Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X

[Conners]

How did tribes and Dark Age societies raise armies? The tribes of Britain and Germany tended to raise huge numbers of fighting men--so did the Native Americans. Hunting trains a man to use bows and the like very well, but I don't see how it makes you good with spears and axes. Was it simply experience passed down from fighting among tribes, and sparring?

I asked, and found out the Saxons for example, had a Warrior Caste. The armies of the Dark Ages seem relatively small--were they composed entirely of men of the Warrior Caste? Or, did freemen supplement their ranks, given rudimentary training by the warriors?

On the note of Warrior Castes: I agree with Galloglaich that it was rarely divided into soldiers and non-soldiers. Even with a Warrior Caste, freemen are likely to learn something about fighting (generally if they're levied), which they will pass on. Slaves aren't likely to learn much, unless they're slave-warriors (which is fairly common?).

[fusilier]

Concerning who was trained, from Mercenaries and their Masters, pg. 10-11


While there was in theory an obligation on all men capable of bearing arms in the Italian cities to undertake military service in times of need, the obligation in practice was only extended to what one might describe as the 'political' class, the citizens who played an active part in the running of the city. Regulations for citizenship in Italian cities varied greatly from city to city, but on the whole the term 'citizen' was only applied to those had a permanent stake in the community.

He continues:


With the early growth of a money economy in Italy such military service was paid from at least the twelfth century. Nor, in normal times, was it an unduly onerous duty for citizens. The city militias were divided into companies from different quarters of the city, and it was rarely necessary to call out more than a part of the force at once. . . . the service required of him was normally confined to defence of the walls of the city for the limited period during which a besieging army could be maintained in the field, and the occasional brief excursion against some recalcitrant noble in the rural hinterland. In the latter case the service would rarely be for more than a week, and when defence of the walls was required this could easily be organised on a rota basis so that each man could continue with his normal occupation at the same time. Thus the communal militia system was not necessarily economically disruptive, nor was it consequently the case that the citizens should seek as soon as possible to convert their obligatoin for personal service into a money payment (That last sentence would seem to imply that it was possible to pay a fee in lieu of militia service, which wouldn't surprise me).

He notes that during the thirteenth century the milita was being augmented by a sprinkling of mercenaries, that were hired independently. Mallet isn't too impressed by the training or fighting skills of the militia, in his opinion their main advantage is large numbers. (That's not to say that they didn't receive training, they did).

[Galloglaich]

The Italian militias,very generally speaking, gradually declined after the 14th Century and they began to rely more and more on mercenaries, which in some cases by the 15th Century had led formerly Republican towns to be taken over by Signore, like the Sforza's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sforza) in Milan.

However the stronger Italian towns still had formidable militias. The crossbowmen of Genoa were famous the world over, and could demand top pay for their services. The naval / merchant fleet of Venice, largest in the world with over 3,000 ships, ruled much of the Mediterranean and almost single-handedly kept the Ottoman Empire at bay in the late Medieval period. One of their principle advantages was that they used free men to row their galleys, free men who could fight - whereas all the other Mediterranean powers used slaves or prisoners who were chained to their benches.

Outside of Italy, the militias were notably very strong in several areas.

In Krakow, Poland, the urban militia defeated the Mongols as early as 1287.

The militia of Novgorod the Great (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novgorod_Republic) ruled most of North Eastern Europe all the way into Siberia from the 12th Century well into the 15th Century.

In Flanders in 1302 the militias of Ghent and Ypres proved their might in the famous Battle of Golden Spurs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Golden_Spurs), in which the flower of French Chivalry was smashed. Several of the Flemish towns, notably Bruges, Ghent, Ypres, and Lieges, continued to have strong militias throughout the entire Medieval period, though Lieges was defeated and massacred by Charles the Bold in the 1470s.

The Swiss militias, which included both rural militias and the urban militias of Zurich and Berne in particular, proved capable of destroying the forces of the two mightiest noble families of Europe, the Hapsburgs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Habsburg_Wars) starting in 1315 and in the late 1400's, the Valois of Burgundy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgundian_Wars) (the dynasty which ended when Charles the Bold was killed by the Swiss), thus establishing their status as the most sought after mercenaries in Europe.

In Bohemia, what is now Czech and Slovakian republics, in the 1420's- 1440's the urban militia of Prague, Pilsen, Tabor and other towns combined with rural militias of Hussites utterly defeated a series of 5 international Crusades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussite_wars) organized by the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor and then went on a rampage throughout Central Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussite_Wars#Beautiful_rides_.28Chevauch.C3.A9e.29 ). After the Hussite Wars the Czechs went on to be the most successful mercenaries in Central Europe, as sought after as the Swiss in the West.

In the 1450's-1460's the militia of Danzig, Torun, Elbing and the other Prussian cities threw off control of the Teutonic Knights during the 13 Years War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteen_Years%27_War_%281454%E2%80%9366%29) and with the help of Poland, basically broke their back.

Danzig went on to defeat England almost single-handedly in the Anglo-Hanseatic war of 1470-1474 (l)

And almost every major city in Germany, notably among them Lubeck, Bremen, Cologne, Hamburg, Strasbourg, Augsburg, Nuremberg, won numerous battles between the 13th and 16th Centuries. Many of them won their freedom by force. For example Cologne captured their own Prince-Archbishop in the Battle of Worringen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_worringen) and forced him to sign a charter relinquishing control of their town. The Hanse cities of Lubeck and Hamburg defeated the Kingdom of Denmark twice in the 14th Century, culminating when 12 Hanseatic cities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation_of_Cologne) from Germany, Holland, Flanders and Prussia combined forces to crush the Danish navy, forcing the King of Denmark to sign the humiliating Treaty of Stralsund (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Stralsund_%281370%29) in 1370, conceding control of the rich fisheries of Southern Sweden and the entire Baltic Sea to the Hanse.

It's no coincidence that these were the places where most of the technology and culture of Europe flourished during the Medieval period.

As for England, I did a bit of digging, it seems like there were numerous laws being passed from the 12th Century onward trying to suppress the widespread practice of training with sword and buckler and other weapons. You can read some excerpts from historical records. here:

http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15700

G

[Galloglaich]

How did tribes and Dark Age societies raise armies? The tribes of Britain and Germany tended to raise huge numbers of fighting men--so did the Native Americans. Hunting trains a man to use bows and the like very well, but I don't see how it makes you good with spears and axes. Was it simply experience passed down from fighting among tribes, and sparring?

I asked, and found out the Saxons for example, had a Warrior Caste. The armies of the Dark Ages seem relatively small--were they composed entirely of men of the Warrior Caste? Or, did freemen supplement their ranks, given rudimentary training by the warriors?


During the Migration Era ("Dark Ages"), most tribes were made up entirely of free tribesemen, with the exception of slaves. So everyone in the tribe at least in theory could and did fight. Most of the Vikings for example were fishermen, ranchers or farmers in their "day jobs". This persisted in the British Isles all the way in to the 17th Century, with the so-called Galloglaich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galloglaich), former Norse settlers of the Hebrides and some other islands, who farmed during the planting and harvest seasons and then went off to fight in Scotland and Ireland as mercenaries during the 'fighting season'.

In the case of the Saxons in particular, the Continental Saxons anyway, there is a very interesting and well documented survival of the old pre-Christian system which lasted all the way through the Middle Ages. In a swampy part of Saxony on the Northern Coast of Germany, between Denmark and Holland, a bunch of Saxon peasants formed a "republic" called the Dithmarschen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dithmarschen#History) which gained membership into the Hanseatic League. If you want to find out how they organized their armies there is a very good book about them by the historian William Urban but it's out of print and kind of hard to find.

Slave-soldiers were common in the Middle East (Mamelukes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamelukes)) and Central Asia (Jannisaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary)) and there was a special caste of Serf-Knights in the German-speaking parts of Europe in the 11th -12th Cenuries called Ministeriales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministeriales), but in all three cases they did not remain really effectively Slaves or Serfs for more than a couple of generations, in fact the Mamelukes took over Egypt in the 1250's and went on to defeat both the Christian Crusaders and the Mongols. The Ministeriales became members of the nobility in Europe. The Jannisaries remained technically slaves but were well paid and pampered and frequently revolted against the Sultan if they weren't treated with kid-gloves.

G

[fusilier]

The Italian militias,very generally speaking, gradually declined after the 14th Century and they began to rely more and more on mercenaries, which in some cases by the 15th Century had led formerly Republican towns to be taken over by Signore, like the Sforza's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sforza) in Milan.

However the stronger Italian towns still had formidable militias. The crossbowmen of Genoa were famous the world over, and could demand top pay for their services. The naval / merchant fleet of Venice, largest in the world with over 3,000 ships, ruled much of the Mediterranean and almost single-handedly kept the Ottoman Empire at bay in the late Medieval period. One of their principle advantages was that they used free men to row their galleys, free men who could fight - whereas all the other Mediterranean powers used slaves or prisoners who were chained to their benches.

Outside of Italy, the militias were notably very strong in several areas.

The militia system never entirely disappeared from the Italian system, and many "condottiere armies" had communal militia with them. Also Genoese mercenary crossbowmen, would not be "militia" they would be "mercenaries." However, it's good to mention them, as mercenary infantry are often overshadowed by the mounted men-at-arms, and there were some very professional infantry companies.

However, the main point that I wanted to get to, was that even though by law almost everybody was required to report for militia duty, in practice that wasn't the case.

[Galloglaich]

Also Genoese mercenary crossbowmen, would not be "militia" they would be "mercenaries."

You missed my point. Like the Swiss, the Genoese started out as militia, that is where they got their training. The Genoese militia became famous during the Crusades, which made them sought after as mercenaries. They remained militia first and foremost, but could also hire themselves out (with permission of the town government) to the highest bidder. Crossbow training in fact was so deeply engrained in Italian towns that they still have crossbow festivals with shooting competitions in many towns to this day.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WJyNDgESt0Y/TcbZl_TVYkI/AAAAAAAAAGU/K4be3hBPnCY/s1600/Crossbow+Comp.jpg

http://www.maremmaguide.com/image-files/medieval_crossbow_archers40.jpg

My point is that most of the famous mercenaries of medieval Europe, including the Genoese, the Irish and Hebredian Galloglaich, the Swiss Reislauffer, the Bohemian Hussites, the Catalan Almagovars, the Dalmatian Schiavoni, and so on, got their start as militia. Most would only fight as mercenaries for a few seasons, then go back to their 'day job'. Many people famous for other things in the Middle Ages also spent some of their time as mercenaries, for example, the Swiss artist Urs Graf. The number of full-time, life-long mercenaries was pretty rare.


G

[Bhu]

ANyone knowledgeable about japanese cannons?

[a_humble_lich]

With regards to militias and professional soldiers, how different was it in the Byzantine Empire? It seems the Byzantines had a much stronger central government than most of Europe. Did the old roman system of professional standing armies survive there?

[fusilier]

You missed my point. Like the Swiss, the Genoese started out as militia, that is where they got their training. The Genoese militia became famous during the Crusades, which made them sought after as mercenaries. They remained militia first and foremost, but could also hire themselves out (with permission of the town government) to the highest bidder. Crossbow training in fact was so deeply engrained in Italian towns that they still have crossbow festivals with shooting competitions in many towns to this day.

Ok. So if a citizen becomes a mercenary without giving up his citizenship, he would still have militia obligations. And while they may have received training as militia, it's probably the experience as a mercenary that made them more valuable than their militia experiences.* Hiring themselves out a mercenaries put them in a rather different category than those militiamen who chose to make their living by other means.


My point is that most of the famous mercenaries of medieval Europe, including the Genoese, the Irish and Hebredian Galloglaich, the Swiss Reislauffer, the Bohemian Hussites, the Catalan Almagovars, the Dalmatian Schiavoni, and so on, got their start as militia. Most would only fight as mercenaries for a few seasons, then go back to their 'day job'. Many people famous for other things in the Middle Ages also spent some of their time as mercenaries, for example, the Swiss artist Urs Graf. The number of full-time, life-long mercenaries was pretty rare.


G

Warfare during this period was typically a seasonal thing anyhow. I think some mercenaries had provisions for extra pay in their contracts if they were called out of winter quarters. As for the rank and file, I don't have data to show how many spent basically their whole adult lives as mercenaries. For the captains, most of them (at least in Italy), committed their lives to the profession, at least by the late 14th century. Those lucky enough to survive, typically retired to some estates they had earned during the careers. Earlier time periods (12th, 13th century), were dominated by militias, and not mercenaries, and full time soldiers would have been rare -- household and palace guards, maybe an occasional garrison?

*Genoa and Venice were maritime empires, who needed to garrison a fair number of fortresses and towns, this may have given their citizenry more experience, and some elements of their "militia" would have had a more permanent footing (provisionati?). I will research it more though.

--EDIT-- I just wanted to reiterate that I agree with Galloglaich generally; that prior to the 14th century, professional full-time soldiers would have been rare. And while I don't have detailed information about them, I would assume that mercenaries like Genoese crossbowmen would not have remained organized for very long (a campaigning season or two) before being disbanded.

[Galloglaich]

I agree many of the Condottieri, contractors, were close to full-time mercenaries. But these were the minority, the guys who ran the show.

G

[Conners]

Anyone know what the best protection against fire might be (anything before the 1800s)? I'm pretty sure plate would survive fire pretty well, but I'm not sure if it'd leave the wearer intact.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

The best protection was not to go near fire.

