it anymore.

Now a days however you will see that armour does make a resurgence in armies for exactly that same reason.
It is needed to protect your investment otherwise the cost versus effectiveness is not going to be very good.

Conners

2012-07-26, 12:51 AM

Have heard that even is WW2, many people saved their lives by wearing a steel plate.

Just one other disadvantage someone came up with: To use a spear effectively against a sword, it requires a lot of back-pedalling. If you are unfamiliar with the terrain, or the terrain is particularly bad, this can lead to tripping or slipping. Also, if you can't or shouldn't back-pedal--IE: There is a river at your backs, or the archers are behind you so you need to keep up front and protect them, or you are meant to advance and push the enemy back--the sword will probably be the better option? I think this is why the Romans used swords rather than spears--their tactics often involved keeping their ground, or pushing the enemy back.

Matthew

2012-07-26, 01:26 AM

The Romans used a lot of different tactics, but the legionary was basically a very aggressive rough terrain foot soldier in the mid to late Republic. He was in a lot of trouble when faced by enemy cavalry in open terrain, as we see related by Polybius and Caesar. No doubt that is partly the reason for diversely armed auxiliaries later on. The other thing worth bearing in mind is that our image of the Roman legionary probably does not perfectly coincide with their practical functions, soldiers are capable of fulfilling several different roles as the situation requires and need not be restricted to one set of arms.

Galloglaich

2012-07-26, 11:03 AM

Unless the swordsman is very well trained, an expert, the spear is generally at an advantage simply due to reach.

A really big shield, like the Roman scutum, can help negate this advantage, but again, only with good training. Which the legionnaires were - well trained.

Typically though a longer weapon is a major advantage. I don't want to overstate the value of a sword. There is a reason why polearms of one sort or another, spears, halberds, pikes... pretty much ruled the pre-industrial battlefield.

G

Conners

2012-07-26, 11:38 AM

Beleriphon

2012-07-26, 01:02 PM

Typically though a longer weapon is a major advantage. I don't want to overstate the value of a sword. There is a reason why polearms of one sort or another, spears, halberds, pikes... pretty much ruled the pre-industrial battlefield.

G

Lets not forget in the pre-industrial world making spears was probably a whole lot easier than making a sword. Pre-historisc groups used spears for a reason, the fact that they can be made out of readily available materials. All you need a long roughly strait piece of wood and something to make a head out of. Pre-history shows that even people with nothing more than some stones and time could make spears.

I'm sure that making spear heads is vastly less time consuming than having to forge and temper a sword. There's also the fact that you can cast many more spear heads than you can make swords with the same amount of metal. I'd much rather have four spears for every one sword.

Spiryt

2012-07-26, 01:23 PM

I'm sure that making spear heads is vastly less time consuming than having to forge and temper a sword. There's also the fact that you can cast many more spear heads than you can make swords with the same amount of metal. I'd much rather have four spears for every one sword.

Well, unless we're talking about bronze, you don't cast spears or swords.

As far as 'four spears' go - if you don't have actually four guys to use that spears sensibly, there's not much point in that many spare spears getting dusty.

And issuing weapons to some random rabble was anyway not very prevalent in Medieval Europe at least.

A really big shield, like the Roman scutum, can help negate this advantage, but again, only with good training. Which the legionnaires were - well trained.

I don't think it would need that much training, at least in pressed battle it's perfectly intuitive - advance in packed order, slamming shields into dude's breasts, so there's no real room for spears.

Hmm... you know the absurdly large weapons that are so prominent? If you had an extremely strong person, could they wield them effectively? I think there was some other problem, with leverage I think.

You mean absurd weapons from general fantasy?

Like so (http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c33/02youeng/pathfinderbarbarian.jpg)?

Aside from size theres, 99 problems with most of them.

Even if someone is absurdly strong, he's better of with some big, but sensible sword, instead of making awkward, slow swings with 40 pounds something....

Knaight

2012-07-26, 01:32 PM

Lets not forget in the pre-industrial world making spears was probably a whole lot easier than making a sword. Pre-historisc groups used spears for a reason, the fact that they can be made out of readily available materials. All you need a long roughly strait piece of wood and something to make a head out of. Pre-history shows that even people with nothing more than some stones and time could make spears.

I'm sure that making spear heads is vastly less time consuming than having to forge and temper a sword. There's also the fact that you can cast many more spear heads than you can make swords with the same amount of metal. I'd much rather have four spears for every one sword.

There is also the matter of how formation fighting was how things were done - sure, a really good swordsman can probably bypass one spear head easily enough. But when you're up against several ranks of tightly packed spear people (or pike, or partisan, or whatever else) you aren't trying to get past one spear head. You're trying to get past six, or nine, or well into the teens in the case of pikes. Good luck with that.

Which comes back to the matter of interactions between loose formations - it's kind of a sweet spot for swords, particularly two handed swords. You generally only need to get past one spear tip at a time, training is likely on your side, and the formation restricts the mobility of a spear wielder, making them less effective than they would be in a one on one fight, where the spear is again a really nasty weapon to go up against. Add in armor to mitigate the initial reach, if not the far faster lunges and superior lunging range, and I could see spears actually being at a significant disadvantage, if only because of how much conspires against them at once. In tight formations they again take the advantage (hence polearm blocks), in skirmishes and duels they again take the advantage (hence Silver's writings regarding how dangerous polearms are, the prevalence of them in city peace keeping forces, so on and so forth), but the loose formation is a bit of a weakness.

Galloglaich

2012-07-26, 01:35 PM

well I can think of two reasons you need to be trained

1) Just fighting against a spear, or any longer weapon, using a shield, you are often vulnerable to the lower or upper opening, i.e. your head (face) or your lower leg. The reach advantage works out effectively as a speed advantage in the onset part of the fight. Unless you are experienced with the shield, you can be taken apart this way pretty easily. You'll see this even in re-enactor contexts and so forth if the spear guy is actually allowed to make thrusts.

2) The way a spear phalanx works, you aren't dealing with just the spear of the guy directly in front of you. As soon as you open your guard to strike at one guy, whose spear you presumably you have bound up by your shield, the guy behind him, or the guy behind that guy, or to a little to the left or right... will thrust into the opening you create... i.e. into your armpit, face or body. Obviously it was possible to get around this problem but I think it takes some training to do so, it's a formidable challenge.

http://www.mmdtkw.org/CNAf0357PhalanxGaps.jpg

The problem the phalanx had generally was rough terrain, which is where the looser maniple or century formation was more effective.

G

Spiryt

2012-07-26, 01:44 PM

Well, all sorts of deep formations with a lot of points in one's face are different problem though - guys fighting in them were well skilled as well, as it's not easy at all to keep tight order and thrust spear effectively at often small target in mess like that.

Less dense and coherent spear formation, like the ones of Gauls or Germans - warriors with shields and spears, without very organized ranks - would certainly have problems with legionaries cutting distance.

Similar thing with all sorts of Hellenistic militias/levies, and so on.

Galloglaich

2012-07-26, 02:08 PM

True, fair point.

G

Mistral

2012-07-26, 02:14 PM

Hmm... you know the absurdly large weapons that are so prominent? If you had an extremely strong person, could they wield them effectively? I think there was some other problem, with leverage I think.

Generally, Spiryt has the right of it. Outside of certain circumstances (typically the swordsmith showing off their skill and ability in making such a large, continuous block of steel), the very largest swords were more for show than work. Outsized zweihanders, while extant, weren't always useful for practical battle compared to the more usual sizes of zweihanders, but their usual-sized counterparts did prove useful in reach to dealing with pikes. That said, there's something to be said for the intimidation value. Grutt Pier is something of a folk hero among the Frisians for his 16th century rebellion against the Burgundians, and his sword (or at least, what is claimed to be his sword - an important distinction with folk heroes) is in a museum in that province. It is, fittingly, huge, spanning over 2 metres in length and weighing almost 7 kg, comparable only to the very largest of claymores, and it's said he could wield it quite effectively. Then again, if you listen to the stories of that rebellion, he himself was strong enough to bend coins in his fingers and was about the same height as his sword, but I suspect we'd need to disinter his body to confirm the latter one.

Leverage, theoretically, can be solved, though - just add weights to the pommel, and extend the hilt a bit if need be (since it already needs to be long enough to accommodate both hands). If it's already over 4-5 kg, after all, what's even *more* weight going to hurt? I'd say that, given a person strong enough, that a large two-hander comparable to Grutt Pier's can be wielded effectively, but such a person would themselves be very much an outlier.

Beleriphon

2012-07-26, 03:10 PM

Well, unless we're talking about bronze, you don't cast spears or swords.

As far as 'four spears' go - if you don't have actually four guys to use that spears sensibly, there's not much point in that many spare spears getting dusty.

And issuing weapons to some random rabble was anyway not very prevalent in Medieval Europe at least.

For casting, yes I was specifically thinking bronze. Either cast or forged making spear points gives a commander more weapons per quantity of metal than swords. I'm assuming that if discussing quantity of weapons one would sufficient troops to actually arm with weapons.

I was also under the impression that there were a number of cultures that did basically arm the peasant rabble with very basic weapons and minimal armour. I'm quite certain that China did this for centuries, especially during several of their civil wars.

Spiryt

2012-07-26, 03:24 PM

I was also under the impression that there were a number of cultures that did basically arm the peasant rabble with very basic weapons and minimal armour. I'm quite certain that China did this for centuries, especially during several of their civil wars.

Well, I don't know much about Far East, so yeah, I guess they did.

Wasn't generally practiced in Europe, outside of some town militias, but still pretty much anyone had his own weapon (in arsenal), and in emergency some random civilians would probably still be rather delegated to quench the fires, carry the amunition etc.

It is, fittingly, huge, spanning over 2 metres in length and weighing almost 7 kg, comparable only to the very largest of claymores, and it's said he could wield it quite effectively. Then again, if you listen to the stories of that rebellion, he himself was strong enough to bend coins in his fingers and was about the same height as his sword, but I suspect we'd need to disinter his body to confirm the latter one.

Looks like ~ 1400 AD bearing sword, but who knows, maybe some obnoxiously large dude could actually use it. 2 meters is O.K. 6.6 kg seems like a bit much though.

I haven't really seen/heard about claymores/claidheamh dà làimh that large though. Any examples?

Leverage, theoretically, can be solved, though - just add weights to the pommel,

Adding the weight to the pommel can't really help much in term of good handling... Will change dynamics and bring the center of gravity closer to the hilt, making it more mobile, but still way to long, with the tip too far away that feels 'dead'.

Knaight

2012-07-26, 03:39 PM

For casting, yes I was specifically thinking bronze. Either cast or forged making spear points gives a commander more weapons per quantity of metal than swords. I'm assuming that if discussing quantity of weapons one would sufficient troops to actually arm with weapons.

I was also under the impression that there were a number of cultures that did basically arm the peasant rabble with very basic weapons and minimal armour. I'm quite certain that China did this for centuries, especially during several of their civil wars.

China is an interesting case. They had minimally trained levy troops throughout their entire history, but they have also had professional armies for a very long time. Moreover, the concerns about metal are regional within China - if, for example, you look at the founding of the Qin dynasty you'll see that Qin, up north had a plethora of metal, and foundries that were mass producing all sorts of weapons. Chu, their main rival in the south couldn't afford to use metal in quite the same way.

Galloglaich

2012-07-26, 07:25 PM

In Europe there were plenty of militias, including urban militias which were very common, particularly in the German speaking parts and in Flanders, but also formidable peasant militias notably in Switzerland, Scotland, Bohemia, certain parts of Spain, Flanders, Saxony, Sweden, and Frisia where Pier Gerolfs Donia was mentioned, the tough-guy pirate who lead that famous rebellion.

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

all most nobody was a full-time civilian.

Almost everyone who was legally free in Medieval Europe was a part-time soldier, even the 'professionals', knights, Condottieri and so on, usually had another life. An estate that they spent a lot of time administering, politics, a demanding social life, religious life (many knights also held titles in the Church) and so on, which took up a lot of their time. Multi-tasking is an old concept.

Almost nobody was a full-time soldier.

Those with no experience of fighting were usually slaves or serfs, or some of the clergy. The former made very poor soldiers and were usually just victims during times of violence, the latter were protected by knights or militias or mercenaries.

People who weren't experienced or trained at all for warfare, (which meant because they were not legally allowed to have weapons) typically were not used for warfare in most parts of Europe by say, the 12th Century, simply because warfare required trained combatants. An army of serfs with no training wasn't worth feeding*.

G

* with the exception of course, of serf-knights who were well trained and equipped.

Conners

2012-07-27, 12:54 AM

Deadmeat.GW

2012-07-27, 02:44 AM

Actually from the clothing that they had for Grut Pier he was about 2 meters 5 centimer tall.

He was for all intents and purposes a giant of a man but...

Keep in mind that the average height of the people living there was close to 1 meter 80 centimeters these people were on average really tall and big.

As for his sword...

Legend :).

He was described as using a massive weapon but at times this was more like a maul then a sword for instance.
Similar to the Goedendag of Flemish cities.

Edit:

He also used a huge cleaver famously in one of the stories with a blade 'as wide as a childs torso'...

Knaight

2012-07-27, 02:55 AM

He also used a huge cleaver famously in one of the stories with a blade 'as wide as a childs torso'...

There are a few major things that stories tend to exaggerate. First most among them are weapon size, damage incurred to armor and shields, and how long fighting takes. A guy with a larger weapon who manages to break a shield in a duel that takes fifteen seconds is probably going to end up a story about someone with a weapon that weighs 50 pounds, who shattered a shield in one blow and beat armor to pieces, in a fight that took a day and a half. They generally aren't trustworthy.

Spiryt

2012-07-27, 05:04 AM

How much does mail's protective value vary with quality? I've heard cases where knights with lances get solid hits, yet didn't pierce the mail.

At the same time, I had thought mail of the Viking Great Army could be pierced by a solid (and lucky) spear thrust or axe swing.

You also get accounts of Double Mail which make it sound invincible.

By all we suspect quite considerably, like with most of everything.

If rings are well riveted together (without uneven rivets etc. that causes weak points) and can take a lot of deformation/twisting before letting go, then it can get really hard to pierce.

Other than that, it also heavily depends on weight/rings size, obviosuly.

Considering similar wire thickness/amount of material, ring of 5mm internal diameter will generally tend to be way harder to breach than the one of 8 mm - seeing that that inner surface of the second on will be more than two times greater.

Mail of smaller rings will be, all other things equal (rarely so, though) heavier, obviously.

Beleriphon

2012-07-27, 09:25 AM

China is an interesting case. They had minimally trained levy troops throughout their entire history, but they have also had professional armies for a very long time. Moreover, the concerns about metal are regional within China - if, for example, you look at the founding of the Qin dynasty you'll see that Qin, up north had a plethora of metal, and foundries that were mass producing all sorts of weapons. Chu, their main rival in the south couldn't afford to use metal in quite the same way.

I knew I remembered reading that somewhere. I do know by the time of the An Shi Rebellion peasant levies were common and Imperial China (this was the Tang dynasty IIRC) was in full swing and it had a large standing army.

As an aside if anybody would like to read a good book that fictionalizes and add ssome minor elements of fantasy (some ghosts at the beginning, some foreign shamans at one point) to Imperial China I can't recommend Under Heaven enough.

Conners

2012-07-27, 11:17 AM

Hmm... that increases the variables. Thank you for clarifying.

What is currently the best study of medieval armour penetration? Does anyone know of one? Trying to find bits and pieces here and there gets tedious, and is sometimes unrewarding..

Galloglaich

2012-07-27, 01:21 PM

Conners

2012-07-27, 01:31 PM

Thank you very much.

I guess you used that book for the armour stats in your RPG?

Galloglaich

2012-07-27, 03:25 PM

Yes, along with some other sources. Another important one is the Royal Armouries, who have done a lot of practical tests with carefully calibrated machines and so on,

http://www.royalarmouries.org/visit-us/leeds

For mail specifically there is also a guy called Erik Schmid

http://www.mailleartisans.org/board/viewtopic.php?t=958&sid=fcc762b4b0f10347e59317caadb1ad3e

And in the re-enactor and HEMA communities there have been a large number of practical tests done, some of some value.

I'm still waiting to get a decent crossbow test though.

G

Hazzardevil

2012-07-27, 04:19 PM

Knaight

2012-07-27, 04:21 PM

Galloglaich

2012-07-27, 04:36 PM

There were both strait and curved (saber) swords for different types of cavalry.

G

zorenathres

2012-07-27, 04:51 PM

I have been thinking about how cavalry was used recently and that made me wonder something, why were cavalry swords in the Napoleonic Era curved? Since I imagine a curved blade would be easier to get stuck in someone so you'd have lost your primary weapon forcing you to rely on a lance or firearm.

I have a replica of the 1796 bulcher saber, used by the british, hungarian, & german cavalry during the napoleonic wars (& some foot soldiers as well) & originally copied from the tulwar, the indian (or turkish?) saber? its curved & used for slashing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_1796_light_cavalry_sabre

Dead_Jester

2012-07-27, 08:51 PM

The debate between the straight and curved sabers for cavalry use was similar to what we have today between different calibers for main combat firearms; their is no evident winner, both having some advantages, but nothing clear enough to make one decisively better.

There seems to however be a preference for straight sabers for heavy cavalry (like cuirassiers), but that may be a legacy from the men-at-arms and demi-lancers from which they most probably evolved (who often carried actual swords), but this may also have something to do with their role in combat; they had the armor to stand toe to toe with lighter cavalry in melee, where a weapon better designed for stabbing (compared to the sometimes very pronounced curve of cavalry sabers) may have been an advantage against other horsemen, especially as a lance was normally not carried (the lancers being an exception of course).

Furthermore, most units inspired by the eastern tradition (like uhlans and hussars) favor the curved saber, which had almost always been the norm in the east. Incidentally, these units also tend to be less heavily armored than their western counterparts, having probably evolved from the light horsemen favored by in the eastern part of Europe in the late medieval period to harass and ambush enemy forces.

As such, there is no clear preference for either straight or curved sabers during the 18th century, as they where both optimized for different roles.

Spiryt

2012-07-28, 04:30 AM

Furthermore, most units inspired by the eastern tradition (like uhlans and hussars) favor the curved saber, which had almost always been the norm in the east. Incidentally, these units also tend to be less heavily armored than their western counterparts, having probably evolved from the light horsemen favored by in the eastern part of Europe in the late medieval period to harass and ambush enemy forces.

"East" had always seen a great deal of straight swords as well, from Egypt to India, not to mention very heavy cavalry.

When Ottoman empire was in full power, curved sword was generally dominant, but so was heavy cavalry, in fact those were Mamelukes and Persian riders that sometimes still employed fully armored horse well into 17th century, while it was generally no longer practiced anywhere.

Hussar was generally 'light' cavalry men from France to Russia in post armor age, where guy with breastplate and helmet was generally considered heavy cavalry - because such were his tactical goals, generally.

While polish hussars were famously pretty much definition of heavy cavalry.

So I don't think that any real generalizations, even broad, about "east" and "west" traditions can be made here.

Knaight

2012-07-28, 04:32 PM

"East" had always seen a great deal of straight swords as well, from Egypt to India, not to mention very heavy cavalry.

It goes well past India. China, Japan, Thailand (though the name of the area was variable), and several other countries had straight swords for a very long time.

deuxhero

2012-07-28, 05:19 PM

What are basic blade care steps for an inhabitant vaguely medieval world beyond cleaning and sharpening?

Anything special for a blade of Obsidian instead of steel?

Togath

2012-07-28, 05:34 PM

Do you mean a macahuitl?
While I'm not 100% sure, care for a macahuitl would probably consist of replacing the teeth as they break, and protecting the blade when not in use to avoid excess chipping.

deuxhero

2012-07-28, 05:37 PM

A dagger made of obsidian.

Dead_Jester

2012-07-28, 06:15 PM

Of course, the middle-east had it's share of heavy cavalry (if I remember correctly, did they not invent the concept of heavy cavalry?), but by the end of the 18th century, they had become much more scarce.

And sorry for the hussar confusion, I was referring to the hungarian style hussars which where adopted by most of Europe in the 18th century, the winged hussars being of course a completely different story.

So I don't think that any real generalizations, even broad, about "east" and "west" traditions can be made here.

I still think some generalization can be made (of course, it is not the entire story), considering the preponderance of straight blade in western Europe for most of it's history (some messers and falchions, and, in Antiquity, some other types of curved blades, but overall, probably less used than the straight blade).

Togath

2012-07-28, 06:26 PM

A dagger made of obsidian.