That, or cotton or wool, iirc? But nothing that would be actually useful as armour, and nothing that would be actually very useful.

[Knaight]

The best protection was not to go near fire.

The second best protection was close proximity to a large body of water.

[Eldan]

I suppose cotton, yes. There's a reason we still make lab coats out of cotton. We had a few lab safety courses, and if it's made right, it doesn't burn easily.

[Mike_G]

Wool insulates fairly well, and doesn't catch fire easily.

Old Fireman's helmets were leather. Some still are in fact. So maybe a heavy, treated leather would be decent protection.

[Conners]

Hmm.. so if you were going up against fire-creatures in a campaign, you'd want a wool and leather padding, and maybe some steel plate on top? I think a full set of plate armour would cause over heating, so maybe a partial suit.

[fusilier]

Wool insulates fairly well, and doesn't catch fire easily.

Old Fireman's helmets were leather. Some still are in fact. So maybe a heavy, treated leather would be decent protection.

I think old firefighter's coats were also leather. Pictures of mid-19th century firefighters, typically show wool shirt and pants, tall, heavy looking leather boots, a leather helmet, and sometimes a large coat, I think of leather but maybe heavy wool. They ran to the fire at that time, and the coat may have only been worn by those manning the nozzle, or going in to the burning structure.

However, there were no face masks, and rarely gloves. The main purpose was probably to protect from the heat of the flames and embers. All that would certainly help when dealing with fire, but it's not going to protect you much from something like flamethrower. Maybe a big shield would be your best bet in that situation?

[Xuc Xac]

Firefighters' suits are made to protect against the heat of being near a fire. Suits designed to protect against being on fire are made of asbestos. They're worn by stunt men, race car drivers, and others who may end up on fire. It's been used for 4000 years so it fits the pre-1800 criterion. Charlemagne had an asbestos tablecloth back in the year 800. He used to show it off by throwing it into a fire after meals to burn off all the spills and stains. If there had been fire-breathing dragons around, I'm sure they would have made asbestos tabards for knights.

[Conners]

Didn't realize they knew how to make asbestos cloth, back then. Though, come to think of it, I think I might've been told about it earlier (I should've paid more attention :smallredface:)...

As you say, a tabard of asbestos would be good for dealing with salamanders, fire mages, and all the monsters which were set on fire for 4E. Asbestos padding might also be good, but I can imagine that being extremely expensive.

[Galloglaich]

Firefighters' suits are made to protect against the heat of being near a fire. Suits designed to protect against being on fire are made of asbestos. They're worn by stunt men, race car drivers, and others who may end up on fire. It's been used for 4000 years so it fits the pre-1800 criterion. Charlemagne had an asbestos tablecloth back in the year 800. He used to show it off by throwing it into a fire after meals to burn off all the spills and stains. If there had been fire-breathing dragons around, I'm sure they would have made asbestos tabards for knights.

That is a really interesting anecdote! I didn't know that they had learned to make asbestos textiles anywhere near that early.

I do remember reading that the development of asbestos in ceramics apparently coincided with the development of iron in Scandinavia (where it was pretty advanced) due to the construction of larger bloomery forges, going all the way back to the early Migration Era.

EDIT: cool this is really interesting, apparently it goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks

http://www.mesotheliomaweb.org/mesothelioma/cause/asbestos/types/chrysotile

G.

[Brother Oni]

All that would certainly help when dealing with fire, but it's not going to protect you much from something like flamethrower. Maybe a big shield would be your best bet in that situation?

I remember reading that when Beowulf had to go up against a dragon, years after killing Grendel and his mother, he had an iron shield specially commissioned to help him.

[Conners]

That reminds me: I heard that Romans would attach spikes to their armour, when going up against war elephants (so that they wouldn't pick up the Romans). How did they attach the spikes?

Also, anyone know details about the spikes (how many, how long, if it was difficult to move with them, etc.)?

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

That reminds me: I heard that Romans would attach spikes to their armour, when going up against war elephants (so that they wouldn't pick up the Romans). How did they attach the spikes?

Also, anyone know details about the spikes (how many, how long, if it was difficult to move with them, etc.)?

Never heard that one before. The best method that I'd heard the Romans used against elephants was opening gaps in the files so the elephants would just go harmlessly through the gaps, rather than charging through the people.
Also, various skirmishers. Mostly slingers iirc.

[Brother Oni]

Never heard that one before. The best method that I'd heard the Romans used against elephants was opening gaps in the files so the elephants would just go harmlessly through the gaps, rather than charging through the people.

I thought the main Roman counter to war elephants were catapult launched flaming pigs?

[Matthew]

Never heard that one before. The best method that I'd heard the Romans used against elephants was opening gaps in the files so the elephants would just go harmlessly through the gaps, rather than charging through the people.

Also, various skirmishers. Mostly slingers iirc.

It is from Vegetius; I do not recall his source offhand, but I think it is extant.

[Yora]

I dont think getting picked up with the trunk is the least likely way to get attacked by an elephant. that's the most vulnerable part of their body and you would most likely be crushed by the feet or slammed with the side of the tusks.

this sounds just as credible as katanas cutting through tanks and knights not beeing able to get up when they fall.

[Conners]

Vegetius wrote it. I see no reason he'd make it up. Mostly, I think you'd need to train the elephants not to do it, if you didn't want them to (the morale effect of elephants tossing guys and horses is probably well worth the risk).

[fusilier]

Vegetius wrote it. I see no reason he'd make it up. Mostly, I think you'd need to train the elephants not to do it, if you didn't want them to (the morale effect of elephants tossing guys and horses is probably well worth the risk).

Wasn't Vegetius writing much later than the Punic Wars? It's possible he was just reporting some other rumor. Look at all the stuff Archimedes supposedly did during the siege of Syracuse.

Anyway, if they were actually picking up soldiers with their trunks (*if*), then they would probably have to use a fair amount of force when grasping, in which case a rather squat cone for a spike might have been sufficient, and not be too dangerous to simply brush against. Just speculation though.

[Matthew]

Well, let us not get carried away. Vegetius is not exactly a fully reliable source, but here is what he actually says on the subject:



ARMED CHARIOTS AND ELEPHANTS

The armed chariots used in war by Antiochus and Mithridates at first terrified the Romans, but they afterwards made a jest of them. As a chariot of this sort does not always meet with plain and level ground, the least obstruction stops it. And if one of the horses be either killed or wounded, it falls into the enemy's hands. The Roman soldiers rendered them useless chiefly by the following contrivance: at the instant the engagement began, they strewed the field of battle with caltrops, and the horses that drew the chariots, running full speed on them, were infallibly destroyed. A caltrop is a machine composed of four spikes or points arranged so that in whatever manner it is thrown on the ground, it rests on three and presents the fourth upright.

Elephants by their vast size, horrible noise and the novelty of their form are at first very terrible both to men and horses. Pyrrhus first used them against the Romans in Lucania. And afterwards Hannibal brought them into the field in Africa. Antiochus in the east and Jugurtha in Numidia had great numbers. Many expedients have been used against them. In Lucania a centurion cut off the trunk of one with his sword. Two soldiers armed from head to foot in a chariot drawn by two horses, also covered with armor, attacked these beasts with lances of great length. They were secured by their armor from the archers on the elephants and avoided the fury of the animals by the swiftness of their horses. Foot soldiers completely armored, with the addition of long iron spikes fixed on their arms, shoulders and helmets, to prevent the elephant from seizing them with his trunk, were also employed against them.

But among the ancients, the velites usually engaged them. They were young soldiers, lightly armed, active and very expert in throwing their missile weapons on horseback. These troops kept hovering round the elephants continually and killed them with large lances and javelins. Afterwards, the soldiers, as their apprehensions decreased, attacked them in a body and, throwing their javelins together, destroyed them by the multitude of wounds. Slingers with round stones from the fustibalus and sling killed both the men who guided the elephants and the soldiers who fought in the towers on their backs. This was found by experience to be the best and safest expedient. At other times on the approach of these beasts, the soldiers opened their ranks and let them pass through. When they got into the midst of the troops, who surrounded them on all sides, they were captured with their guards unhurt.

Large balistae, drawn on carriages by two horses or mules, should be placed in the rear of the line, so that when the elephants come within reach they may be transfixed with the darts. The balistae should be larger and the heads of the darts stronger and broader than usual, so that the darts may be thrown farther, with greater force and the wounds be proportioned to the bodies of the beasts. It was proper to describe these several methods and contrivances employed against elephants, so that it may be known on occasion in what manner to oppose those prodigious animals.

[Galloglaich]

Wow that is a really cool template for RPGs... spiked armor and everything! Right here you have the methods believed by the late Romans at any rate, to be effective against very large, dangerous animals. Which could be extrapolated for dragons or all kinds of other beasts. Neat stuff!

G

[eulmanis12]

use of siege artillery against elephants. I like it. strikes me as an ancient anti-tank gun for taking down and ancient tank.

[Conners]

On this awesome theme, question about ancient artillery (catapults, balistas, etc.): If you did have a dragon or other flying monster... how hard would it be to hit them with catapults, ballistas, etc. while they're in flight?

Also, how fast do ballista bolts and catapult stones fly, in comparison to arrows?

[ForzaFiori]

On this awesome theme, question about ancient artillery (catapults, balistas, etc.): If you did have a dragon or other flying monster... how hard would it be to hit them with catapults, ballistas, etc. while they're in flight?

Also, how fast do ballista bolts and catapult stones fly, in comparison to arrows?

I'm not sure, but I've heard that hunting birds is very difficult, due to speed at which they fly making them hard to hit. I would assume that the added bulk of siege engine would make aiming more difficult, however once it got closer the size might help you hit it. Though at that point it could probably also hit YOU.

[eulmanis12]

I'm not sure, but I've heard that hunting birds is very difficult, due to speed at which they fly making them hard to hit. I would assume that the added bulk of siege engine would make aiming more difficult, however once it got closer the size might help you hit it. Though at that point it could probably also hit YOU.

I can speak from experiance that hunting birds in the air is very difficult but not impossible. With siege equipment its harder to aim, but your target is bigger, so it might balance out.

I'd compare using siege weapons against a flying dragon or similar to using WWII era anti aircraft weapons. about 1 in 10000 shells actually made contact with their targets. (this figure is for impact triggered shells, proximity fused shells and timed shells were not supposed to make contact with their targets)
Since you are firing a single shot and harder to aim weapon your accuracy will decrease making the shot more difficult, but your target will be much larger than a single engine fighter or bomber and will be flying at a slower velocity, which probably balances this out. Statisticly, speaking, rolling 3 natural twenties in a row (1 in 8000) would equate to a single hit, any other result is a miss.

as such, you are probably better off waiting for the dragon to get bored and land, or shooting at it with a less cumbersome weapon. For instance, I am not by any means an expert archer(I barely pass for amateur), but I can hit a moving target fairly regularly. I'd assume that a trained soldier(being a much better shot than I am) would be able to at least hit a dragon sized target with at least one in 3 arrows.

[Galloglaich]

I'm not sure, but I've heard that hunting birds is very difficult, due to speed at which they fly making them hard to hit. I would assume that the added bulk of siege engine would make aiming more difficult, however once it got closer the size might help you hit it. Though at that point it could probably also hit YOU.

There was a very popular Medieval sport, called "shooting the popinjay". Popinjay meant parrot... in this case, a wooden 'parrot' which could sometimes be some other target. They have some surviving ones which were made to fall apart in different pieces, with each piece revealing the prize written on it. It is still practiced in Belgium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popinjay_%28sport%29

The purpose seems to be, at least in part, to train people to shoot at aerial targets.

This is my favorite one, guild members from Krakow shooting with crossbows, 1505 AD (Balthasar Behem Codex Picturatus)

http://www.arbaletriers-vise.be/photos/big-phototir.jpg

It was also very popular in the Middle East and Central Asia.

From a 15th Century Arabic Manuscript

http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/ConsulterElementNum?O=7920073&E=JPEG&Deb=1&Fin=1&Param=B

Ottoman Sultan shooting, also 15th C

http://www.ee.bilkent.edu.tr/~history/Pictures1/im40.jpg

[Galloglaich]

These are Ukranian Cossacks shooting the popinjay on the cover of this famous Polish novel, not sure the name of the source painting (which is probably 19th Century I'm going to guess)

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51jSCewWSML._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

In Europe this practice was studied by dedicated archers guilds and crossbowmens guilds like the St. Sebastian guilds in Flanders.

G

[Matthew]

Wow that is a really cool template for RPGs... spiked armor and everything! Right here you have the methods believed by the late Romans at any rate, to be effective against very large, dangerous animals. Which could be extrapolated for dragons or all kinds of other beasts. Neat stuff!

Yeah, it is a nice passage and puts me in mind of a famous local legend, "The Lambton Worm", but it should probably be noted that the devices referred to in the second passage all seem to be connected to Lucania, which is the most legendary of the instances involved (and, indeed, the source of the phrase "a Pyrrhic victory").

[Conners]

With the various weapon archetypes, what situation would make you prefer one over the other?

To be more clear, the archetypes are swords, axes, maces, spears, knives, poleaxes, and large axes and swords (just to be general).

Based off the earlier discussion, spears are generally the best pick (specially for the start of a battle). But what situations would you prefer a sword, or an axe? In particular, I'm not sure why to use an axe instead of a sword, or viceversa.

[Spiryt]

The painting is by Brandt, indeed 19th century (1885) then.


http://grafik.rp.pl/grafika2/448420,461651,16.jpg


How did tribes and Dark Age societies raise armies? The tribes of Britain and Germany tended to raise huge numbers of fighting men--so did the Native Americans. Hunting trains a man to use bows and the like very well, but I don't see how it makes you good with spears and axes. Was it simply experience passed down from fighting among tribes, and sparring?

Spears of some kind would actually be very common for hunting as well.

Bears, boars and other big, fierce animals tended to be hunted by spears, often specifically prepared ones, and javelins.

Generally a lot of big animals would be damn hard to stop by just arrows.

Modern hunters use some elaborate camouflage to have certain hit to open some major artery with cutting arrow, without being detected, but hunting in Dark Ages didn't look like that.

[Chookster]

With the various weapon archetypes, what situation would make you prefer one over the other?

To be more clear, the archetypes are swords, axes, maces, spears, knives, poleaxes, and large axes and swords (just to be general).

Based off the earlier discussion, spears are generally the best pick (specially for the start of a battle). But what situations would you prefer a sword, or an axe? In particular, I'm not sure why to use an axe instead of a sword, or viceversa.

And axe is a bitch of a weapon to use in formation, most fighting styles with it involves wide sweeping chops which increases the space between soldiers in a line. thus when a line of axemen (#) faces a line of men with stabbing weapons like short swords (*) you get this

# # # # # # #

*************

Every axemen is out numbered three to one and cant practically support other members in their line, its even worse if the swordsmen have a line f spearmen behind them.

From horseback is a different story, an axemen swinging from above can deliver a pretty tremendous amount of force behind the blow, on the other hand though some axe types have a tendency to get tangled up inside their target which can be pretty problematic if you're on a horse.

Hope that helps :)

[Spiryt]

Can't recall any sort of soldiers ever, at least in Europe, that would form any line of warrior uniformly equipped with axes of any kind...

Which is kind of a point, one handed axe tended to be 'personal' weapons for situations outside thigh formations and pressed battle.

[Dienekes]

The Franks were supposed to normally carry axes for a time. Though they were used for throwing.

[Conners]

Hmm... historically, when were one-handed axes used? If they're no good in formations, I'm not sure when they'd see use.

With large axes, I can imagine them being used on the flanks, or shock troops using them strategically.

[Brother Oni]

Hmm... historically, when were one-handed axes used? If they're no good in formations, I'm not sure when they'd see use.


Skirmish fighting or on things like raids. I believe the vikings were fond of them and I remember reading a record of the Battle of Stamford Bridge where supposedly a single viking armed with a large axe managed to hold back the Saxon army at a bridge (until a saxon got him with a spear from under the bridge by floating down the river in a barrel).

[Spiryt]

Hmm... historically, when were one-handed axes used? If they're no good in formations, I'm not sure when they'd see use.



If no in formations, then out of formations - pretty easy. :smallbiggrin:

There's also nothing indicating that they couldn't be useful in close quarters, after it's too close for spears etc. or they get lost or broken


Just that formation of guys uniformly with one handed axes as primary weapons doesn't make any sense. And things like that indeed weren't common sight at all.

They could also often be riders weapon. Particularly czekans and similar axes of Avars, Khazars and other steppe riders.

See the legend of Robert the Bruce at Bannockburn, as well.

[Matthew]

I would not go so far as to say they were no good in formation fighting. Bearing in mind that Polybius recommends a frontage of six feet for individual combatants using swords, there seems to be every possibility of them being used in formation. The basic issue is that in a close formation you have limited room, and that can potentially restrict the variety of use a weapon can be put to; swords are very versatile, meaning they will likely have the edge.

[Galloglaich]

Just wanted to share a couple of new fencing videos with the group, hope that is ok.

Martin Fabian of Slovakia. Love his krumph and his Kron.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SoCRiETBsE

And Gladiatoria from Germany, same beautiful technique they always show, now at something more like fencing speed. Superb Absetzen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBwa6NgrQL4&feature=share


G

[Storm Bringer]

the second was quite cool, though i can't get the first link to work form my location (germany).

[Galloglaich]

With regards to militias and professional soldiers, how different was it in the Byzantine Empire? It seems the Byzantines had a much stronger central government than most of Europe. Did the old roman system of professional standing armies survive there?

Yes, for quite a while, though they also increasingly used a lot of mercenaries. Sometimes the line was a bit blurred, such as with the Varangian Guard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangian_Guard), who were notoriously the most loyal bodyguards of the Emperor, despite being foreigners (originally Norse, later men from the British Isles).

Who were, incidentaly, noted for using axes.

Due to the particularly vicious nature of Byzantine politics the professional military and it's various commanders rarely enjoyed trust and couldn't always count on each other even when facing common enemies. Under a strong Emperor however the Byzantine armies (and Navy) could be quite formidable.

G

[Avilan the Grey]

The Franks were supposed to normally carry axes for a time. Though they were used for throwing.

Really?

The Saxons used them, as well as vikings: Harold had troops (his huscarls, elite troops) in formation using 2-handed axes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dane_Axe).

[Storm Bringer]

Really?

The Saxons used them, as well as vikings: Harold had troops (his huscarls, elite troops) in formation using 2-handed axes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dane_Axe).

oh, indeed. The francisca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisca), which was a national weapon as distinct as the roman use of the galdius.

[eulmanis12]

With vikings, one handed axes were often used in line however very few groups of men were armed with uniforemed weapons.

They were grouped by village or by ships crew, and used whatever weapon they were most comfortable with.

here is a small sample "unit" and I use the term loosley.

Sven a simple farmer who fights with spear and shield
Snorri who favors his sword "Crow Feeder"
Olaf, an accoplished raider who fights with a two handed axe and wears a mail byrnie
Ivar the village chieftain who fights with a one handed axe, a shield, and his mail byrnie
Rorik and Bjorn, the Chieftain's huscarls who both like to fight with sword and shield, both of them own leather jerkins
Stenkil who fights with a spear and shield, but carries a hand axe for backup
Halfdan who is an accomplished archer
and Harold who carries a hand axe a shield and owns a leather jerkin

Some weapons would be more common than others, but the only standard item would be the round shield that every man carries. Those who fight with two handed weapons commonly let the shield hang from a leather strap and protect their back.

[rrgg]

On the subject of axes

The Bayeux tapestry shows the two-handed axe wielders began the battle with a spear, shield, and sword like everyone else but also carried a great axe in their shield hand.

The axe doesn't show up as a uniform primary weapon for much the same reasons that a sword doesn't. Especially during the dark ages the general additude seems to have been "bring whatever you can just in case you need it." Among the vikings a man's wealth didn't seem to determine what weapons he brought so much as how many. A poor man might carry just a seax and a one-handed axe or spear while the wealthy man might be loaded down with a knife, axe, spear, sword, throwing weapons, armor, more spears, etc.

Personally, it seems to me that a 1h sword and axe could fulfill the same roles as a sidearm pretty well, but the ancients clearly saw a distinct difference between them so I don't know. Perhaps it made a better last ditch throwing weapon (one story tells of a viking warrior impaled by an enemy spear then use the small axe hidden behind his shield to get revenge on his assailant), or perhaps it performed a similar role as the short sword in a japanese samurai's arsenal.

[Storm Bringer]

a big difference is cost, in that a axe, with it's smaller metal head, required much less effort and skill form a smith to make, and ergo was much cheaper. it is, and has always been hard to make a good sword, so good swords are expensive, ergo the association of swords with the (noble) hero.

[GraaEminense]

Regarding axes:

We have viking and medieval laws from Norway and Denmark regarding the equipment of the Leidang (basically the Home Defense Force, a number of farms were supposed to equip and man a warship together).

In Norway, every man was required to carry 3 "people's arms": spear, shield, sword or axe. The ship should also carry a number of bows with arrows.

In Denmark, a similar law required spear, sword and helmet, as well as a crossbow for the captain. No axes even mentioned (or shields, strangely enough).

In neither case (and these are viking states!) is the axe considered the main weapon -in Denmark it's not even mentioned, in Norway it's an alternative to the sword as secondary weapon. Spears are obviously more important, even to vikings.

[Knaight]

In neither case (and these are viking states!) is the axe considered the main weapon -in Denmark it's not even mentioned, in Norway it's an alternative to the sword as secondary weapon. Spears are obviously more important, even to vikings.
That's not surprising. The idea of vikings being a heavily axe using force is a very recent one, not borne out by historical evidence. Look at the sagas, where spears show up all the time, consider how there are several distinct forms of viking spear heads, suggesting that the spear was a primary weapon that saw heavy evolution. Consider how vikings had some particularly effective spears - the viking hewing spear is an impressive weapon, though admittedly I'm biased on that point as it is what I personally spar with.

[GraaEminense]

Tangent time!

I have done a bit of looking (not exhaustive research, mind) at spearheads and most of them (including the big 'hewing' ones) are clearly meant for rather thin shafts and have seemingly weak necks -not likely to take the kind of abuse a 2-handed hewing spear will.

I'm currently experimenting with using one of these as a one-handed spear, but it is impractically heavy. Most of the practical hewing spears I've seen have thick necks and shafts, but I'm not sure that the archaeological record supports this.

If you don't mind, I'd like to know what kind of hewing spear you're using? If it's heavy I'd be happy for good source material (if any), if it's light I'd love to know how you keep it from breaking with repeated use.

[Knaight]

I'm currently experimenting with using one of these as a one-handed spear, but it is impractically heavy. Most of the practical hewing spears I've seen have thick necks and shafts, but I'm not sure that the archaeological record supports this.

If you don't mind, I'd like to know what kind of hewing spear you're using? If it's heavy I'd be happy for good source material (if any), if it's light I'd love to know how you keep it from breaking with repeated use.

Mine feels pretty light to me, provided that I use it in both hands. As a one handed weapon, it is cumbersome, but that has a lot more to do with torque due to gravity than weight. The spears here (http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_spear.htm)* are kind of close, but I'd make a few major points regarding what I've found to work, and what doesn't work.

First, I'd note that spears being tapered somewhat is really, really important. You can't just take a dowel rod, sand down the end a bit, and stick a spear head on - the balance is going to be pretty awful if you do. Secondly, I generally favor having some sort of counterweight, and these are all over the historical record. It's not all that important when using a spar in both hands, but it helps with the occasional one handed lunge. I'd suggest that tapering of some degree was commonplace as well - take a look at the diameter of the sockets of counterweights relative to the sockets of spear heads. Also, notice how both of them generally taper to some extent. If you assume that the outside of the spear up to the socket forms a near continuous line with the socket, with the part in the socket carved down to fit, that produces a wider spear.

Then there's the matter of usage - generally speaking hewing spears don't see that much harder use. The big swings that people tend to imagine them being used with have a tendency to be unhelpful and see little use, and while you can cut with them they are still mostly thrusting weapons, with cutting being more useful for opening up viable thrusting points than anything else. Even a comparatively thin spear, assuming that the wood grain is going in the right direction and you're using a decent wood, can handle this use, easily. Mine is about 7/8 an inch in diameter where it meets the socket, and 1 1/8 where it meets the socket of the counterweight, it's held up to a lot of abuse, including heavy people topping over on it while I was holding it fairly high up.

*Hurstwic is variably reliable. From what I've seen, they generally have the viking saga's translated well, and their pictures of historical artifacts are quite good, with the modern reproductions being okay. That said, when it comes to how weapons were actually used I'd look elsewhere.

[Matthew]

The Bayeux tapestry shows the two-handed axe wielders began the battle with a spear, shield, and sword like everyone else but also carried a great axe in their shield hand.

Does it? I have never noticed that before. Are we able to identify individuals armed with spear and shield later wielding an axe? I have looked pretty closely at the images over the years and have never noticed a depiction of a spear and an axe being carried at the same time.

[kardar233]

Two things:

Firstly, I'm playing a character that uses a glaive-like weapon with a head like a longsword blade. The only fighting style I know of that would be similar is naginata, but that's significantly different than what I'm looking for. Does anyone know how I'd use such a weapon?

And secondly, how useful is a H2/O2 mixture as an explosive? I have a character who makes use of water electrolysis to make that combination and am considering using it for artillery shells, but I'm not sure how effective it would be. For reference, I'm in the Iron Kingdoms steampunk setting.

[rrgg]

Does it? I have never noticed that before. Are we able to identify individuals armed with spear and shield later wielding an axe? I have looked pretty closely at the images over the years and have never noticed a depiction of a spear and an axe being carried at the same time.

I unfortunately can't post pictures right now but i believe it was the huscarl farthest left at the first shield wall. Suggesting at least one of them did it that way.

Nearby are a couple of saxons each holding a handful of spears in a similar manner.

[Matthew]

I unfortunately can't post pictures right now but i believe it was the huscarl farthest left at the first shield wall. Suggesting at least one of them did it that way.

Nearby are a couple of saxons each holding a handful of spears in a similar manner.

Ha! Oh yes, so he is. I never noticed that before. Very interesting!