I'm not sure then, perhaps just chipping it if a part somehow becomes dull, and getting a one when it wears out?, And protecting it with a cover when not in use.

Spiryt

2012-07-28, 06:53 PM

I guess that obsidian, being a glassy rock, indeed won't go into any reactions nearly as easily as steel, so rust and stuff is no worry.

It probably had to be replaced/reshaped after almost every 'use' though, being brittle and fracturing easily.

I still think some generalization can be made (of course, it is not the entire story), considering the preponderance of straight blade in western Europe for most of it's history (some messers and falchions, and, in Antiquity, some other types of curved blades, but overall, probably less used than the straight blade).

"Stereotypical" strongly curved sabre blade most certainly came from East, from migrating steppe tribes, for what we know.

It is it's relation to cavalry being heavy (armored) or not that's a guess at best. Some really heavy cavalry was using sabre plenty, after all.

Matthew

2012-07-28, 07:57 PM

Galloglaich

2012-07-28, 11:55 PM

This looks like a pretty good test of longbows vs. armor, though some people here might be interested.

http://www.currentmiddleages.org/artsci/docs/Champ_Bane_Archery-Testing.pdf

I think he only had one flaw, he never tested padding over mail which seems to be the method used historically to make mail safe against strong bows.

G

Matthew

2012-07-29, 01:05 AM

Very interesting. The long bows he tested seemed to have pretty low draw weights compared to what has been advocated amongst archery enthusiasts in recent years.

deuxhero

2012-07-29, 01:22 AM

I'm not sure then, perhaps just chipping it if a part somehow becomes dull, and getting a one when it wears out?, And protecting it with a cover when not in use.

So anything about a steel blade?

Togath

2012-07-29, 01:41 AM

A sword or a dagger?, a steel dagger is taken care of the way a steel knife is:smallconfused:. A steel sword is probably the same, though you would want to keep something handy to wipe the blood from your sword, to keep it from rusting, and you would probably want to store it in a dry place when not being worn, again to prevent rust.

deuxhero

2012-07-29, 02:24 AM

So nothing beyond just cleaning and storing it properly?

GraaEminense

2012-07-29, 03:37 AM

Iron or steel weapons (or sharp tools) will rust if they are exposed to humidity. Also, they will lose their edge with use. Rust is avoided with careful storage, cleaning after use and oiling (to create a protective layer against humidity). The edge is restored by sharpening.

A glass weapon/tool, as already mentioned, will not suffer from exposure as it does not rust. Organic components (wood, leather, glue) should be kept dry as much as possible, but the glass itself should only need re-chipping (to regain the edge after it breaks off -constantly, most likely) or replacing (if too broken to re-chip).

Spiryt

2012-07-29, 04:35 AM

An we should not forget that, even before Alexander, Xenephon was apparently lauding the curved blade as most suitable for cavalry. The Turko-Mongolian sabre, though, is rightly famous in its association with light and heavy cavalry of the near east during the high middle ages.

Didn't he recommend machaira as cutting sword in general, with no real mention of curve though? There were plenty machairas that were pretty much straight for most purposes.

My Greek is non existent, so... :smallbiggrin:

This looks like a pretty good test of longbows vs. armor, though some people here might be interested.

http://www.currentmiddleages.org/art...ry-Testing.pdf

I think he only had one flaw, he never tested padding over mail which seems to be the method used historically to make mail safe against strong bows.

It's decent test, his math is somehow borked though, efficiency of 0.9 in case of wooden bow is just unrealistic, for example. Bow weighing 1kg is weird too. no way in which 110 bow will 'equal in momentum' a 75 bow at 250 yards too in result...

Don't want to argue with after all professional NIJ standards, but penetration of just 7mm being considered fatal seems absolutely 'extra safe' to me. It may doesn't even mean cutting trough skin in case of some more thick people....

His mail doesn't really look authentic as well, that's the common problem. They seem way to flimsy, for one thing, diameter to wire ratio seems a bit too high.

Also no real info about metallurgy of rings and plates.

Knaight

2012-07-29, 04:56 AM

Don't want to argue with after all professional NIJ standards, but penetration of just 7mm being considered fatal seems absolutely 'extra safe' to me. It may doesn't even mean cutting trough skin in case of some more thick people....

NIJ standards are intended to be absolutely extra safe - they are intended to be used to indicate, among other things, armor actually protecting you essentially all the time.

Conners

2012-07-29, 06:57 AM

Thanks for the links, Galloglaich. Just finished reading that test with the longbow.

With his mention of the Type 16 arrow which pierced the mail, he mentioned that it should take the title of "Maille-Arrowhead" from the needle bodkin, or something like that.

Is that title given to the need-bodkin from historians of today, or from accounts at the time?

Matthew

2012-07-29, 07:46 AM

Didn't he recommend machaira as cutting sword in general, with no real mention of curve though? There were plenty machairas that were pretty much straight for most purposes.

My Greek is non existent, so... :smallbiggrin:

Good question. I have been wanting to pursue this line of inquiry for a while, but time and resources are against me!

Conners

2012-07-29, 11:41 AM

Mike_G

2012-07-29, 12:48 PM

Didn't he recommend machaira as cutting sword in general, with no real mention of curve though? There were plenty machairas that were pretty much straight for most purposes.

My Greek is non existent, so... :smallbiggrin:

It's decent test, his math is somehow borked though, efficiency of 0.9 in case of wooden bow is just unrealistic, for example. Bow weighing 1kg is weird too. no way in which 110 bow will 'equal in momentum' a 75 bow at 250 yards too in result...

Don't want to argue with after all professional NIJ standards, but penetration of just 7mm being considered fatal seems absolutely 'extra safe' to me. It may doesn't even mean cutting trough skin in case of some more thick people....

Dude.

Nobody has 7mm skin.

Admittedly, that's not very deep. It wouldn't reach any organs, but it would go through skin. And most of the arrows penetrated much more than 7 mm. Most went in several inches, which is plenty

Spiryt

2012-07-29, 01:32 PM

With metal armour, how much does the quality of the metal effect things? I've heard that munition iron armour is notably heavier and weaker than steel armour--but how how much better would a better grade of steel be, for armour?

If changes thins quite a lot. Everything will benefit from material being optimized for it's intended use.

Medieval and Renaissance craftsmen had some impressive results in acquiring good material, but a lot of 'munitions' grade armor was kind of hit and miss as well.

I don't think that iron armor was that much heavier - certainly, some increase in thickness to compensate for generally weaker surface would be practiced, but there will be limits too.

There's Mike Loades show (from "Weapons that made Britain" series) on Youtube, and difference between some mostly "dirty" iron breastplate that's probably only ' a bit alike' armor and one with surface hardened by period methods is quite drastic.

Quite a lot of modern "tests" are pretty much worthless due to using hot rolled sheets, and other steel with completely non accurate characteristics as "plate".

Dude.

Nobody has 7mm skin.

I got to far, I guess, maybe on soles of feet of some particularly ogrish individuals. :smallbiggrin:

huttj509

2012-07-29, 02:38 PM

I got to far, I guess, maybe on soles of feet of some particularly ogrish individuals. :smallbiggrin:

Epidermis: "It is the thinnest on the eyelids at .05 mm and the thickest on the palms and soles at 1.5 mm."

Dermis: "It is .3 mm on the eyelid and 3.0 mm on the back."

So at best ~5 mm (half a centimeter) could go through both. Note that half a centimeter is ~the width of a normal pen (~ish).

Mike_G

2012-07-29, 03:45 PM

I got to far, I guess, maybe on soles of feet of some particularly ogrish individuals. :smallbiggrin:

But I agree than 7 mm of penetration isn't going to kill anybody. Don't know where they got that, unless that's the minimum for a potentially fatal injury, if it hits the skin over the jugular vein or something.

Galloglaich

2012-07-29, 05:01 PM

So nothing beyond just cleaning and storing it properly?

Keep it lightly oiled at all times.

G

Galloglaich

2012-07-29, 06:52 PM

Regarding the whole swords and armor thing, I think this very realistic image is a useful guide, note these three Swiss soldiers, a lancer or knight (with the spurs and the lance, in the back), a (probably dopplesoldner) heavy infantryman (leg armor and halberd, in the front), and a harquebusier (with the gun). Note that while they are heavily armored, all three of them have unarmored areas vulnerable to a sword cut.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/599672_327185210706700_498861633_n.jpg

G

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll

2012-07-29, 07:35 PM

Wait, but why does the infantryman have leg armour then, while the CAVALRYMAN doesn't? Seems to me that leg armour was one of the more important pieces of armour for a cavalryman, right after chest and head.

Galloglaich

2012-07-29, 09:17 PM

Only if he is expecting to mix it up with infantry, that is what the leg armor was for mainly (for cavalry) from what I understand. He may be a demi-lancer.

Whatever reason it may be, quite often in period artwork, you see the lancers only armored on their upper body. Like here from 1490

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Hausbuch_Wolfegg_51v_52r1_Heerzug.jpg

...you'll notice that a lot of the cavalry only have armor on their upper body. Infantry too for that matter, though I think you can see one spearman with some knee cops.

G

Hawkfrost000

2012-07-30, 12:29 AM

Hades

2012-07-30, 01:04 AM

Can anybody link me to some info about German Fencing in the 16th century? Preferably the works of Joachim Meyer. I have found a couple of places where his texts are preserved but they are all in German, archaic German at that. :smallfrown:

Tah-dah, Wiktenauer to the rescue (http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Joachim_Me%C3%BFer/Longsword)!

(Note that this is a direct link to the longsword section, you can follow the links back to the main Meyer page, but it got a bit borked by the server move - still readable, however.)

Hawkfrost000

2012-07-30, 01:45 AM

Tah-dah, Wiktenauer to the rescue (http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Joachim_Me%C3%BFer/Longsword)!

(Note that this is a direct link to the longsword section, you can follow the links back to the main Meyer page, but it got a bit borked by the server move - still readable, however.)

There seems to be frustratingly little about the rapier or sidesword.

what i was looking for was something like this (http://www.hauppauge.de/~freifechter/meyer_rapier_50-60.html) page but in English. I am trying to avoid buying the $350 translation of Meyer's original work.

DM

Hades

2012-07-30, 02:03 AM

Hmm, yeah. I thought they were trying to get Forgeng's translation reprinted, but I dunno what ever happened to that. Might just have been a "Yeah, they should totally do that!" kind of thing.