[Thiel]

Two things:

Firstly, I'm playing a character that uses a glaive-like weapon with a head like a longsword blade. The only fighting style I know of that would be similar is naginata, but that's significantly different than what I'm looking for. Does anyone know how I'd use such a weapon?
Something like this?
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/20969954/Odds%20and%20ends/dsc01317_843.jpg
That's a Swedish sword-staff and I imagine it's used much like any other glaive-like polearm.


And secondly, how useful is a H2/O2 mixture as an explosive? I have a character who makes use of water electrolysis to make that combination and am considering using it for artillery shells, but I'm not sure how effective it would be. For reference, I'm in the Iron Kingdoms steampunk setting.
Not very. In order to get any kind of serious bang you'd need pressurise the mixture and that means the shells will have to double as pressure vessels which would overly expensive with current technology, let alone what might be available in a steam-punked Victorian setting. And I doubt it would be any more energetic than a shell filled with gunpowder. It would also be a good deal more dangerous to store since they would have to be filled and fused at the factory.

[kardar233]

Precisely like that. I don't have a clue how to use a glaive, though. I've done quarterstaff and a bit of halberd, but nothing of that type. I might just end up using it in its shortened, sword-like form.

Cost is no object for the shells (I tax the biggest sea trade route and the second and fourth biggest land routes) especially as I'm making them for a one-off specialty 'jack. The Iron Kingdoms tech base isn't quite robust enough to cool and compress the mixture down to liquid, so I'd think you're right in that a pressurized gas explosive would be less effective than just packing it with gunpowder. If I condensed them down to liquid form I might be able to squeeze more power out of it. I might have to look into trying to invent Dewar's regenerative cooling system, as the cooling will be the problem (pressurization shouldn't be an issue in a steampunk game).

[Thiel]

Precisely like that. I don't have a clue how to use a glaive, though. I've done quarterstaff and a bit of halberd, but nothing of that type. I might just end up using it in its shortened, sword-like form.

Cost is no object for the shells (I tax the biggest sea trade route and the second and fourth biggest land routes) especially as I'm making them for a one-off specialty 'jack. The Iron Kingdoms tech base isn't quite robust enough to cool and compress the mixture down to liquid, so I'd think you're right in that a pressurized gas explosive would be less effective than just packing it with gunpowder. If I condensed them down to liquid form I might be able to squeeze more power out of it. I might have to look into trying to invent Dewar's regenerative cooling system, as the cooling will be the problem (pressurization shouldn't be an issue in a steampunk game).

I don't think you're grasping just how expensive those shells are going to be. Given the technology of the day the shells would easily cost as much as the gun that fires them..

[kardar233]

I am the third (maybe fourth) richest person in the campaign world at the moment, and this is for my personal all-in-one 'jack-o'-doom. Cost is no object.

[Thiel]

I am the third (maybe fourth) richest person in the campaign world at the moment, and this is for my personal all-in-one 'jack-o'-doom. Cost is no object.

Just to get things straight you're saying that you'd rather use shells that are less dangerous to your enemies, more dangerous to yourself and cost more than the gun that fires them.

[Dead_Jester]

Cost is no object for the shells (I tax the biggest sea trade route and the second and fourth biggest land routes) especially as I'm making them for a one-off specialty 'jack. The Iron Kingdoms tech base isn't quite robust enough to cool and compress the mixture down to liquid, so I'd think you're right in that a pressurized gas explosive would be less effective than just packing it with gunpowder. If I condensed them down to liquid form I might be able to squeeze more power out of it. I might have to look into trying to invent Dewar's regenerative cooling system, as the cooling will be the problem (pressurization shouldn't be an issue in a steampunk game).

The IK setting allows you to more or less "cheat" your way out of this by actually creating cold to liquefy your gazes. And yes, and O2/H2 bomb would probably be much less effective than a similar sized gunpowder bomb. However, a thermobaric explosive could be used instead if you want a larger damage radius than standard explosives, although finding appropriate fuel (powdered aluminium or magnesium works well) could be difficult due to the standard soil composition the setting. I'd say aluminium is your best bet, as it's a very common element (on Earth, the third after hydrogen and silicon), as long as you can get enough electricity to do it. Again, you can cheat here, but the concept of electric turbines isn't too far fetched, and coal is extremely abundant if you prefer to do it the old-fashioned way.

[Mistral]

The IK setting allows you to more or less "cheat" your way out of this by actually creating cold to liquefy your gazes. And yes, and O2/H2 bomb would probably be much less effective than a similar sized gunpowder bomb. However, a thermobaric explosive could be used instead if you want a larger damage radius than standard explosives, although finding appropriate fuel (powdered aluminium or magnesium works well) could be difficult due to the standard soil composition the setting. I'd say aluminium is your best bet, as it's a very common element (on Earth, the third after hydrogen and silicon), as long as you can get enough electricity to do it. Again, you can cheat here, but the concept of electric turbines isn't too far fetched, and coal is extremely abundant if you prefer to do it the old-fashioned way.

Aluminium may be abundant, but it's also worth noting that it's ludicrously expensive in any pre-modern setting because it bonds ridiculously quickly, making extraction a metric pain. I'm not familiar with Iron Kingdoms, but unless they have the Bayer or Hall processes, it's going to be more expensive than platinum. Even today, aluminium production is tremendously energy-intensive, for all that it's cheap in bulk. In other words, this kind of weapon is like snorting powdered platinum, something not even the richest person in the world would undertake lightly.

Cheaper possible ways for thermobarics: coal dust. The very first thermobarics used coal dust as the key ingredient, and given the historical (and modern) frequency of coal mining accidents before these principles were well-understood, it's fairly clear why. Firedamp is bad enough, but when it goes off, it can shake enough dust free that the explosion will propagate throughout the entire mine. I think this is what you were already alluding to, but it's worth outlining it.

[Avilan the Grey]

That's not surprising. The idea of vikings being a heavily axe using force is a very recent one, not borne out by historical evidence. Look at the sagas, where spears show up all the time, consider how there are several distinct forms of viking spear heads, suggesting that the spear was a primary weapon that saw heavy evolution. Consider how vikings had some particularly effective spears - the viking hewing spear is an impressive weapon, though admittedly I'm biased on that point as it is what I personally spar with.

Oh the spear is the number one weapon, but what I was saying is that both the Saxons and the Vikings HAD troops that fought with two-handed axes in formation. In both cases it also often were the houscarls, the "elite bodyguards".

Also, one thing is clear: with a two-handed axe (unlike a two-handed sword) you are really only effective if you can keep up the offense. As soon as you start having to block and parry, you are at a serious disadvantage. The main reason is that a trained two-handed axe man (for lack of a better term) uses the axe almost like a scythe, rotating and spinning it and the opponent was never sure exactly in what angle it would strike (from the side, from above, or even from below).

Here is a slow example to show what it looked like (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hksg6keSRRQ).

Here is another. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgu6L6HHHvw)

[Spiryt]

Here is a slow example to show what it looked like (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hksg6keSRRQ).

Here is another. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgu6L6HHHvw)

First example is some warming up drill, exercise, show off, and general 'side' activity, obviously no one would seriously attempt anything like that in fight.

The guy from that group says so in the comments too.

The second one is slow-motion of some plausible situations, we can only guess.

[Knaight]

Oh the spear is the number one weapon, but what I was saying is that both the Saxons and the Vikings HAD troops that fought with two-handed axes in formation. In both cases it also often were the houscarls, the "elite bodyguards".

I was mostly clarifying for the lurkers. As for those videos, the first is a general weapon balance practice and warmup, and the second looks questionably plausible (The guy with the longer axe never took advantage of his reach, his upper hand barely moved on the shaft, and there were a few other flaws that make me doubt the authenticity).

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Quick question: Would studded leather armor be the statistical equivalent of brigandine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigandine) armor? Also, what would be the statistical equivalent of a pavise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavise)? A heavy wooden shield? A tower shield?

I basically want to play this (http://m2tw.warlore.org/units/Genoese_Crossbowmen), but don't know how to outfit the guy.

[NineThePuma]

Quick question: Would studded leather armor be the statistical equivalent of brigandine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigandine) armor? Also, what would be the statistical equivalent of a pavise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavise)? A heavy wooden shield? A tower shield?

I basically want to play this (http://m2tw.warlore.org/units/Genoese_Crossbowmen), but don't know how to outfit the guy.

Brigandine armor was included in AD&D 2nd Ed; it offered identical protection to scale mail, so I would say that you use that and fluff it appropriately.

The pavise is clearly a tower shield.

[eulmanis12]

Quick question: Would studded leather armor be the statistical equivalent of brigandine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigandine) armor? Also, what would be the statistical equivalent of a pavise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavise)? A heavy wooden shield? A tower shield?

I basically want to play this (http://m2tw.warlore.org/units/Genoese_Crossbowmen), but don't know how to outfit the guy.

brigandine armor would be closer to chain I think. As for the shield a tower shield should would be a close approximation.

[Matthew]

Quick question: Would studded leather armor be the statistical equivalent of brigandine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigandine) armor? Also, what would be the statistical equivalent of a pavise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavise)? A heavy wooden shield? A tower shield?

I basically want to play this (http://m2tw.warlore.org/units/Genoese_Crossbowmen), but don't know how to outfit the guy.

As NineThePuma suggests, though studded armour would be fine.

[NineThePuma]

(Oh, and a random additional note; if anyone in here has an alternate suggestion, they are totally more likely to be right than me, as I didn't even look up what Brigandine is beyond grabbing my 2nd ED AD&D PHB.

Additionally, Hide offered the same benefits as Scale/Brigandine, so make of that what you will.)

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Hmmm...according to what I'm reading, Pathfinder's "Armored Coat" armor may be the best approximation...:smallconfused:

EDIT: Actually, it seems with Ultimate Combat they included "Brigandine" in a sense, with the kikko armor. So I can just use the stats for those. Incidentally, would the crossbow held by that guy in the picture I linked be a heavy or light crossbow?

[NineThePuma]

Probably a light crossbow.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Excellent! Thanks guys! :smallsmile:

[Chromascope3D]

Does anyone know what armor Filipino warriors used? Google has images of plated chainmail, but I was wondering if there were any other types. Also, what that armor was called.

Pathfinder has choices for Eastern weapons and armors, but it's all practically Chinese and Japanese, which is sad, because the Philippines had some really cool looking weapons.

[Yora]

In Denmark, an excarvation has discovered the remains of 200 warriors who had been dumped into a bog, including weapons, which are estimated to be about 2000 years old. The bogs in Jutland and southern Sweden have some of the best conditions anywhere in the world to preserve organic remains, so this should be really quite interesting. I think this could be quite exiting when they release the first detailed reports.

[Spiryt]

Brigadine should be probably closest to scale or one of 'banded' "splint" shenanigans, but really, breastplate stats would be alright as well.

And if the rest of a body is armored as well - full plate. Seeing that this was pretty much as brigandine was often used in late 15th century....

For the record though, there's absolutely no point or need of equipping "Genoese crossbowmen" necessary with brigandine, the description is pretty much standard MTW crap, made up out whole cloth. :smallwink:

The biggest problem is obviously a crossbow - they're such a poor weapon in 3.5 D&D at least, that it's hard to build solid character using it.

[Matthew]

Right, looking more closely at the link, banded armour would probably be the better fit for what is being presented. It is hard to tell because they have "mail armour" (5) and "heavy mail armour" (7) and seem fairly indiscriminate about how they assign them, with Saxon Huscarls having the former and Norman Knights the latter.

[Galloglaich]

In Denmark, an excarvation has discovered the remains of 200 warriors who had been dumped into a bog, including weapons, which are estimated to be about 2000 years old. The bogs in Jutland and southern Sweden have some of the best conditions anywhere in the world to preserve organic remains, so this should be really quite interesting. I think this could be quite exiting when they release the first detailed reports.

Cool!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2188532/Remains-hundreds-warriors-died-violent-battle-2-000-years-ago-Danish-bog.html

http://news.discovery.com/history/army-danish-bog-120816.html

G

[Yora]

Why do all the sites copy-past the whole content, including the image caption "caused by a spear or an arrow"?
What kind of arrow punches a 5cm hole through a cranium?

[Conners]

Well, I guess you could suppose that the arrow made a smaller hole, but the hole got bigger due to deterioration...? Not sure.

[Xuc Xac]

Why do all the sites copy-past the whole content, including the image caption "caused by a spear or an arrow"?
What kind of arrow punches a 5cm hole through a cranium?

Any kind that's traveling fast enough to be lethal but not fast enough to poke a precise hole the exact size of the arrowhead and shaft.

[Spiryt]

That looks like some heavy arrow head could indeed mainly crumble the skull, and then loose parts fell apart getting lost and not preserved...

But some other source is probably more likely.

[a_humble_lich]

That looks like some heavy arrow head could indeed mainly crumble the skull, and then loose parts fell apart getting lost and not preserved...


Alternately, they were fighting a previously unknown race of giants who had 5cm thick arrows. But I guess your solution is more likely.

[Xuc Xac]

Or they used broadheads. You guys know that the hole is made by the head of the arrow and not the shaft, right? The head can be bigger than the shaft.

[Ashtagon]

Can someone chime in on this: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13757190

[Yora]

Regarding the original question: I think the reason to give bastard sword stats to the katana was "It's larger than a one handed sword, but smaller than the two-handed swords usually seen in western fantasy." That's probably all there is to it.
Also, while the katana is a two-handed sword, it is possible to use it with only one hand. There were even a few swordsmen said to fight with one in each hand. And it is a common misconception that "one and a half sword" means a sword that can be used with either one or two hands, resulting in the term bastard sword.

Another question: Is there any military use of the trident? I only know it from roman gladiators and they were using equipment puposly designed to be impractical to keep things interesting.
Also poseidon had a trident, but there's lots of gods who are actually holding tools rather than weapons.

[Galloglaich]

See military fork.


G

[Ashtagon]

Regarding the original question: I think the reason to give bastard sword stats to the katana was "It's larger than a one handed sword, but smaller than the two-handed swords usually seen in western fantasy." That's probably all there is to it.
Also, while the katana is a two-handed sword, it is possible to use it with only one hand. There were even a few swordsmen said to fight with one in each hand. ...


My point that was lost in the initial debate over how "longsword" was misused in the earliest D&D editions and that the misuse got carried forwards.

A katana blade is comparable to, and in fact slightly shorter than, the true medieval one-handed blade weapons (the arming sword).

I'm not aware of any historical warrior who dual-wielded katana. Katana and wakizashi together, yes. But not two katana.

[Yora]

Long sword can be pretty much anything. It just needs to be a sword that is rather on the long side of what people in a given time and place are thinking of as "normal sword size".

[Ashtagon]

Long sword can be pretty much anything. It just needs to be a sword that is rather on the long side of what people in a given time and place are thinking of as "normal sword size".

What about comparing katana to arming swords?

[Chromascope3D]

Pathfinder uses a different set of stats

It's given a 1d8 of damage, 18-20/x2, and has a +4 to coup de gras.

I, personally, prefer these stats. The Katana was a weapon meant for slicing flesh. A longsword is different, being straight and double edged, thus it would have a different set of stats. You can easily force a European sword through plate armor (If the armor in question is prostrate or otherwise not moving). A katana, not so much. Because it's so good at cutting flesh, though, of course it should have a higher crit range. The coup de gras bonus also makes sense because it was so good at executing kneeling peasants. Also ne'er-do-wells, I guess. :smallwink:

You could apply bastard sword stats to a katana, but I personally wouldn't because they're two completely different types of sword with different strengths and weaknesses.

[Conners]

Even prostate plate which is stuck down... I really question how easy it'd be to shove something through it. Maybe a pike, but I doubt a sword.

Methinks the differences between European and Japanese swords are exaggerated.

[Dead_Jester]

The coup de gras bonus also makes sense because it was so good at executing kneeling peasants. Also ne'er-do-wells, I guess. :smallwink:

This makes little sense; any weapon, hell almost anything works surprisingly well to kill a helpless opponent, and small, thin weapons tend to work better unless you are trying to go for spectacular results (cutting off or severely crushing parts of the body); daggers have through history been the favored weapon for such acts (notably the misericorde) because they make it easier to bypass the armor and get to the fleshy bits, as well as being easier to use in extremely close quarters. A full length sword, especially a slashing sword like a katana, is not good at avoiding armor, and although it can be quite sharp, you don't need it to be when you are hitting an immobile, helpless and unarmored target, as your weapon will, in most probability, go straight through if it is at least the size of a large knife. Furthermore, a katana is extremely difficult to use effectively (to make a cutting motion) against a target who isn't upright or at least raised from the ground (you'll end up hitting the object through the target, and probably end up with a chopping, rather than cutting motion, for which you want a weapon balanced further towards the blade). As such, it makes little sense for katanas to get bonuses on coup de grace attempts, especially if other, more suitable weapons, don't.

On the subject of stabbing through and immobile, supported breastplate, I am fairly confident any decent spearhead should be up to the task; half-swording was a credible threat, and the impact area of the average spear is only slightly bigger, especially in the case of top or back spikes for polearms.

[Chromascope3D]

This makes little sense; any weapon, hell almost anything works surprisingly well to kill a helpless opponent and small, thin weapons tend to work better unless you are trying to go for spectacular results (cutting off or severely crushing parts of the body) daggers have through history been the favored weapon for such acts (notably the misericorde) because they make it easier to bypass the armor and get to the fleshy bits, as well as being easier to use in extremely close quarters.A full length sword, especially a slashing sword like a katana, is not good at avoiding armor, and although it can be quite sharp, you don't need it to be when you are hitting an immobile, helpless and unarmored target, as your weapon will, in most probability, go straight through if it is at least the size of a large knife.
Not necessarily. A weapon has to have heft and power behind it to cleave all the way through. A balanced blade typically wouldn't have the heft required to cleave through a body in one fell swing. Also, why are we arguing about whether a katana could be effective against armor? We both know they weren't and aren't, and a knight could probably mop the floor with a samurai. However, it never came to that, because they never met. The Japanese were generally less armored, making it an ideal land for curved, sharp blades. Also, who says they didn't have their own form of daggers? :smalltongue:


Furthermore, a katana is extremely difficult to use effectively (to make a cutting motion) against a target who isn't upright or at least raised from the ground (you'll end up hitting the object through the target, and probably end up with a chopping, rather than cutting motion, for which you want a weapon balanced further towards the blade).
But a penitent man wouldn't have his head on the ground, and let's face it, the Japanese (I apologize for any offense taken, I was merely stating facts) tend to be shorter than those of the rest of the world, and they'd be closer to the ground and the target than a typical European trying to use it. And yeah, if the executioner stood straight up, knees locked, and swung from straight overhead, then he'd probably run out of blade before he ran out of space (between the blade and the targets flesh, I mean). Thankfully, anyone who's in that position of power probably knows that that's a terrible stance to deliver a powerful blow with, and also that all katanas were drawn from the waist (and were usually swung while being drawn, ending with the sharp edge of the blade facing up).

I never said I liked the katana. I was just trying to explain it to the curious individual. I, like you, hold the sword in distaste because of all the needless praise it gets. However, that doesn't mean I'd give no credit where at least some is due. In medieval Japan, it was a very effective weapon. Would it be that way if all the samurai ran around like European knights? No. But since that wasn't ever the case, arguments that use that as a basis will lose their footing every time. You also lose footing when your argument lacks focus. You made comparisons between multiple weapons against one. Of course the one is going to come out under in the end.

In short, while all weapons are effective in killing a man, some require more effort than others. Since it's implied in roleplaying games that characters expend the same amount of energy in every swing unless told otherwise, it's safe to say that a heavy, sharp (and they were really sharp, their owners made sure of that daily) blade such as katana would have an easier time lopping the head off an individual than a European longsword. That's all I have to and am going to say on that particular matter. I don't fancy waging an inconsequential war about a subject I don't particularly care about with someone I don't know on the internet.

[Conners]

A balanced sword is perfectly adequate for removing someone's topper. You don't need a heavy weapon for that.

Knights mopping the floor with samurai is more complicated than you'd think.

Notably, katanas are secondary weapons on the battlefield. There will be ways of dealing with armour with a katana, but you can't just cut through it.

They would've had daggers. Jester was just pointing out that a dagger should get a bonus for attacks against downed opponents, since that's something the dagger is well-suited for. Katanas are no more suited for hitting downed people than they are hitting upright people.


There isn't need to argue about whether a Katana works well for executions--just, it doesn't work specially well.

Just want to point out that the katana wasn't made to deal with armoured guys (it can, but it's generally stuff like slashing the unarmoured parts). Its use is as a back-up weapon, and for fights with unarmoured people (duels, bandits, etc.).
Jester's point is that the Katana has no extra advantages, when the opponent is down and you're executing them.

Blade sharpness is often misrepresented. If you make a blade too sharp, it gets damaged easily (which also blunts it). The Katana is probably similarly if not equally sharp to other swords across the world.


That's all I have to and am going to say on that particular matter. I don't fancy waging an inconsequential war about a subject I don't particularly care about with someone I don't know on the internet. There's no need to treat the discussion with disdain.

[Spiryt]

Pathfinder uses a different set of stats

It's given a 1d8 of damage, 18-20/x2, and has a +4 to coup de gras.

I, personally, prefer these stats. The Katana was a weapon meant for slicing flesh. A longsword is different, being straight and double edged, thus it would have a different set of stats. You can easily force a European sword through plate armor (If the armor in question is prostrate or otherwise not moving). A katana, not so much. Because it's so good at cutting flesh, though, of course it should have a higher crit range. The coup de gras bonus also makes sense because it was so good at executing kneeling peasants. Also ne'er-do-wells, I guess. :smallwink:


Again and again - define "European Sword" - because since ~ 1300 there's such a richness of forms... Including ones that are very much mostly for slicing flesh.

And you cannot easily force any sword trough plate armor. Just not. There's a dispute if you can at all, let alone easily.

And should it come to this, and someone had to try from whatever reason, most katanas wouldn't be worst choice at all - acute, but compact point, in most cases, thick, stiff spine, and generally no vibrations, and so on.

[gkathellar]

Not necessarily. A weapon has to have heft and power behind it to cleave all the way through. A balanced blade typically wouldn't have the heft required to cleave through a body in one fell swing.

Point one: balance and heft are not mutually exclusive. This is a fundamental misconception about "European" swords vs. "Asian" swords: if you've ever handled a combat steel jian or katana, you'll know that it is heavy. And if you've ever had the pleasure of holding a combat steel arming sword or longsword, you'll know that a well-made one is well balanced exquisitely.

Weight = Power, Weight ≠ Imbalance.

But uh, point two: just about none of these weapons were designed to lop a man's head clean off. Sure, the Japanese sometimes tested the sharpness of their swords by murdering criminals, but if someone's perfectly immobilized, you can cut off anyone head with anything big enough. Cutting off a head when the person's not immobilized is notably more difficult. You slash or stab at someone's neck, odds are you're aiming for the windpipe, the carotid, or the jugular. You stab at someone's belly, the point is not to impale them clean through, it's to cause organ trauma and bleeding. Cut a limb, and your objective to to tear the muscles and tendons, not rip the arm straight off. Heavier weapons can overpower an opponent more effectively, and weight is often a corollary of size and durability, but what weight doesn't do is allow you to cleave through solid metal (armor ain't wet paper, guy), or even really solid person.


Also, why are we arguing about whether a katana could be effective against armor? We both know they weren't and aren't, and a knight could probably mop the floor with a samurai.

I'm not clear on what this statement even means. I think it mean that a cutting edge is largely ineffective against platemail, in which case, yes, that's absolutely correct. But to be fair, most things not specifically designed for use against platemail are ineffective against platemail (at least without a dedicated set of anti-plate techniques).


and also that all katanas were drawn from the waist (and were usually swung while being drawn, ending with the sharp edge of the blade facing up).

Two more things: First, draw cuts are a weapon of last resort, even in kenjutsu, as you never start a fight with your blade sheathed if you can help it. Second, the blade is usually held horizontal after a draw cut, although this obviously varies based on the particulars of the technique employed.

[Matthew]

My point that was lost in the initial debate over how "longsword" was misused in the earliest D&D editions and that the misuse got carried forwards.

It was not really a misuse, so much as that the nomenclature of weaponry has changed, or become more codified, in the meantime. For a game that uses extremely abstracted weapons, the division into "long" and "short" bladed swords was also very practical.

[Yora]

Point one: balance and heft are not mutually exclusive. This is a fundamental misconception about "European" swords vs. "Asian" swords: if you've ever handled a combat steel jian or katana, you'll know that it is heavy. And if you've ever had the pleasure of holding a combat steel arming sword or longsword, you'll know that a well-made one is well balanced exquisitely.

Weight = Power, Weight ≠ Imbalance.
Actually, more weight means more stability. Because of Newtons first law "an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside force". Sometimes this is desirable, as when it makes it more difficult to deflect a blow, and sometimes it's a hinderance, as when you want to abruptly chance the direction of the strike.
And then you have swords in which it is desirable that the tip can move a lot from a small movement by the hand, and others in which you want the tip to stay in place even while changing from a high guard to a low guard.
Lower weight is not always desireable. Think about fighting with a sword that has the weight of a reed or a thin plastic rod. Yes, it's incredibly fast and nimble, but how are you going to really hurt someone with it. You might nick the skin if you can slice through the clothing and there might be a chance to impale the enemy with a thrust. But you need weight to get some real force into a blow.

[Chromascope3D]

Again and again - define "European Sword" - because since ~ 1300 there's such a richness of forms... Including ones that are very much mostly for slicing flesh.
I meant an arming sword. The person wanted to know how it compared to a typical European arming sword, so I answered. The fact that I said "European sword," was just an oversight that I assumed would make sense when read in context.


Blade sharpness is often misrepresented. If you make a blade too sharp, it gets damaged easily (which also blunts it). The Katana is probably similarly if not equally sharp to other swords across the world.
You hit it right on the nail here. The katana as a weapon is very sharp, and is also very brittle and easily blunted. What they don't tell you about the sword is that samurai would spend time daily polishing and sharpening the blade as a work-around. Prolonged swordfights were very rare, presumably because both swordsman knew that swordfights would be terrible for their weapons. I'm not saying they didn't happen, I'm just saying that they weren't as common as most would think.


There's no need to treat the discussion with disdain.
I apologize. It's just that these always start calmly enough, and then escalate quickly. I don't want to be a part of that. I just want to say my piece and be done with it. I'm sorry if I don't explicitly mention each and every point that can be made in its case.