Galloglaich

2012-07-30, 10:28 AM

This is a good resource on all things Meyer, in addition to the wiktenauer

http://www.freifechter.com/

They can also answer questions for you on their forum.

This is also a good resource, in Sweden but they speak excellent English.

http://www.hroarr.com/

Right now on HROARR I can see two in-depth articles on Meyer and one on another German rapier master.

G

Conners

2012-07-30, 02:43 PM

Lapak

2012-07-30, 03:10 PM

You know, these days, every soldiers can have the latest tech, without stressing the economy. I see that in ancient times, this was almost never the case, Romans and some others being the exception.

Is there any way to measure the difference between modern day and ancient societies? I'm just curious as to what sorts of armies a super economy could have arranged.Your premise is pretty far off the mark. Every soldier doesn't have the latest tech: at every level from personal arms and armor up to vehicles and heavy artillery modern armies equip the majority of their soldiers with the most cost-effective tech and save the top-shelf stuff for specific applications and small units.

Conners

2012-07-30, 03:20 PM

You sure? It seems that the armour and equipment they're given is top-notch stuff. From what I understand, the armour of soldiers is the best you can get (there are ones which stop bullets more effectively, but they tend to be very hard to move around in). Just not sure what stuff they hold back on.

Mike_G

2012-07-30, 04:03 PM

Galloglaich

2012-07-30, 04:21 PM

I think the main difference is today, huge amounts of money are spent on 'big ticket' items, which ... also has the potential to stray into politics, so I won't go there. But stealth aircraft, strategic defense, ballistic missile submarines, are definitely the very best money can buy. Personal equipment is a little bit below that mark for regular troops, though arguably elite special-ops troops can have pretty much whatever they want. When I was in though even the rangers had pretty lousy communications gear, but that was 20 years ago.

If you look at the world of five Centuries in the past, even ordinary town militia and mercenaries often had personal body armor and personal weapons which were of the very highest quality available, hand-made stuff that would be extremely expensive by modern standards (hand-tempered steel armor for example, which would provide fairly good protection against even modern handguns). Some of the weapons they used were experimental devices designed by the likes of Da Vinci.

They also spent a lot on 'big' items like bombards and so on, not to mention castles, but the importance of the individual soldier was such that they often had (and in many cases could afford to buy themselves) very good kit.

Not long after that though, armies started issuing cheaper and less effective mass produced equipment to ever larger numbers of soldiers, a trend which arguably peaked in the 19th Century.

Now days I think we are moving a bit back in the direction of smaller armies with better personal equipment, but this is still far overshadowed by the expense of the big ticket stuff.

G

Eorran

2012-07-30, 05:56 PM

Raum

2012-07-30, 06:08 PM

Why would a military radio be so much heavier?
more batteries? - Yes, heavier batteries as well.
longer antenna to boost range? - Longer antenna yes, as much for frequency differences as anything else.
Blast-hardening? - Probably not.
Just old? - Yes, this is a big part of it.
-----
It also may have a hand crank generator, probably has some crypto gear (depending on time frame), and has to push much more power than a cell which requires more battery. Other than differences in tech due to age, power requirements are probably the biggest culprit. Batteries are heavy...and 40 years ago they were probably Ni-Cad.

Knaight

2012-07-30, 06:30 PM

Just old?

It's a lot of things, but this is very likely part of it. Radios have been shrinking really quickly, and what is considered a small radio now will probably be seen as a large, cumbersome, inelegant design 10-20 years from now. The miniaturization process doesn't quite rival computers, but it's close enough for comparison.

Conners

2012-07-31, 01:22 AM

Just Google "Hillbilly armor."

Lots of troops didn't have what they should have in the invasion of Iraq. Not going to get started, because I'll stray into political territory, but some people were sent into harms way without basic equipment.

And the US has the richest military in the world. Was meaning the last few years, mostly. Normally, America has long bouts of peace, then a war--and the peace makes them out of practice with war, so they end up with some crazy catastrophes (I'm assuming that's what it was with the Iraqi war).

That sounds more like idiot logistics than lack of expense. The Russians apparently had tons of guns in WW2, yet many of their troops in Stalingrad were given some ammunition but no rifle.

I think the main difference is today, huge amounts of money are spent on 'big ticket' items, which ... also has the potential to stray into politics, so I won't go there. But stealth aircraft, strategic defense, ballistic missile submarines, are definitely the very best money can buy. Personal equipment is a little bit below that mark for regular troops, though arguably elite special-ops troops can have pretty much whatever they want. When I was in though even the rangers had pretty lousy communications gear, but that was 20 years ago.

If you look at the world of five Centuries in the past, even ordinary town militia and mercenaries often had personal body armor and personal weapons which were of the very highest quality available, hand-made stuff that would be extremely expensive by modern standards (hand-tempered steel armor for example, which would provide fairly good protection against even modern handguns). Some of the weapons they used were experimental devices designed by the likes of Da Vinci.

They also spent a lot on 'big' items like bombards and so on, not to mention castles, but the importance of the individual soldier was such that they often had (and in many cases could afford to buy themselves) very good kit.

Not long after that though, armies started issuing cheaper and less effective mass produced equipment to ever larger numbers of soldiers, a trend which arguably peaked in the 19th Century.

Now days I think we are moving a bit back in the direction of smaller armies with better personal equipment, but this is still far overshadowed by the expense of the big ticket stuff.

G A lot of the romanticism of war is lost to big-ticket items. In the old days you stormed a fortress--now they can just bombard it with artillery. Aside from occupying, it's getting to be that most of the fighting is pointing out an enemy for your drones, aircraft, and air-to-ground rockets (before long, they'll have remote-control drones to do the infantrying too).

The Renaissance is great like that. The fact plate got cheaper than mail was very surprising. But, at some points in history, they didn't even provide food for their soldiers (they were expected to live off the land and pillage). I also remember some case where the expense of arrows was a problem.

PS: The armour Codex is good. About quarter-way through it.

Mike_G

2012-07-31, 03:46 AM

Was meaning the last few years, mostly. Normally, America has long bouts of peace, then a war--and the peace makes them out of practice with war, so they end up with some crazy catastrophes (I'm assuming that's what it was with the Iraqi war).

For the first 150 years, sure.

Since the end of WWII, we haven't gone five years without a major intervention.

And looking just at the decade before the under equipped Operation Iraqi Fiasco, we had Gulf War Episode One, Somalia, Former Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Haiti, and probably some I'm forgetting.

A lot of the romanticism of war is lost to big-ticket items. In the old days you stormed a fortress--now they can just bombard it with artillery. Aside from occupying, it's getting to be that most of the fighting is pointing out an enemy for your drones, aircraft, and air-to-ground rockets (before long, they'll have remote-control drones to do the infantrying too).

Not really. Faluja was an infantry fight. Most cities are bad places for airpower. Finding and combating any insurgency requires the co-operation of the locals, which means infantry patrols and diplomacy by some 19 year old corporal.

Predator drones don't win hearts and minds. And we've seen that a spy satelite often can't tell a wedding party from a warband.

If anything, we use the infantry more than any time in the last thirty years.

Storm Bringer

2012-07-31, 04:10 AM

The mention of communication gear brought up a question:
I got a chance recently to see some typical (I think) gear for Canadian forces, including a radio backpack. The pack must have weighed close to 40 pounds. I know a civilian radio can be basically the same size as a cell phone now, though I'm sure the range is very limited.

Why would a military radio be so much heavier? more batteries? longer antenna to boost range? Blast-hardening? Just old?

speaking with the radios i use, i think it's partly old tech (though the uk radios i am fammiliar with are about year 2000 tech), and greater functionality. Things like milspec crypto, frequnecy hoppng, a higher power max power output (with the attending higher power consumption, and need for batteries), the need to operate independantly (so everything a cell phone can offload onto the infrastructure needs to be in the radio),

plus, I think it's not quite right to compare a hand sized walkie talkie with the range of a mile or so to a backpack radio able to do 10+ miles in hte right terrian. especially when i can take that backpack radio, plug it into a external power soruce and an elevated antenna, and get ~30km.

Matthew

2012-07-31, 04:27 AM

Conners

2012-07-31, 04:37 AM

For the first 150 years, sure.

Since the end of WWII, we haven't gone five years without a major intervention.

And looking just at the decade before the under equipped Operation Iraqi Fiasco, we had Gulf War Episode One, Somalia, Former Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Haiti, and probably some I'm forgetting. Hmm... maybe it's just general incompetence, then.

Not really. Faluja was an infantry fight. Most cities are bad places for airpower. Finding and combating any insurgency requires the co-operation of the locals, which means infantry patrols and diplomacy by some 19 year old corporal.

Predator drones don't win hearts and minds. And we've seen that a spy satelite often can't tell a wedding party from a warband.

If anything, we use the infantry more than any time in the last thirty years. Occupying requires infantry, yeah. That's why low-profile terrorism is so popular, you can't use artillery or aircraft when ya' don't know where or who your targets are.

Worth bearing in mind that, regardless of period, war was a very brutal undertaking; there is not much romanticism about it whether you are the bloke with the sword or the fellow firing the cannon. What romanticism can be said to manifest is largely the heroism of men doing amazing things in terrible times, and only really from the point of view of the onlooker rather than the participant. Of course. Just meant that it's hard to write an exciting story or game about firing artillery, two miles away from danger.

Rion

2012-07-31, 06:26 AM

Worth bearing in mind that, regardless of period, war was a very brutal undertaking; there is not much romanticism about it whether you are the bloke with the sword or the fellow firing the cannon. What romanticism can be said to manifest is largely the heroism of men doing amazing things in terrible times, and only really from the point of view of the onlooker rather than the participant.

While I agree that has always been a brutal affair, how brutal and gritty it is, have varied from period to period.

An extreme example would be modern warfare compared to 15th century Condotierri. Modern warfare has airplanes, snipers, wayside bombs and modern artillery which means you can never feel safe and can be attacked at any moment by an enemy you can barely see, if at all. Pre-modern warfare doesn't have the "suddenly massive casualties, panic ensues" to the same extent. Compare that the Condotierro Code of Honor which means that there were several battles mopping up phase battle didn't exist, because the losing general surrendered when he saw that the enbemy had maneuvered an excessive amount of heavy cavalry behind his lines and was ready to roll up his whole force.

EDIT: Of course the Condottieri only had acces to medieval medicine when treating their wounded compared to the modern militaries.

Galloglaich

2012-07-31, 08:39 AM

Rion

2012-07-31, 09:07 AM

fusilier

2012-07-31, 02:04 PM

Sometimes it was like that (and not just in Italy, such 'englightened' arrangement took place quite a bit in Poland and Bohemia in the same period as well) but sometimes prisoners could be massacred, and all kinds of other terrible things from plague breaking out (as it so often did during sieges) to starvation to entire armies being drowned in river crossings and so on.

Some people could adapt to it, but even with chivalry, war was a nasty business.

G

Seconded. Condottieri sometimes surrendered enmasse when the situation was hopeless. Standard procedure in Italy was to ransom the officers, and to release the rank and file after stripping them of weapons and horses. This was not always the case, however, especially when foreigners were involved. Being a soldier was a profession without, necessarily, a permanent allegiance to a side, so certain "professional courtesies" were often expected. However, in the mid-1400s in Italy schiopettieri (handgunners) were often killed on the field rather than released. The phrase "bad war" appears more often, and certain niceties, like not striking at an opponent's horse, disappeared completely. Unfortunately much of our modern perception of Condottieri comes from writers like Machiavelli, who, despite their proximity to the events, lacked a good understanding of the system and why it had failed to stop the French Invasion, and were more than willing to exaggerate to make their arguments.

Galloglaich

2012-07-31, 03:54 PM

The biggest example I know of this in Poland was in 1410 after the Battle of Grunwald when the Polish King paroled 14,000 mercenaries and soldiers on the Teutonic side, keeping only the rich men who could afford ransom (some of whom had to pay dearly). The rest were disarmed and sent home, after swearing an oath to report to Krakow six months later. I never did find out how many ever went to Krakow or what they did when they got there.

G

Spiryt

2012-07-31, 04:01 PM

At Grunwald, many of actual brother knights of Teutonic Orders, especially of higher rank were being executed with all purpose, so there's case of both scenarios here. It was denied later in 15th century AFAIR, from propaganda reasons.

Can't recall what guys that were supposed to go to Kraków actually did, maybe will check later.

Conners

2012-08-01, 12:47 PM

TheWombatOfDoom

2012-08-01, 12:55 PM

If you had a giant human (10 feet lets say) who is in good physical shape (no defects)--how much damage could they do, and how much could they take? I guess they could pick most people up and throw them pretty well, and arrows wouldn't be quite so deadly (they could also use larger weapons and thicker armour).

Bigger size means bigger target. They'd certainly be able to do more damage, and reach farther, but honestly, I don't see mass as making things less deadly with arrows. Swords might do less, just because the easy vitals are harder to get at, but ranged cuts reach out of the equation!

Conners

2012-08-01, 01:02 PM

Spiryt

2012-08-01, 01:05 PM

Assuming still somehow realistic options, they would probably be rather fearsome in melee, but somehow clunky and tiring easily...

10 feet isn't really that big though, there are perfectly able 7 feet + humans on Earth, so that wouldn't be really that huge difference.

They could most probably shoot pretty well even from behind pretty deep rows of shorter folk.

TheWombatOfDoom

2012-08-01, 01:13 PM

Meant that the arrows would be less deadly individually, due to the difference in size. Of course, it'd still be really unpleasant, and they would be easier targets.

The legs and groin would be the main targets in melee, so I can imagine leg armour being popular.

A hole in the face or heart is a hole in the face or heart. You can die from smaller bullets the same as big ones. They'd need heavy armor above too, because people could hit them easier. As for superficial wounds such as legs and arms, they would likely be less effective, yes. But just because you're taller doesn't mean you're not going to be as easily effected by damage. It's a +STR, not +CON, imo.

Legs and groin would be good to armor, yes.

Spiryt

2012-08-01, 01:26 PM

Actually, as long as fight stays in anything but total mess, normal sized human will have hard time hitting legs of giant one, even more than the rest.

Same thing like with two similarly sized humans, but even more pronounced.

And giant man would probably spare his legs any more encumbrance, really. Even more so than ordinary infantryman.

So it all depends.

Human so big would generally be more resistant to all kinds of attacks, heart or not, actually reaching it will be challenging.

Unless he has some problems with circulation/immune system/regeneration due to his size.

That's what can be generally generalized as "real life".

rrgg

2012-08-01, 02:06 PM

"Scholar: Who has the advantage in fight, of a tall man, or a man of mean stature?

Master: The tall man has the vantage, for these causes(23): his reach being longer, and weapon unto his stature accordingly, he has thereby a shorter course with his feet to win the true place, wherein by the swift motion of his hand, he may strike or thrust home, in which time a man of mean stature cannot reach him, & by his large pace, in his true pace in his regression further, sets himself out of danger, & these are the vantages that a tall man has against any man of shorter reach than himself.

Scholar: What vantage has a man of mean stature against a tall man?

Master: He has none: because the true times in fight, and actions accordingly, are to be observed and done, as well by a tall man, as by a man of mean stature."

Conners

2012-08-02, 01:54 AM

If armour is twice as thick (IE: Two layers of mail, or plate armour which doubles in thickness) does it take twice the amount of force to penetrate? Or is it a bit more confusing, mathematically?

Storm Bringer

2012-08-02, 04:15 AM

If armour is twice as thick (IE: Two layers of mail, or plate armour which doubles in thickness) does it take twice the amount of force to penetrate? Or is it a bit more confusing, mathematically?

i think the amount of energy needed goes up at a higher rate than the thickness (I.E. it takes more than twice the energy to get the same peneration)

TheWombatOfDoom

2012-08-02, 06:31 AM

i think the amount of energy needed goes up at a higher rate than the thickness (I.E. it takes more than twice the energy to get the same peneration)

That's true. It might still dent the armor and leave a welt, and it would clang like a mother, but it would make the amount of energy higher. This could be solved by bigger/faster/harder/stronger projectiles.

Spiryt

2012-08-02, 06:42 AM

i think the amount of energy needed goes up at a higher rate than the thickness (I.E. it takes more than twice the energy to get the same peneration)

Bigger energy means bigger deformation to arrow/spear whatever is hitting too, and if we're talking about greater velocity, resistance of penetrated material is greater too, resulting in more friction and greater shock.

So generally penetrating much thicker plate will require more substantial/resistant penetrator.

Hard to really predict it with mail though, as mail is in no way consistent body for such purposes.

Conners

2012-08-02, 09:26 PM

Hmmm... Would the amount of energy required be something like triple or quadruple? Or would it only be somewhat more than double?

rrgg

2012-08-03, 12:59 AM

Hmmm... Would the amount of energy required be something like triple or quadruple? Or would it only be somewhat more than double?

Knight and the Blast furnace included a fairly decent study for plate armor (try page 928)
http://books.google.com/books?id=GpVbnsqAzxIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

The effectiveness of Chainmail relative to thickness is far more tricky to nail down due to the way it interacts with the other materials worn.

Conners

2012-08-03, 07:13 AM

We talked about dragons made primarily of carbon nanotubes in the other thread. Would like to ask:

Assuming they're made up of carbon nanotubes, mostly, could you make good armour and weapons using a dragon carcass?

Brother Oni

2012-08-03, 08:15 AM

Scholar: What vantage has a man of mean stature against a tall man?

Master: He has none: because the true times in fight, and actions accordingly, are to be observed and done, as well by a tall man, as by a man of mean stature."

I'd say it'd depend on the circumstances. I'm relatively short, so I'm used to sparring against taller people. It's harder to get close but once you're there, it's harder for them to score full strength hits as they don't have full extension.

Of course this all goes out of the window when weapons get involved.

Assuming they're made up of carbon nanotubes, mostly, could you make good armour and weapons using a dragon carcass?

Depends on how dragon tissue degrades and how you're making it into armour. Simply bolting it on to the outside of normal armour seems to be the least destructive method I can think of, whereas tanning the skin or carving the bones may destroy some of the desired strength or durability.

Spiryt

2012-08-03, 08:42 AM

I'd say it'd depend on the circumstances. I'm relatively short, so I'm used to sparring against taller people. It's harder to get close but once you're there, it's harder for them to score full strength hits as they don't have full extension.

Of course this all goes out of the window when weapons get involved.

Taller, longer limbed person has easier time of making meaningful hits from awkward angles, even from up close.

http://i43.tinypic.com/2wmqhx5.gif

Huge advantage with thai clinch generally - grabbing the head/neck and bringing knee on longer height to the mug on lower height, and so on.

And with longer limbs and reach, ability to lock a holds over shorter opponents body much easier.

http://www2.cdn.sherdog.com/_images/pictures/15/14705.jpg
http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/922/267/alistairovereemguillotine_display_image.jpg?130482 6325

With the same overall body mass, all kinds of builds will have their advantages, but generally longer reach will be hugely beneficial.

Seems that weapons doesn't change it at all according to period specialists.

huttj509

2012-08-03, 11:00 PM

I'd say it'd depend on the circumstances. I'm relatively short, so I'm used to sparring against taller people. It's harder to get close but once you're there, it's harder for them to score full strength hits as they don't have full extension.

I think a lot depends on training. As an example, I'll bring up fencing. In fencing, a lefty often has an advantage because people aren't used to fighting lefties, while the lefty has had a lot of experience fighting right-handers (of course, then the comment was made that 2 lefties fighting can be amusing because neither has much experience facing that type of opponent).

Anyone who's taller/shorter/faster/more stable/etc. than the norm has an advantage if they've trained to make use of it. The issue comes when all else is equal. Not only do you know the advantages your height has against the other guy, the other guy knows too. In those cases, the longer reach and stride of a larger combatant are a distinct advantage, and you need to assume they've trained in not being hindered by the opponent being "within their reach."

If both fighters know how to use their advantages, one may STILL have a net advantage over the other.

Conners

2012-08-03, 11:31 PM

What are the main ways to deal with overheating from armour? Can you train yourself to be less effected?

Deadmeat.GW

2012-08-04, 01:45 AM

When wearing my half plate I would take the helmet off or at the very least open the visor to help vent heat.

Also, moving economically when not needing to move helped keep overheating down.

Drinking regularly also.

All in all it still was very, very hot after several hours.

Talakeal

2012-08-04, 12:39 PM

As a general rule what does more "damage", a rifle or a shotgun (assuming the weapons are of similar size and that the target is within effective range of the shotgun)?