The bonus given to the katana is:

Deadly: When this weapon delivers a coup de grace, it gains +4 to damage when calculating the DC of the Fortitude saving throw to see whether the target of the coup de grace dies from the attack. The bonus is not added to the actual damage of the coup de grace attack.

I don't have enough time at the moment to respond to everything in detail, if any of you aren't satisfied with my answers, I'll be back later.

[Spiryt]

I meant an arming sword. The person wanted to know how it compared to a typical European arming sword, so I answered. The fact that I said "European sword," was just an oversight that I assumed would make sense when read in context.


It ('arming sword') still doesn't really mean anything at all. Just as 'typical'.

Are you familiar with Oakeshott typology, for starters?



You hit it right on the nail here. The katana as a weapon is very sharp, and is also very brittle and easily blunted. What they don't tell you about the sword is that samurai would spend time daily polishing and sharpening the blade as a work-around. Prolonged swordfights were very rare, presumably because both swordsman knew that swordfights would be terrible for their weapons. I'm not saying they didn't happen, I'm just saying that they weren't as common as most would think.



Who are "they"? :smallconfused:

And prolonged (long)sword were rare everywhere anytime, because without shield or armor someone was getting badly hurt really fast.

99% swords out there are going to get damaged, slightly to badly by inappropriate slamming into other swords, armors, and generally substantial things, they are not contruction-work hammers.

Somewhere recently katanas in popular culture are getting from 'cutting tanks' to stuff that falls apart during use. :smallwink:

[Matthew]

Somewhere recently katanas in popular culture are getting from 'cutting tanks' to stuff that falls apart during use. :smallwink:

ha, ha; yes, the pendulum swings too far. :smallbiggrin:

[Yora]

The steel in the edge is brittle. That's why there's always a big block of softer steel in the back of the blade to keep the sword from breaking.
And the edge is brittle because that reduces the amount of resharpening that it needs. Soft steel becomes blunt faster, so you need to sharpen it more often and more agressively. Hardness also increases the chance that you get chinks in the edge that just snap off, while in a softer blade you will get more of a dent, that can be straightened out. But swordfighting is never about bashing blades together edge on edge, because that will damage every sword.

[Spiryt]

The steel in the edge is brittle. That's why there's always a big block of softer steel in the back of the blade to keep the sword from breaking.
And the edge is brittle because that reduces the amount of resharpening that it needs.

That's not really good in any way though....

Rolled, bent, blunted edge can be always get sorted out with more or less wear to it, chinks and breaks in brittle surface are worse, and they may quickly be dangerous to the integrity of whole thing.

Harder is better, but it comes with the price, so most edges were some kind of compromise.

[Yora]

I just learned that it can damage a bow when the string is releaqsed without an arrow to push against. Hadn't though of that, but I can see how that would be.

However, I came upon this sentence:
"Wood bows should only be drawn to the corner of the mouth, unlike conventional bows, they should not be draw to the ear."

Doesn't that entirely depend on the size of the bow and the length of the users arms?

[Spiryt]

It means that bow shouldn't be overdrawn - beyond it's intended weight and lenght, and wooden (self)bows tend to rather vulnerable to abuse, at least compared to modern laminates, carbon/glass fibers and so on.

So it depends what is "conventional" bow here, as selfbows were in fact pretty conventional for good 60 000 years. :smallbiggrin:

[gkathellar]

Actually, more weight means more stability.

Yes, that's uh. That's what I said. Weight is equivalent to Power, but Weight is not equivalent to Imbalance.

[Galloglaich]

Signal to noise ratio is getting a little off around here.

Katanas were / are good swords, effective, dangerous. Different from the wide variety of different types of European swords, not necessarily better or worse. In fact some like certain types of kriegmesser were actually pretty similar in many respects.

All swords can get damaged in combat.

No sword is 'good' against armor.

Spears are effective weapons too. But,

Most spears cannot 'easily' pierce plate armor either, even in a coup-de-grace.

I know it's hard to understand but this is the reality.

G

[Knaight]

Most spears cannot 'easily' pierce plate armor either, even in a coup-de-grace.

Also, if you're in a position to deliver a coup de grace, you are in a position to avoid the armor in the first place. Even if, hypothetically, you could get through the armor easily, you'd be better off not doing so.

[Conners]

In my defence, I didn't mean that a pike/spear could easily get through plate--I just meant that it might be able to get through, if the knight was pinned and unable to move (this is assuming you use this chance to thrust very strongly).



On the note of sharpness... how quickly and badly would blades lose their edge? Would a sword become temporarily useless with a few minutes of front-line battle? Or would it be fine till the end of a battle even with much use? Does blunting/chipping cripple a sword, or is a sword still quite useable even after blunting and chipping?

[Galloglaich]

I think it's usually still usable and can last a while, but it can also break or get a bad ding or bend. In test-cutting I've seen all of the above happen, mostly with somewhat crap swords, but I've also had both high-end (Albion) and low end (Windlass) swords stand up to an amazing amount of abuse for years and years, and it seems to take a fairly long time (several cutting sessions on all kinds of material including wood, bone, and accidentally cutting through a paint can one time) before it gets dull. If you keep them fairly sharp putting the edge back on it doesn't take very long either.

A far more bigger hassle is constantly keeping them lightly oiled and quickly sanding off any trace of rust that appears. Most of us aren't used to dealing with carbon steel, it's not like stainless. You have to keep up with the maintenance. That is why I don't keep more than a couple of blades at any one time, I tend to keep the ones I like the best and give the others away.

I think VERY generally speaking you could probably expect a sword to make it through several fights (I think!). That might mean one battle or half a battle or three or four, or a whole lifetime.

From my experience, striking two sharp swords edge to edge will usually ding at least one of them if not both, which means later it has to be sharpened out, and shortens the lifespan of the blade some. (of course parrying does not always necessarily happen with the edge and you don't even necessarily parry in a fight). With historical / antique swords we do often see evidence of this kind of honing especially near the forte where you are supposed to parry, sometimes they get indented and become a little bit concave there from this. I have an antique (early 19th Century) Tulwar which is concave like that. I like to pretend to myself it is due to being dinged up in battle though who the hell knows.

There are some amusing anecdotes in the Norse sagas where some famous sword gets dinged and the owner get's super angry about it. If I have time later I'll try to find one or maybe someone else can. I remember one where there was a famous sword with a name, and it was lent to a young guy who was in a feud, and he chipped it during a duel, and the guy he borrowed it from (I think his uncle) wanted to kill him!

G

[Galloglaich]

Also, if you're in a position to deliver a coup de grace, you are in a position to avoid the armor in the first place. Even if, hypothetically, you could get through the armor easily, you'd be better off not doing so.

Yes I think that is the point, and quite often done with a misericorde....

Though to be fair, a lance strike at a full gallop does seem to have been able to pierce armor plate sometimes, as do various armor-piercing weapons. Awl-pike for example could be a type of spear that could do that.

And of course it depends on the quality of the armor.

Generally though I think it's always more likely and easier to go around the armor if possible.

G

[Brother Oni]

I just learned that it can damage a bow when the string is releaqsed without an arrow to push against. Hadn't though of that, but I can see how that would be.

It's usually refered to as dry firing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_fire), and is generally very bad for the bow.

All bow manufacturers I can think of, do not have a warranty against dry firing damage, so it's an indication of how destructive it can be.

[Conners]

You know how in movies and with Batman, they manage to disable everyone without killing them fairly quickly and easily? Anyone know much about the reality of this?

A lucky/unlucky hit can kill a person, I'm aware. I've also heard of unconsciousness usually lasting for pretty short amounts of time?

Are there ways to quickly disable a person without killing or crippling them?

[Spiryt]

You know how in movies and with Batman, they manage to disable everyone without killing them fairly quickly and easily? Anyone know much about the reality of this?

A lucky/unlucky hit can kill a person, I'm aware. I've also heard of unconsciousness usually lasting for pretty short amounts of time?

Are there ways to quickly disable a person without killing or crippling them?

That honestly depends on what you mean "by crippling" and how much time you can spent, how long do you want someone disabled and so on....

Hard punch, knee or whatever to the jaw, gut etc. will disable most 'normal' people for a while, and theoretically is not very crippling, but with a bit of bad luck it can be for someone in not so good shape.

Well applied blood choke can put someone unconscious in the matter of seconds, but it won't last long, and can be harmful as well, if victim has cardiovascular problems, for example.

[Kaeso]

How effective were the most early firearms (arquebuse and later musket)? By that I mean how much of a chance would a knight/conquistador wearing plate armor/a breastplate stand when fired upon?

[MickJay]

Best answer would be 'it depends'. Quality and shape of the plate, caliber of the gun, amount of gunpowder used, distance from which the bullet was fired are all variables that need to be taken into account. That's not even considering the accuracy of the earliest guns, which was notoriously bad.

Plate armour certainly did offer a degree of protection, there are examples in museums that have visible dents where a bullet was deflected. High quality armour would often be 'proofed' (a pistol was shot at it, and the resulting dent would attest to the protection the plate offered). On the other hand, there are plenty of pieces of armour that have been pierced by bullets as well.

[Spiryt]

How effective were the most early firearms (arquebuse and later musket)? By that I mean how much of a chance would a knight/conquistador wearing plate armor/a breastplate stand when fired upon?

Hard to tell for sure, but there are quite a bit of period sources, together with breastplates dented by bullets and modern tests.

All this would hugely depends on bullet velocity, mass together with qualities and thickness of armor, then angle, and all other usual factors.

Generally, it is believed that with well made and operated musket, significant distance (100 yards+) would be needed for breastplate etc. to hold up.

Between 16th and 17th century, some of the heaviest personal armor were being employed by heavy cavalry, able to withstand even very hard hits, but were eventually discarded as well.


http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1313/860506297_99f7b169ab.jpg

[Storm Bringer]

How effective were the most early firearms (arquebuse and later musket)? By that I mean how much of a chance would a knight/conquistador wearing plate armor/a breastplate stand when fired upon?

variable.

a top of the line breastplate could normally defeat a shot form a contempory gun (the term "bullet proof" comes form the practice of the smith shooting the finished armour, then leaving the dent made as "proof" the armour would stop a shot), however, their are a LOT of Variables. Older plater armour built to stop arrows is much thinner (and, be extension, lighter), so wouldn't stop a shot. Also, early guns were very vairable form shot to shot, due to variable power of the gunpowder (due to an inconsistant mix, and the non-standardised amount per shot), the bullets having a poor fit to the barrel (partly poor quality control, but also a deliberate choice to ensure the round would fit down a fouled barrel in the heat of battle), and the rather awkward firing and reloading procedure (which, while it can be taught to anyone, requires a lot of practice to do quickly and accuratly when someone is trying to kill you). the net result is that one shot will have a much different muzzle energy and flight profile to the next shot form the same gun. Also, range played a big part as right up until rifles were introduced, a muskets range was 100 yards if you were lucky.


Guns took a long time to evolve to the point they could really replace other weapons. Their were primitive cannons at Crecy in 1346, but the last recorded use of bows en masse in england is in 1642 in the English Civil War, and it was only in the first few years of the 1700s that pikes for infantry few out of favour (and the Swedes were still using them effectivly in the 1720's)

[Spiryt]

variable.
Also, early guns were very vairable form shot to shot, due to variable power of the gunpowder (due to an inconsistant mix, and the non-standardised amount per shot), the bullets having a poor fit to the barrel (partly poor quality control, but also a deliberate choice to ensure the round would fit down a fouled barrel in the heat of battle), and the rather awkward firing and reloading procedure (which, while it can be taught to anyone, requires a lot of practice to do quickly and accuratly when someone is trying to kill you). the net result is that one shot will have a much different muzzle energy and flight profile to the next shot form the same gun. Also, range played a big part as right up until rifles were introduced, a muskets range was 100 yards if you were lucky.


As far as inconsistent shot, much depended on shooter, as usual - if he was good one, and knew what he's doing, or if he barely could load and shoot.

And musket range was much, much bigger than 100 yards, we can dispute that 'effective' range was 100 yards, but hitting large formations could easily happen from bigger distance as well.

[Conners]

That honestly depends on what you mean "by crippling" and how much time you can spent, how long do you want someone disabled and so on....

Hard punch, knee or whatever to the jaw, gut etc. will disable most 'normal' people for a while, and theoretically is not very crippling, but with a bit of bad luck it can be for someone in not so good shape.

Well applied blood choke can put someone unconscious in the matter of seconds, but it won't last long, and can be harmful as well, if victim has cardiovascular problems, for example. Mostly meant serious permanent damage, such as removing a limb or the ability to walk.

Generally, the amount of time spent is a split second, since movie heroes tend to do this while fighting eight guys.

[Spiryt]

Mostly meant serious permanent damage, such as removing a limb or the ability to walk.

Generally, the amount of time spent is a split second, since movie heroes tend to do this while fighting eight guys.

Movie fights with eight guys, and such a bad guys falling after receiving one weird blow, as well as said heroes executing some elaborate movements flawlessly in such conditions...

Are total rubbish, I think that this goes without saying.

As far as split seconds ways of incapacitating someone go, then all kinds of strikes are obviously way to go.

Good Boxer, kickboxer, thai-boxer etc. , especially one of heavier weight can easily put 'average guy' out of action with one strike. Sometimes just for 10 seconds, sometimes for long time, in case of clean K O.

So it really depends on situation.