Spiryt

2012-08-04, 12:56 PM

As a general rule what does more "damage", a rifle or a shotgun (assuming the weapons are of similar size and that the target is within effective range of the shotgun)?

Well, any "general rules" about this can be very "general" at most indeed. Some folk with hunting or actual mercenary/police/whatever can probably write books about it.

Shotgun is generally going to have much better chance of inflicting serious damage - even with considerably missed shot, some pellets have good chance of actually colliding with the target.

With 'straight" hit to the torso shotgun is going to be more damaging as well, save rifle bullets that gets completely broken inside the target, I guess.

But even then, shotguns in general probably be comparable, in the sense, that poor victim is so screwed, that 'more damage' really doesn't count much anymore.

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

http://firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/12%20Gauge%20No%204%20Buckshot.jpg

On the other, hand, with hit to some thin, small part of arm, or whatever, rifle round is probably going to do more damage - way better probability of hitting and damaging the bone, tears muscle up more than few small pellets...

But again, many pellets obviously have much better chance to hit said arm in the first place (even just one).

But *generally*, military shotguns are going bo be way more practical at close quarters, it's pretty much their niche.

Actual rifles are obviously very long distance weapons, not short distance.

Raum

2012-08-04, 06:19 PM

As a general rule what does more "damage", a rifle or a shotgun (assuming the weapons are of similar size and that the target is within effective range of the shotgun)?Short answer: it depends.

Longer answer: It depends on what rifle is being used - calibers range from .17 HMR to .50 or even larger. From the shotgun's point of view, it depends on both gauge and type of ammunition. Common gauges range from .410 to 12. Ammunition ranges from #8 bird shot to 1 oz slugs. In other words, there's a lot of variety.

Perhaps a more useful answer - rifles always have the potential to be deadly within their effective range. However, the smaller the caliber of the bullet the more accurate (or lucky) you'll need to be. (That's a general guide not a rule. Some types may be deadlier than a larger caliber due to larger loads of powder.)

With a shotgun, shot size tends to matter more than gauge. Bird shot and lighter will create some ugly flesh wounds but usually won't penetrate enough to kill anything larger than a rabbit or bird. You need #3 or larger to get the penetration needed for zombie sized targets.

Conners

2012-08-05, 04:47 AM

With warhammers, which times is it more advisable to use the spike, and which times is it better to use the hammer? I can imagine the hammer part being better against plate armours, and maybe the spike being better against textile armours?

Xuc Xac

2012-08-05, 06:19 AM

Other way around. The spike is for penetrating hard plates.

Dead_Jester

2012-08-05, 07:15 AM

It depends on the objective; if you want to kill the guy, the spike is of course better for penetrating and causing efficient damage to vital organs, but killing people doesn't get you ransom money, and using the spiked end means you risk getting stuck in some annoying places, such as an opponents shield or even in some (relatively) non-vital part of the body. Also, if you want to unhorse somebody, the blunt end may be preferable, because if the spiky end penetrates, but doesn't knock the rider down, then you lost a weapon and probably caused decent to serious damage to your own arm unless you drop it immeadiatly.

Spiryt

2012-08-05, 07:58 AM

I don't think anyone can really know for sure, but basically spike is obviosuly something that gives best chance get pushed trough something that's hard to pierce... Helmets, armor, maybe even shields.

A lot of weapons with backspike had appeared way before the plate, so it's hard to draw direct connection.

eulmanis12

2012-08-05, 06:05 PM

for the warhammer, the bunt end is what you want to use 90% of the time, against lightly armored opponents it is very deadly, against heavily armored opponents its still very deadly. It wont penetrate plate but it can easily cause signifigant trama to the head and chest without going through the armor, as well as breaking any bone at the site of the impact. The spike is something you might use against an opponent in single combat, or to finish off a downed enemy, the reason for this being that it is very easy to get the spike stuck in the target and effectivly disarm yourself.

Brother Oni

2012-08-05, 09:22 PM

Anyone who's taller/shorter/faster/more stable/etc. than the norm has an advantage if they've trained to make use of it.

I think it boils down to a combination of factors that both you and Spiryt have mentioned. In free sparring, I usually have a mass or strength advantage over my opponents regardless of their height (I have the typical short stocky build), so I'm very used to fighting people taller, (sometimes to almost ridiculous levels - one bloke had somewhere in the region of 7-8 inches in height over me, but I still weighed a good stone more than him), while they have very limited experience fighting somebody so short.

The various styles I've studied also probably don't highlight the height/reach advantages so much.

Xuc Xac

2012-08-06, 07:00 AM

You're also fighting people who don't really want to hurt you.

Brother Oni

2012-08-06, 08:27 AM

You're also fighting people who don't really want to hurt you.

I don't really want to hurt them either, so I guess it evens out.

Roxxy

2012-08-06, 08:55 AM

Conners

2012-08-06, 09:25 AM

Anyone know much about horses biting or kicking enemies during battles? War elephants apparently attack enemies a bit.

Dead_Jester

2012-08-06, 01:21 PM

How effective are martial arts styles like Judo that can unbalance an opponent during a knife fight against a stronger person? For example, let us say we have two soldiers. One is a slightly shorter than average woman, while one is a guy of about average height. Both are trained infantry, and both have a fair amount of physical strength. However, the guy is bigger and stronger, while the girl is fairly good at Judo or something like it. Now let's say a CQB situation turned into a knife fight between them. Can the girl be expected to throw or trip the guy and then off him if she hits before he reacts?

This depends entirely on how well the big guy can keep his balance, and if he knows how (or can adapt) to fight against an opponent with such a fighting style. In my experience, it depends entirely on how good the opponent is when it comes to judo and other such styles after a certain level; I (5ft 8, 150 lb soaking wet) have flipped, taken down and thrown 6ft 5, 250 lb people with some combat training, but no experience in judo, but could not do the same to some other, smaller person, who have better balance and/or are more adaptable in combat. However, in this situation, if the woman was smart, she would weaken the opposition (a couple of kicks to the knees/groin tend to work quite well, no matter who you are fighting) before going for a toss, unless he was a complete oaf.

Raum

2012-08-06, 04:45 PM

How effective are martial arts styles like Judo that can unbalance an opponent during a knife fight against a stronger person?If you're fighting someone who actually knows how to use the knife you're going to get hurt. The only question is "how bad".

Can the girl be expected to throw or trip the guy and then off him if she hits before he reacts?Judo (along with aikido and similar arts) is largely reactive rather than proactive. In other words, you're taking advantage of your opponent's movement. Done correctly, the throws rely on leverage and on pulling/pushing your opponent off balance. If they're not moving or are always balanced that becomes difficult. Judo throws against an immobile target in a balanced stance typically only work if you can overpower them physically.

Togath

2012-08-06, 05:45 PM

Matthew

2012-08-06, 07:50 PM

Have you considered the grossmesser/kriegmesser type swords, or are they not curved enough?

http://www.albion-swords.com/images/swords/albion/nextGen/knecht-mark-II/smKnecht-mark-II.jpg

fusilier

2012-08-06, 08:16 PM

A sword type question that I became curious about today while looking through a dungeons and dragons rulebook:
Were there any large curved blades like the falchion in 3E dungeons and dragons?, The closest I was able to find was the daodao, were there any other types of large curved sword?(flat, and wide blade ones, not the shamshir, or sabre style curve).
And also, though this is more of a question about games, is there any information regarding why the falchion is portrayed as a large weapon dungeons and dragons(and a few other rpgs or videos games as well)?
As far as I can tell(from some research i have done on them), historically they were small, and basically machetes.

My falchion (a Windlass replica of a 16th century Italian falchion), is a bit bigger than a machete, but still not a big sword -- it's also practically a straight blade. However, two-handed falchions existed (I think), and a messer or grossemesser is basically a falchion. Curiously, GURPS treats "falchion" as an option that can be applied to an existing sword design: making it heavier, but more effective at cutting. They claim that the basic "falchion" is a short sword modified in this way -- but the fact that you can apply this to any sword may be a tacit acknowledgement that there were many different kinds of "cutting swords" that had broader, heavier, more curved blades?

Filippo Scolari is shown with a good sized curved sword in a painting from 1455:
http://greatestbattles.iblogger.org/Italy/FilippoScolar-byAndreaDelCastagno.htm

I don't know if that weapon would be classified as a falchion, or something else.

Also, modern fantasy art is sometimes prone to exaggerating blade sizes to cartoonishly hyperbolic proportions. So . . . beware :-)

Yora

2012-08-07, 12:24 AM

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=82524&stc=1

These are Große Messer. The name just means "big knives".

Brother Oni

2012-08-07, 07:20 AM

If you're fighting someone who actually knows how to use the knife you're going to get hurt. The only question is "how bad".

Agreed. Generally put, concentrating on trying to throw somebody with a knife usually ends up with the pair of you on the floor with his knife in one of your important organs.

Something like judo or aikido would focus on disarming or disabling the weapon before going for the takedown, but if the soldiers both have knives out, then they're trying to kill each other and non-lethal incapacitation should be a luxury rather than a goal.

Conners

2012-08-07, 11:20 AM

Found an interesting thread of Viking horns. http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,227726.0.html

Mostly, I'm talking about the pictures a few of the users are posting.

Yora

2012-08-07, 01:16 PM

Well, armor development is an evolutionary process. Everything will be tried, but only those things that turned out to be helpful get to see widespread adaptation, while anything that is not helping will be discarded.

I'm sure someone taped a chainsaw to an assault riffle. That doesn't change the fact that it's stupid and causes much more problems than any benefit.

Agreed. Generally put, concentrating on trying to throw somebody with a knife usually ends up with the pair of you on the floor with his knife in one of your important organs.

Something like judo or aikido would focus on disarming or disabling the weapon before going for the takedown, but if the soldiers both have knives out, then they're trying to kill each other and non-lethal incapacitation should be a luxury rather than a goal.
I'd say in the entire history of armed conflict, knives probably killed more people than all guns, swords, and spears combined. And not just because any stupid kid could have one, but because you can have them with you all the time. You don't get up in the middle of an argument to go home, done your armor, and get your sword and then come back to stab someone.

Dead_Jester

2012-08-07, 02:47 PM

I'd say in the entire history of armed conflict, knives probably killed more people than all guns, swords, and spears combined. And not just because any stupid kid could have one, but because you can have them with you all the time. You don't get up in the middle of an argument to go home, done your armor, and get your sword and then come back to stab someone.

I don't know about that, the spear has the edge when it comes to ancestry (by probably more than 200 000 years) and widespread use in all most armed conflicts until the advent of firearms; hell, even some kind of monkeys have been observed to make spears.

Even considering the kill count only from the advent of metalworking onwards, I think spears are still a worthy contender for the title. Which isn't to say that not a whole lot of people in history got killed by knives.

Also, on the question of chainsaw bayonets,
http://www.undeadreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/saw3.jpg

Storm Bringer

2012-08-07, 02:51 PM

Also, on the question of chainsaw bayonets,
http://www.undeadreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/saw3.jpg

....

only in the Paras....

Conners

2012-08-07, 03:19 PM

Well, armor development is an evolutionary process. Everything will be tried, but only those things that turned out to be helpful get to see widespread adaptation, while anything that is not helping will be discarded. The thread changed my opinion on Viking helmets. I originally thought horns were too much of a problem to be plausibly added to helmets.

huttj509

2012-08-07, 05:09 PM

The thread changed my opinion on Viking helmets. I originally thought horns were too much of a problem to be plausibly added to helmets.

I can just picture it. "Dang Alf, I'm not sure how practical those are but they look awesome. You might just start a trend!"

Matthew

2012-08-07, 09:09 PM

The thread changed my opinion on Viking helmets. I originally thought horns were too much of a problem to be plausibly added to helmets.

It is possible that some vikings had horns on their helmets, but the evidence is for the practice is almost non-existent. On the other hand, decorative helms are well attested throughout human history, whether for battle or display.

Blueiji

2012-08-08, 02:49 AM

My friend was wondering whether a specific weapon design would be efficient in battle.

Its what he calls a "hex-ax" and he got it from a game called "Dungeons of Dredmor" (it's the ax with the six blades coming out of it).

Here's (http://www.dredmorwiki.com/wiki/The_Hexaxe_of_the_Magic_Axe_Lords) a picture of the design.

Personally, I don't think that trying to use that sort of weapon would be a good idea, but he's positive that it would be an excellent weapon. He believes so because of the following reasons:

- The hex-ax would be heavier than a normal ax, and so would be able to strike harder.

- The spaces between its multiple heads would be good for catching the opponents weapons.

- The multiple heads would allow the weapon to function as a rudimentary shield.

Note that I don't agree with those points, I'm just re-laying his ideas.
I'm fairly sure the hex-ax would make a bad weapon, but he wanted me to ask the Playground, so does anybody else have any opinions?

Thanks for the help. :smallsmile:

Conners

2012-08-08, 03:47 AM

I can just picture it. "Dang Alf, I'm not sure how practical those are but they look awesome. You might just start a trend!"
It is possible that some vikings had horns on their helmets, but the evidence is for the practice is almost non-existent. On the other hand, decorative helms are well attested throughout human history, whether for battle or display. Originally, I thought there was zero evidence--but then I found some in the thread. It seems that horned helms were only worn by important Vikings. People of importance don't normally fight in the thick of it, so the possibility of having them grabbed is diminished quite a bit. The other possibility is that they attached them like knight's crests, so that if they were hit or yanked they'd just pop off.

I can just picture it. "Dang Alf, I'm not sure how practical those are but they look awesome. You might just start a trend!"

My friend was wondering whether a specific weapon design would be efficient in battle.

Its what he calls a "hex-ax" and he got it from a game called "Dungeons of Dredmor" (it's the ax with the six blades coming out of it).

Here's (http://www.dredmorwiki.com/wiki/The_Hexaxe_of_the_Magic_Axe_Lords) a picture of the design.

Personally, I don't think that trying to use that sort of weapon would be a good idea, but he's positive that it would be an excellent weapon. He believes so because of the following reasons:

- The hex-ax would be heavier than a normal ax, and so would be able to strike harder.

- The spaces between its multiple heads would be good for catching the opponents weapons.

- The multiple heads would allow the weapon to function as a rudimentary shield.

Note that I don't agree with those points, I'm just re-laying his ideas.
I'm fairly sure the hex-ax would make a bad weapon, but he wanted me to ask the Playground, so does anybody else have any opinions?

Thanks for the help. :smallsmile: I'm not as expert as these guys, but I think I can answer some of this.

Heavyness: Heavier weapons aren't better. Generally, smiths went to a lot of work to make sure weapons were a precise weight, and the weight balanced throughout the weapon.
A sledgehammer is heavy and can hit hard, but it's so slow that it was only used as a weapon in desperation. It is no good against faster weapons.

Spaces: They'd also make it difficult to wield, so you'll rarely get the chance for this "perk". Catching a weapon isn't necessarily a good thing, in this case. If you catch their sword, then they pull out a knife with their other hand and cut you, for example. You could try the same, but that thing looks so heavy, I think you'd need both hands to hold it with any strength... so you're pretty much done in.

Shield: Not really. It'd be so slow to move and have so much less coverage by comparison, using it like a shield would probably be a bad idea. Not sure what'd happen if you blocked an arrow with a sword/whichever--maybe you'd be fine, or maybe your weapon would smack you in the face?

Of course you'll probably want the opinions of the other guys, if you want to be sure, they'll know better than me.

Knaight

2012-08-08, 03:47 AM

The hex-ax would be heavier than a normal ax, and so would be able to strike harder.
Yes, it would be much heavier than a normal ax. What this actually means is that it will be slow and unweildy, making it harder to parry, harder to strike, and harder to dodge given what it does to your balance. Even if it actually did strike harder, that isn't worth much when your opponent isn't sitting still waiting for you to hit.

The spaces between its multiple heads would be good for catching the opponents weapons.
So, you catch your opponents weapon at the end of your weapon, where your opponent has the best leverage available. At that point, your opponent can probably maneuver your weapon better than you can theirs. This doesn't work.

Incidentally, I would absolutely love to try and see someone try and use this against someone who outreached them. Having something too slow to parry with when your opponent is effectively guaranteed to get the first strike is a bad situation.

The multiple heads would allow the weapon to function as a rudimentary shield.
No. It would be held in the wrong place, be too slow to move, and barely protect anything. This weapon is a terrible idea in general, but trying to use it at a shield makes everything else seem reasonable.

Matthew

2012-08-08, 03:52 AM

Originally, I thought there was zero evidence--but then I found some in the thread. It seems that horned helms were only worn by important Vikings. People of importance don't normally fight in the thick of it, so the possibility of having them grabbed is diminished quite a bit. The other possibility is that they attached them like knight's crests, so that if they were hit or yanked they'd just pop off.

Well, I read that thread through, and it did not seem to convey any evidence for Viking Age helmets with horns. It took a bit of distilling, but basically it came down to three pieces of visual evidence that were, generously speaking, unclear in what they were depicting and one literary reference, which I could not find the source for.

Yora

2012-08-08, 05:36 AM

While the six bited axe is stuid times two times three, the chinese did use something based on a somewhat similar idea.
The ji is a kind of halberd that was really damn well effective and for a very long time was the standard weapon for basic infantry troops.

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/7404/dscn1445lx2.jpg

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/3256/dscn7711ah2.jpg

http://cayugakarate.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/national-geographic-21.jpg
The trippel headed one might have been a 2000 year old weaponsmiths joke, but I remember having seen mentions of double headed ones at several times.

Conners

2012-08-08, 06:03 AM

@Matthew: Perhaps you missed the pictures I saw. At this point, I have trouble seeing why important Viking's wouldn't have horns, if they wanted to.

@Yora: I can see the three-bitted axe working, since the heads are so light and the pole so long. Not to say it'd be much more useful than a two-bitted one, though.

Matthew

2012-08-08, 06:20 AM

@Matthew: Perhaps you missed the pictures I saw. At this point, I have trouble seeing why important Viking's wouldn't have horns, if they wanted to.

I saw all the pictures, but as the respondents said to the member who was flooding the thread with them via Google searches, none of the actual historical pictures that clearly depicted horned helmets referred to the Viking period, though there were a lot of modern hypothetical illustrations. Here are the images in question:

http://www.millennia.f2s.com/dance14.gif

http://www.odinsvolk.ca/images/Fylfot66.jpg

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/8813/picture3bf.png

The top two figures are line drawings of the two instances below. Could be warriors, could be priests, could be something else. If there is anything more substantial than that dating from the period in question, I did not see it. Either way, all that says is that the vast majority of extant Viking images depict warriors without horns on their helmets.

Yora

2012-08-08, 06:44 AM

While the fist one does show a person who quite clearly is having horns on his head and appears to be wearing chainmail or scale armor, the whole scene does not look like a military campaign.
Instead the body language of the people has strong similarities to christian iconography. It needs more context, but my hunch would be that the original was made in the early syncrestistic stages of the christianization of Scandinavia. The sword in the hand of the horned person has an unusual cross shaped hilt and the person behind him is carrying some sort of standard. And the people in the upper right corner are just screaming "christian monks". The first one even has crosses all over his cloak. Yet we have lots of pagan symbols.

I know the first rule of antropologic sciences: "Do not assume religious ritual unless you are sure it can't be something else!"
But this scene looks extremely like some kind of procession, indicating the horned headdress could be ceremonial.

Okay. Do you have any details on that image? This is really a highly fascinating artifact.

Conners

2012-08-08, 07:22 AM

If it weren't for other crazy helmets, I still wouldn't give credit to the Vikings having horns commonly. As it is, Vikings are rarely depicted with horns, so it seems like a status symbol.

How organized were Viking armies? I guess they didn't have a lot of officers, and tended to function more individually than the Romans would.

Matthew

2012-08-08, 07:31 AM

Decorative helms are pretty common, though how common they were to the battlefield remains a question unanswered.

Viking armies were reasonably well organised, similar to Greeks and Spartans, really, though we have much less written evidence explaining their structure. There were different degrees, of course, with the evidence for Royal garrisons suggesting a high level of organisation. No officer corps on the model of the Romans, but some sort of leadership structure must have been in place, likely based on how close individuals were to the war leaders.

Yora

2012-08-08, 07:42 AM

I am not aware of formation combat, but that is directly related to the battlefields of northern europe and the "mission objectives" of Skandinavian soldiers in other parts of the world.
Even though Teutoburg Forest was a thousand years earlier, it's a great example of the same problem. You can't fight in formation inside a swampy forest. The German warriors were outnumbered 2:1 against the best army in the known world, but they were trained and equiped for small scale skirmishes while the Roman Legions were not. 3 legions were pretty much completely annihilated in a single fight. 70 years later, the army of Boudica in Britain had massive advantage claimed to be 10:1 or even 30:1, but the Romans challenged them to an open field battle where they could employ their formations. If you are willing to believe Tacitus, the Romans lost 400 of their 10,000 men and the rebel army was completely wiped out.