[Conners]

It's definitely rubbish except for 1 in a million cases. Just wondering how quickly a person can reliably disable enemies without causing death or dismemberment.

Simply being very powerful might be enough, where you can cause them some broken ribs and mild internal bleeding with one solid hit (even most tough guys won't want to continue with that)? Other than that, breaking/dislocating a limb is probably a very efficient way of removing someone from the fight?

[Trekkin]

Here's one from Eclipse Phase that's been the subject of some debate among my group (and, earlier, on EP's forums):

Canonically, EP personal guns are either chemical or use superconducting railgun technology. I've heard it speculated that, given the same superconductors, quench guns would be better, but I'm wondering at the differences in terms of efficiency and maximum speed/acceleration.

We reached a rough back-of-the-envelope consensus that railguns make better handguns and quench guns make better mass drivers, but the physics behind that weren't ever clearly established, so I'm left trying to figure out how the exigencies of personal weapon design mesh with the restraints on the electromagnetic physics behind coil- and rail- guns, and how scale affects them.

Basically, which technology makes the better electromagnetic launcher: superconducting rails, or superconducting coils? And because of which physics?

[Spiryt]

Simply being very powerful might be enough, where you can cause them some broken ribs and mild internal bleeding with one solid hit (even most tough guys won't want to continue with that)? Other than that, breaking/dislocating a limb is probably a very efficient way of removing someone from the fight?

It doesn't need to cause any internal bleeding or break a rib, efficient strikes to the body (particularly liver) just cause huge shock and pain, change in circulation etc.

For enough time to run away or 'finish off' opponent.

Similarly with strike to the throat causing violent reaction and problems, strikes to the head causing obvious problems from dizzyness to full concussion and KO.

Strikes to the testicles are paralyzing as well, cause they're basically organs that are not fully internal.

And so on. Tonnes of ways to hit someone and take him out.

The problem is if one can do it against resisting target.

Being powerful isn't really required either, neither isn't enough in most cases, if someone can't strike with proper technique or accuracy.


And breaking a limb is surely a good way, doesn't seem like "without crippling" though. :smallwink:

[Conners]

Temporary crippling is OK :smalltongue: (though, if you did it wrong, they could see some long-term problems).

Needless to say, incapacitating without killing is probably harder than all-out attacking (which may very well result in death). Of course, these days, people can survive surprising injuries.

[Spiryt]

Needless to say, incapacitating without killing is probably harder than all-out attacking (which may very well result in death). Of course, these days, people can survive surprising injuries.

I think it really depends on situation.... But don't really think so.

In case of Mike Tyson punching some 110 pound person, perhaps, but without extremes, it's hard to kill somebody without specifically trying.

One punches/slams someone to the ground. - and doesn't have to stomp his head against pavement, which can easily result in death.

Most easily fatal would be probably some wrestler/judoka doing full body weight throw on pavement or other hard, artificial surface.

But that again probably constitutes as "trying to", or at least going to far due to adrenaline - because it's not really that easy to do those "by accident".


http://cdn2.sbnation.com/imported_assets/99044/clip.gif

[Galloglaich]

A sucker punch, or almost any good punch in the head to somebody who has no idea how to fight, can often knock people out, from what I've seen. I think 90% of the knock outs I've ever seen were sucker punches.

Punching people when who have some experience of fighting who know they are in a fight, it seems to be much harder to knock them out, though you do see it happen even in UFC and so on, guy gets hit in the right place in his jaw, lights out. But that usually happens when a guy is trying to hit the other guy.

G

[Conners]

Anyone know some impressive examples of unarmed people taking on multiple opponents, in reality?




PS: Anyone tried War of the Roses yet?

[Yora]

Punching people when who have some experience of fighting who know they are in a fight, it seems to be much harder to knock them out, though you do see it happen even in UFC and so on, guy gets hit in the right place in his jaw, lights out. But that usually happens when a guy is trying to hit the other guy.
And at least once both hit at the same time and both dropped (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqGsZzwPD94). :smallbiggrin:

[Spiryt]

And at least once both hit at the same time and both dropped (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqGsZzwPD94). :smallbiggrin:

My favorite part of it is always the referee.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-gwFNGo764

"OK, what had just happened?"


Anyone know some impressive examples of unarmed people taking on multiple opponents, in reality?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOQiQsgSQ1A

I hope beating up some minor hobos for hitting your girl will be enough, at least. :smallbiggrin:

[gkathellar]

A sucker punch, or almost any good punch in the head to somebody who has no idea how to fight, can often knock people out, from what I've seen. I think 90% of the knock outs I've ever seen were sucker punches.

Punching people when who have some experience of fighting who know they are in a fight, it seems to be much harder to knock them out, though you do see it happen even in UFC and so on, guy gets hit in the right place in his jaw, lights out. But that usually happens when a guy is trying to hit the other guy.

G

As you say, a lot of the major "knock-out blows," such as hits to the jaw and solar plexus, don't work well against someone who knows they are fighting and has tightened their body accordingly. The jaw, for example, works because if it's loose, it strikes the temple with the force of a lever. Set your jaw muscles and this doesn't happen. Usually when you see someone go down to a hit like this in boxing or MMA, it's because they're exhausted and weakened from previous hits, and can no longer keep their body in the position to defend its weak spots.

That said, you can very easily take someone down with a single blow if you hit them in the right places. A fast tap to the temple can stun and a harder tap can concuss, a shot to the throat can kill, a blow to the back of the neck or base of the skull can easily concuss or cause spinal damage, and of course any damage to the actual eyeballs can be sickeningly, nauseatingly painful. Even some body shots can be pretty disabling if correctly placed (floating ribs, bottom of the sternum). You don't see too much of that because these spots are relatively easy to defend, because most people don't aim for them on instinct, and because a well-trained fighter knows that he could aim for the throat or the eyes but probably shouldn't.

I wouldn't give too much credit to UFC-types on this — these guys are excellent sportsmen and some of them are excellent martial artists and I mean no disrespect, don't get me wrong — but MMA competitions prohibit (rightly so) a lot of techniques.


Anyone know some impressive examples of unarmed people taking on multiple opponents, in reality?

Honestly, you'll probably get a pretty accurate picture of methodology from watching aikido randori — not because they're the height of realism, but because dealing with multiple opponents involves playing keep-away well enough that you can turn it into a series of fights against single opponents. You circle away from the guy you're not presently dealing with, and deal with him as a fast as possible. As you can see ...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOQiQsgSQ1A

I hope beating up some minor hobos for hitting your girl will be enough, at least. :smallbiggrin:

... here, where the guy is never in a situation where he's actually fighting both of the other two at once. He hits one a few times, throws him down, switches, rinse and repeat. If either had rushed him while he was busy with the other, they would have destroyed him.

Dealing with multiple opponents involves being a very good tactician, and being much much much faster, stronger and tougher than the people you're dealing with. Usually it involves hitting first (which, considering it means starting a fight with two or more people, is usually insane), or at least blindsiding the opponents so completely they never get a chance organize.

[Dienekes]

Anyone know some impressive examples of unarmed people taking on multiple opponents, in reality?

I have fought two at once before, of course they were also unarmed and it was mostly me throwing them for 20 seconds and them running away when they realized I had about 30 lbs on the both of them. So not exactly as impressive as you might have liked.

A Taekwondo instructor I met claimed to have fought 3 people against him in a bar once. Though I cannot verify it, but I know the guy as pretty honest, or at least he didn't seem prone to exaggeration.


PS: Anyone tried War of the Roses yet?

I did not get into the beta test.

[gkathellar]

A Taekwondo instructor I met claimed to have fought 3 people against him in a bar once. Though I cannot verify it, but I know the guy as pretty honest, or at least he didn't seem prone to exaggeration.

The funny thing about head kicks is that when they work, they really work. :smallbiggrin:

[Spiryt]

I wouldn't give too much credit to UFC-types on this — these guys are excellent sportsmen and some of them are excellent martial artists and I mean no disrespect, don't get me wrong — but MMA competitions prohibit (rightly so) a lot of techniques.



Meh, honestly, there are still orgs that don't prohibit very much, and days of almost completely rule free events here and there with 'hardcore' stuff.

This never had really changed that much.

I also don't really get what do you mean by "credit" - the fact that MMA unified rules prohibit a lot of techniques doesn't make them any worse fighters...

There aren't in fact any other contest that allow to confront with more techniques, be it "without that and that" MMA or actually full blown Brazilian Vale-Tudo like RioHeroes.





Usually when you see someone go down to a hit like this in boxing or MMA, it's because they're exhausted and weakened from previous hits, and can no longer keep their body in the position to defend its weak spots.

There's plenty of right out shots all around, if someone's hit really clean, he's done.


... here, where the guy is never in a situation where he's actually fighting both of the other two at once. He hits one a few times, throws him down, switches, rinse and repeat. If either had rushed him while he was busy with the other, they would have destroyed him.

Obviosuly, but that's the point.

They don't look able to destroy anyone who's actually resisting at all, seeing their complete bewildering.

[Conners]

I think what gkathellar is saying, is that UFC fights won't be trained to use the most deadly techniques, which can be a problem.


I did not get into the beta test. If you pre-order it on Steam, you get into the beta automatically.

[Spiryt]

I think what gkathellar is saying, is that UFC fights won't be trained to use the most deadly techniques, which can be a problem.


Problem in what though?

If they ever find themselves in 'real unarmed situation' they still have greatly better chances of leaving them intact than 99% of population, depending on situation.

Because adding strikes wherever, bites and gouges isn't really big philosophy.

Sometimes being track and field runner may be way better, sometimes maybe being pure wrestler, to stay on your feet when drunk mob tries to mainly trample you.

In many cases just a boxer, probably, because as mentioned, sucker punches are major cause of 'casualties'.

If one wants to watch for the rather silly purpose of 'true deadly stuff' they can search for Rio Heroes or some similar stuff on the Internet, or add "Okay, he has his back, so with punches to the back of the head he would have been done". :smallwink:

Anyway:


fights won't be trained to use the most deadly techniques

But they are.

The fact that sometimes they don't apply them in most easily damaging/unpleasant manner doesn't change that.

Like mentioned, biggest threat of being quickly 'deadly' would be some really hard slam - Legal in all pro MMA.

The biggest "unrealistic" part about MMA is attire and surrounding.

But having more 'unsafe' floor wouldn't be too good, and with clothes, and ability to grab them, fights would become to much cluster**** for average viewer, I guess.

[Dead_Jester]

The funny thing about head kicks is that when they work, they really work. :smallbiggrin:

They do, but they also leave you exposed if the other person is also a trained fighter, which, unless you know the guy, you don't know. Also, in most countries, killing or seriously maiming someone, even in self defence, will get you thrown in jail; if you take some one out and have no witnesses, nothing is stopping the other guy from accusing you of assault. Indeed, many of the "best" ways to take people out involve or may result in serious or even permanent damage, so things like punching to the kidneys, striking/crushing/ripping out the windpipe, hitting to the eyes and using elbows is best kept for life or death situations, rather than your average brawl.

Now, kicks to the knees or to the inner shin (the fibula, is very easy to break, and often does so quite nastily) tend to make quick work of people while being relatively safe for both parties. Of the two, I would recommend the shin, as it heals much better, reducing the odds of accusations being held against you. Hitting to the groin also works, but it may not stop the opponent reliably.

And on the topic of fighters not being trained to kill, in my experience, most martial artist either know or regularly practice techniques that are solely dedicated to killing or permanently damaging others (things like ripping eyeballs out, elbows to the spine, etc.). Add to this that simply hitting someone in the head or the chest can sometimes result in deaths; and you can conclude that most trained fighters are physically trained to kill; whether or not they are psychologically trained to do so is another story, and entirely outside of my expertise, although I would theorize that a marginally greater proportion of them are compared to the rest of the general population.

[Spiryt]

Indeed, many of the "best" ways to take people out involve or may result in serious or even permanent damage, so things like punching to the kidneys, striking/crushing/ripping out the windpipe, hitting to the eyes and using elbows is best kept for life or death situations, rather than your average brawl.

While all of those make a lot of sense, because any violent moves about eyes or throat will be bad, even if person has no idea what he's doing, there's nothing inherently deadly about elbows.

Thai boxers in particular can take insane amount of them in a fight, obviously they're crazily conditioned to do that, and average Joe would crumble after first one, but elbow is elbow, just like punch...



Now, kicks to the knees or to the inner shin (the fibula, is very easy to break, and often does so quite nastily) tend to make quick work of people while being relatively safe for both parties. Of the two, I would recommend the shin, as it heals much better, reducing the odds of accusations being held against you.

Leg kicks by competent strikes are relatively safe, due to being quick and not that telegraphed/unbalancing, and are well documented to indeed crumble people unaccustomed to them (first time to Muay-Thai/kickboxing for example).

I've never heard about any breaking fibula though, but I guess it may sometimes happen.

One would hope nothing get's broken anyway, it can mean legal trouble, obviously, as it will heal for a while.



And on the topic of fighters not being trained to kill, in my experience, most martial artist either know or regularly practice techniques that are solely dedicated to killing or permanently damaging others (things like ripping eyeballs out, elbows to the spine, etc.). Add to this that simply hitting someone in the head or the chest can sometimes result in deaths; and you can conclude that most trained fighters are physically trained to kill; whether or not they are psychologically trained to do so is another story, and entirely outside of my expertise, although I would theorize that a marginally greater proportion of them are compared to the rest of the general population.