How you build an army depends a lot on what you have and what you want to achieve. And for their own purposes, Skandinavian warriors knew very well what they were doing.

rrgg

2012-08-08, 08:12 PM

Spear and shield walls were pretty much the norm for any army during the dark ages. In particular the vikings were well known for using a tight wedge when attacking an enemy line.

Although it's a bit more complicated than formation vs no formation. People tend to bunch together when under stress making a rough phalanx pretty easy to start, while polybius famously claimed that the roman soldiers of his day kept at least a 3 foot gap between each file so they could more easily swing their swords.

As for teutoburger forest, I think one of the big factors was simply that Roman legionaires tend not to respond very well to being surrounded. Using a short sword against something with more reach requires constantly moving forward, but when surrounded advancing in every direction only causes the front rank to be spread thin. Or if the troops are scared they may bunch together and stop advancing at all (i.e. out of reach and unable to fight).
Compare that to Watling Street where the Romans purposely put themselves into a corner so they could only be attacked from one direction and on a hill (a major benifit to heavy missiles like the pilum).

Matthew

2012-08-08, 08:27 PM

fusilier

2012-08-08, 09:33 PM

Do we even know how many Germans were involved at Teutoburg forest? The German commanders were ex-Roman auxiliaries, if I recall correctly, so they knew what they were about. Indeed, according to Wikipedia (yes, yes, I know), several thousand of the Germans were Roman auxiliary deserters. Romans got led into an ambush site and were annihilated, seems like text book stuff to me.

My understanding is that the Romans also got spread out to the point where they couldn't effectively support each other -- so that the Germans could at least achieve local numerical superiority, even *if* they were technically out numbered by the Romans. However, as you pointed out the estimates seem to vary.

Conners

2012-08-08, 11:09 PM

Matthew

2012-08-08, 11:14 PM

My understanding is that the Romans also got spread out to the point where they couldn't effectively support each other -- so that the Germans could at least achieve local numerical superiority, even *if* they were technically out numbered by the Romans. However, as you pointed out the estimates seem to vary.

Right, I think the remains strung along the path is supposed to indicate that, though it could be interpreted as a fighting retreat or some other movement along the road. One thing is for sure, neither the Germans, Gauls nor Britons ever had much of a problem with mustering manpower, if the Romans are to be believed, it was efficiency that was the problem. I have not seen the latest archaeological reports, but was there really that much in the way of Roman artefacts left behind? Seems like we would have a museum stuffed full of Roman war gear by now.

Beleriphon

2012-08-08, 11:33 PM

I know the first rule of antropologic sciences: "Do not assume religious ritual unless you are sure it can't be something else!"
But this scene looks extremely like some kind of procession, indicating the horned headdress could be ceremonial.

My thought wasn't a religious ceremony so much as a dress parade that included images for both locals and possible traveling missionaries.

Beleriphon

2012-08-08, 11:36 PM

fusilier

2012-08-09, 01:42 AM

Here's a topic which is filled with conjecture, in pop-culture: Combat ability of non-soldiers in ancient times.

If you live in a Castle Town during peace time, would it be possible to pay one of the soldiers or officers to teach you how to fight? Or would that be some sort of taboo?

How common were teachers of fighting, before the Renaissance?

Are there any trends among the non-military classes in combat prowess? For example, I assume travelling merchants are more likely to know how to use a sword than merchants who stay in a city.

I cannot answer the first questions. But I wouldn't assume that travelling merchants are more likely to know how to use a sword -- they would be more likely to hire guards. Of course that depended upon the local situation; in certain places the local lords may be responsible for ensuring peace on the roads. I think it was Gies's Life in a Medieval City that touched upon this. Typically the king wanted to make sure that trade was protected, as a source of income, and I recall that sometimes local lords were forced to pay reparations to merchants for failing to protect their caravans!

I'm also reminded of a story of merchant in Italy in the late 1500s. He was travelling alone, on foot, and was attacked at sundown just outside of a town. His two assailants jumped out of the bushes and demanded that he hand over any valuables. He pleaded that he was poor, but they pummeled him and shook him very violently. After no coins had been shaken loose from his person, and his constant pleading that he was just a poor miserable wretch, they finally gave up, and, taking pity, actually gave him a couple of soldi! Little did they know that sewn into the soles of socks, which were wrapped in old rags, was something like eighty gold florins! So subterfuge was also an option to fighting! :-)

Yora

2012-08-09, 08:21 AM

I have not seen the latest archaeological reports, but was there really that much in the way of Roman artefacts left behind? Seems like we would have a museum stuffed full of Roman war gear by now.
The problem is that nobody really knows where Teutoburg Forest actually is, and it also was a moving battle that spanned several days. However, around Kalkriese hill, there have been thousands of roman artifacts, including hundreds of coins of a series that had been started just two years before the battle, and none from any series started 5 years after it.

And here is the museum (http://www.kalkriese-varusschlacht.de/index.php?menuid=1&getlang=en). :smallbiggrin:

Galloglaich

2012-08-09, 08:38 AM

Here's a topic which is filled with conjecture, in pop-culture: Combat ability of non-soldiers in ancient times.

If you live in a Castle Town during peace time, would it be possible to pay one of the soldiers or officers to teach you how to fight? Or would that be some sort of taboo?

How common were teachers of fighting, before the Renaissance?

Are there any trends among the non-military classes in combat prowess? For example, I assume travelling merchants are more likely to know how to use a sword than merchants who stay in a city.

The answer is that almost nobody was completely a "non-soldier" or a soldier, in the Medieval world. Nearly everyone who was free had at least the opportunity, and in many cases the obligation to learn to fight, and to own arms and armor. Most people had some military training and were effectively part-time soldiers; most soldiers were part-time civilians.

Most mercenaries (mercenaries made up the bulk of most Medieval armies) started out as urban or rural militia. The only class which might be denied the right to bear arms were the serfs (serfs being distinct and different from peasants), but in some cases even they were armed and trained. In fact there was a whole class of serf-knights. Even the clergy were often armed, in fact the earliest fencing manual we know of, the I33, depicts monks, and a woman, training to fight with Sword and Buckler.

Merchants were almost always trained and armed. Most towns had 'patrician' societies of the wealthiest merchants who were also called constaffler or konstafler. These men were required by the town charter to be equipped like knights, owned warhorses, and participated in tournaments and quite often, raids and military expeditions.

G

Conners

2012-08-09, 09:26 AM

Is there much way of knowing how fighting was taught and passed on?

Fighting Schools seems to be a thing that came about much later--so would it be that you get a relative to teach you, or join the army to get trained, or pay someone to teach you?

Straybow

2012-08-09, 01:48 PM

Also, on the question of chainsaw bayonets,
http://www.undeadreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/saw3.jpg The chainsaw isn't used as a bayonet, it is used to cut through doors and other wooden obstacles.

Is there much way of knowing how fighting was taught and passed on?

Fighting Schools seems to be a thing that came about much later--so would it be that you get a relative to teach you, or join the army to get trained, or pay someone to teach you? Anyone with more than a modest degree of wealth would pay to be trained by an expert, whether in a school or private lessons. We don't have much evidence of schools in tax records, for example, but it is very difficult to imagine how they could be completely absent.

The average English boy would play at staff and cudgel from childhood and start archery as young as 8, moving to longbow at about 14. Weekly longbow practice was required by law for all adults (don't know where they drew that line). Many were no good, no matter how much they practiced.

I'm fairly sure that joining a medieval royal army would get you no training except how to form a line. They expected soldiers to have weapon skills. Levies were not expected to be effective fighting units.

Servants in a household would be trained for particular roles. They went with the knight or lord to battle. Some were basically training partners and fought at the master's side, while others tended the spare horses, carried lances, etc. Some would be placed among archers and polearm units. Others would stay with the camp and defend the household possessions.

Norsesmithy

2012-08-09, 03:13 PM

The chainsaw isn't used as a bayonet, it is used to cut through doors and other wooden obstacles.
Actually it's not a military item, it's just a conversation piece/toy made by a private individual.

Galloglaich

2012-08-09, 03:17 PM

Yeah, I guess this speaks to the differences between places like France and England, where you had a fairly strong Monarchy and a centralized government with a King for generation after generation, and most of the rest of Europe (Burgundy, Scandinavia, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, Spain, Holland, Poland, Bohemia and so on) where there wasn't a stable monarchy during most of the Medieval period.

In these places, training was very different from what Straybow described, if that in fact was how things worked. I can't really comment that much about England because I'm not too familiar with it.

In other places though militia training was one of the obligations of citizenship. In the City of Bologna for example, there were 24 societies established in 1170 AD around the time of the foundation of the Lombard League. These societies practiced the use of arms. In the towns of Flanders from as early as the 13th Century we have records of societies devoted to fencing (St. Michels guilds), to archery (St. Sebastian), and later guns and halberds. Similarly in Switzerland by the 1250's we have records of the rural and urban militias doing regular training, in the towns these were again associated with guilds. Same in Bohemia, most regions of what is now Germany, and the low countries (Belgium and Holland today).

In Scandinavia there are records of the arms and armor required by the rural peasant levies which go back to Viking days, and continue all the way through the Middle Ages.

In pretty much every town with a town charter, including those in England and France, citizens were obligated to be part of both the militia and the town watch. I know that this was the case in York, in England for example. This gradually changed in the late 14th Century in England as the towns lost some of their autonomy I think, but it remained the case in most of the rest of Europe all the way into the Renaissance and beyond.

Now the specific details as to what that training entailed is hard to say before the 15th Cenutry, beyond what we know from the fechtbucher. We do have records but they are either in Latin or medieval vernacular dialects and haven't been translated yet, so we don't really know if they even get into that kind of detail. More and more fencing manuals are being uncovered every day but so far those are all from the 14th or 15th Century or later. If you want to try your hand at translating yourself, the 13th Century laws and records of that Bolognese society I mentioned were transcribed in the late 19th Century so they are in the public domain. You can peruse them here (http://archive.org/stream/statutidellesoc02gaudgoog#page/n5/mode/2up)

G.