While going to jail for killing in self defense is IMO rubbish (without going into politics) -

the whole point is indeed that safe high speed collision with something hard, etc. killing someone requires effort, in cases, where there's usually no point, because target is immobilized/broken already - stomping, any kind of spinal cranks, strikes to the spine/back of the head - ripping eyes or any other pieces of flesh out in particular would require somebody be seriously non-resisting from whatever reason.

[gkathellar]

I also don't really get what do you mean by "credit" - the fact that MMA unified rules prohibit a lot of techniques doesn't make them any worse fighters...

My point is you can't necessarily gauge the time it takes to bring down another human being by looking at UFC. Sorry if that was unclear — I meant that one should be careful giving them too much credit as the perfect gauge of what unarmed combat looks like.


There aren't in fact any other contest that allow to confront with more techniques, be it "without that and that" MMA or actually full blown Brazilian Vale-Tudo like RioHeroes.

And that is absolutely for the best. Yes, using small joint manipulation to break all of someone's fingers and then bursting their carotid artery can be done, but it's barbaric and horrible.


There's plenty of right out shots all around, if someone's hit really clean, he's done.

Really clean hits like that almost never happen until exhaustion sets in, which is why it's pretty rare for a UFC fight to be over in thirty seconds. If you're much better than your opponent and they're surprised, maybe you can pull that off.


Obviosuly, but that's the point.

They don't look able to destroy anyone who's actually resisting at all, seeing their complete bewildering.

Again, not arguing was you: I was pointing out that your video illustrated a valuable point.


If they ever find themselves in 'real unarmed situation' they still have greatly better chances of leaving them intact than 99% of population, depending on situation.

Absolutely, and plenty of the UFC guys could do more brutal stuff if they wanted to (not all, but plenty of them). Watching fights in UFC isn't necessarily even a gauge of the fighters' own full abilities, much less of the full abilities of what one human body can do to one another.


But they are.

The fact that sometimes they don't apply them in most easily damaging/unpleasant manner doesn't change that.

Like mentioned, biggest threat of being quickly 'deadly' would be some really hard slam - Legal in all pro MMA.

The biggest "unrealistic" part about MMA is attire and surrounding.

But having more 'unsafe' floor wouldn't be too good, and with clothes, and ability to grab them, fights would become to much cluster**** for average viewer, I guess.

Again, agreed. As I stated, many of the most horrible things you can do to another person are really difficult to actually pull off and really easy to defend against in practice. It's just that looking at UFC fights does not provide an accurate gauge of their existence of viability, because the fights disallow a lot of things entirely.

And that's good. It's very good that the fights aren't more realistic, considering that we'd see a lot more concussions and broken shoulder blades and, you know, death. Which is bad. I don't know if I can stress strongly enough that I'm not advocating that UFC needs to allow a wider variety of techniques for our viewing pleasure.


They do, but they also leave you exposed if the other person is also a trained fighter, which, unless you know the guy, you don't know.

Absolutely. 99% of the time a middle-target or low-target kick is more effective, and unless you're really well trained with high kicks, you'll never spot that 1% of the time.


Also, in most countries, killing or seriously maiming someone, even in self defence, will get you thrown in jail; if you take some one out and have no witnesses, nothing is stopping the other guy from accusing you of assault.

Plus there's the part about how you should avoid ripping out someone's eyes if at all possible, just as a general point of policy.


And on the topic of fighters not being trained to kill, in my experience, most martial artist either know or regularly practice techniques that are solely dedicated to killing or permanently damaging others (things like ripping eyeballs out, elbows to the spine, etc.).

Indeed. A lot of the fancier movements you see in forms, the ones that look vaguely indecipherable at times, are things like knife-hands to the carotid, tearing off the groin, or even combos composed entirely of those kinds of things. The reason modern karate-type sparring was invented is because masters wanted students to practice the strategic elements of live combat without using full-out techniques against one another.


While all of those make a lot of sense, because any violent moves about eyes or throat will be bad, even if person has no idea what he's doing, there's nothing inherently deadly about elbows.

Thicker bones means you can apply quantities of force to a strike that would shatter a hand entirely. With considerable hand conditioning you can make up the difference, but there are also ways to generate short power with the elbow that the hand simply isn't as good for.

Obviously the hand has its own advantages: better long power, more reach, easier to use.


the whole point is indeed that safe high speed collision with something hard, etc. killing someone requires effort, in cases, where there's usually no point, because target is immobilized/broken already - stomping, any kind of spinal cranks, strikes to the spine/back of the head - ripping eyes or any other pieces of flesh out in particular would require somebody be seriously non-resisting from whatever reason.

But again, there are plenty of techniques that can maim or kill as your opening strike, in a variety of fairly obvious ways. They're not reliable due to needing a lot of power or very precise targeting or being countered by a basic guard, and most people don't go to them on instinct because no one sane uses a technique that could permanently injure their partner in live sparring. But they do exist, and they are technically the fastest way to bring someone down if they can be made to work.

[Spiryt]

And that is absolutely for the best. Yes, using small joint manipulation to break all of someone's fingers and then bursting their carotid artery can be done, but it's barbaric and horrible.


I guess, that you have to be that much in control of opponent to do that it's just much better to do something else than try to rip the arteries.


Really clean hits like that almost never happen until exhaustion sets in, which is why it's pretty rare for a UFC fight to be over in thirty seconds. If you're much better than your opponent and they're surprised, maybe you can pull that off.


It's not really that rare. If you have a guy that's much better striker than the other, he can do light out quickly, be it boxing, MMA, or bar brawl.

From like week ago in Strikeforce:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8zttzSZkP1rrwwgco1_500.gif

And Jacare is BJJ legend, not really a striker.




But again, there are plenty of techniques that can maim or kill as your opening strike, in a variety of fairly obvious ways. They're not reliable due to needing a lot of power or very precise targeting or being countered by a basic guard, and most people don't go to them on instinct because no one sane uses a technique that could permanently injure their partner in live sparring. But they do exist, and they are technically the fastest way to bring someone down if they can be made to work.


I guess that one can knee someone right into the throat, or something...

Violent spinal lock to someone who is not flexible/conditioned enough from grappling would also probably be fatal.


Realistically though, big difference in physicality will be always main cause - if Vitali Klitschko punched my with all his guns he could more than certainly damage my 150 pounds neck badly.

[Mike_G]

Now, kicks to the knees or to the inner shin (the fibula, is very easy to break, and often does so quite nastily)

The fibula is the outer of the two lower leg bones. People often break it rolling an ankle. But it's not the weight bearing bone of the two. That's the tibia, which is much harder to break, and is the inner one.

[gkathellar]

I guess, that you have to be that much in control of opponent to do that it's just much better to do something else than try to rip the arteries.

Between hitting someone in the cheek and possibly not doing anything but making him mad, and hitting him in the side of the neck such that he bleeds to death inside his own skin, one option has a more guaranteed outcome. You are strongly overstating the amount of control needed for techniques of this type to work. These things are difficult in execution because they're easy to guard against, not because you need to bend your opponent over your knee to make them work I'm talking about single, well-aimed strikes to points that, if hit well, reliably cause serious injury to most opponents.


It's not really that rare. If you have a guy that's much better striker than the other, he can do light out quickly, be it boxing, MMA, or bar brawl.

From like week ago in Strikeforce:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8zttzSZkP1rrwwgco1_500.gif

And Jacare is BJJ legend, not really a striker.

Image presented out of context is out of context. How many minutes into the fight was that, and how had it been flowing up to then? As I've said, clean knock-out blows happen, but they usually don't happen to someone who still has the strength to brace against them.

I stress the word "usually" because I have, in person, seen a karate expert land a perfect single strike to the head at the beginning of the fight like you're talking about. He knocked his opponent unconscious with a single reverse punch as the opponent glided in for a ridiculous superman punch. And I've seen this once. Ever. In anything. Supposedly "perfect" strikes are, in almost all other cases, the result of extensive physical and/or strategic setup on the part of one fighter as he softens up the other and weakens his opponent's position. Once you see a genuinely perfect hit, it's hard not to appreciate how much work goes into softening an opponent for everything that looks similar to one.

Good fighters — including the good MMA guys — go looking to create that opportunity consciously. But in almost all cases, it needs to be created, which is somewhat unlike the a punch to the throat, which will always work. In fact, you can see it in the very clip you presented, if you look carefully — the left arm of the guy who went down, had he been in control of himself, would not have been off doing nothing in the middle of nowhere.

I don't know, maybe we're talking about different things here? I'm not saying knockout blows don't happen. I'm saying they don't happen until the opponent's body and mind are worn down somewhat. That's a barrier that the more brutal kinds of striking, the kinds which MMA competitions widely disallow, don't really suffer from. A throat is a throat is a throat, and unless you're dealing with someone who's studied throat-hardening (not terribly common in today's martial arts), it'll collapse with roughly the same amount of force regardless of how winded they are.


I guess that one can knee someone right into the throat, or something...

Grab clavicle. Pull down. Shove knee into chest or throat (never the face, unless you want teeth in your knee — a luxury you don't have to worry about if you're in a sporting event with mouthguards). Rinse and repeat as necessary. Not particularly easy if you haven't trained in it, but doable.

There are a million different examples. Most are terribly difficult to execute, often because they require shots to the head at angles which are not offensively favorable. But they exist and work faster than the average blow, remains my point.

[Spiryt]

Between hitting someone in the cheek and possibly not doing anything but making him mad, and hitting him in the side of the neck such that he bleeds to death inside his own skin, one option has a more guaranteed outcome. You are strongly overstating the amount of control needed for techniques of this type to work. These things are difficult in execution because they're easy to guard against, not because you need to bend your opponent over your knee to make them work I'm talking about single, well-aimed strikes to points that, if hit well, reliably cause serious injury to most opponents.


There's a lot of talk about about things like that in some contest, particualrly some 'mystic' martial arts, but I'm honestly skeptical.

In all kind of full contact striking competitions, training, sparrings, punches, elbows, kicks, knees land hard on the throat side of the neck etc. very hard.

They're perfectly legal most of the times as well, and if they're illegal (throat strikes) they still happen by accident, being somehow unavoidable.

And one never hears about anything similar to internal bleeding from arteries in the neck...


not because you need to bend your opponent over your knee

Bending over a knee is not much of a control, but I would image that full mount could indeed give solid access to neck etc while opponent is at big disadvantage as far as defending it goes.



Image presented out of context is out of context. How many minutes into the fight was that, and how had it been flowing up to then? As I've said, clean knock-out blows happen, but they usually don't happen to someone who still has the strength to brace against them.

I stress the word "usually" because I have, in person, seen a karate expert land a perfect single strike to the head at the beginning of the fight like you're talking about. He knocked his opponent unconscious with a single reverse punch as the opponent glided in for a ridiculous superman punch. And I've seen this once. Ever. In anything. Supposedly "perfect" strikes are, in almost all other cases, the result of extensive physical and/or strategic setup on the part of one fighter as he softens up the other and weakens his opponent's position. Once you see a genuinely perfect hit, it's hard not to appreciate how much work goes into softening an opponent for everything that looks similar to one.

Good fighters — including the good MMA guys — go looking to create that opportunity consciously. But in almost all cases, it needs to be created, which is somewhat unlike the a punch to the throat, which will always work. In fact, you can see it in the very clip you presented, if you look carefully — the left arm of the guy who went down, had he been in control of himself, would not have been off doing nothing in the middle of nowhere.

I don't know, maybe we're talking about different things here? I'm not saying knockout blows don't happen. I'm saying they don't happen until the opponent's body and mind are worn down somewhat. That's a barrier that the more brutal kinds of striking, the kinds which MMA competitions widely disallow, don't really suffer from. A throat is a throat is a throat, and unless you're dealing with someone who's studied throat-hardening (not terribly common in today's martial arts), it'll collapse with roughly the same amount of force regardless of how winded they are.


It happened at 0:40 of the very first round, really first serious strike thrown.

I really don't know where you're taking here:


I'm saying they don't happen until the opponent's body and mind are worn down somewhat. That's a barrier that the more brutal kinds of striking, the kinds which MMA competitions widely disallow, don't really suffer from.

Because nothing like that is required. KO's in 30 seconds happen all the time in boxing, kickboxing, MMA, any kind of full contact striking in general.

Obviosuly, they require a lot of difference in striking skill, or dumb luck, but not any "wearing down" of mind or body.

Powerful punch lands on the jaw, it's getting twisted bad, equilibrium is completely shut off, brain is concussed or at least shaken very bad, and person's going down.

Literally right now clean KO may be happening on some local event, where there's plethora of hard hitting brawlers, but fundamental boxing defense is not exactly very common.

Similarly with any other strike, although obviously punch to the throat will shut someone down from different reason than kick to the liver.



Grab clavicle. Pull down. Shove knee into chest or throat (never the face, unless you want teeth in your knee — a luxury you don't have to worry about if you're in a sporting event with mouthguards). Rinse and repeat as necessary. Not particularly easy if you haven't trained in it, but doable.

There are a million different examples. Most are terribly difficult to execute, often because they require shots to the head at angles which are not offensively favorable. But they exist and work faster than the average blow, remains my point.

Well, again, particularly in Muay Thai, they land crazy amount of knees into the chest and other parts, that's pretty much the name of the game.

That's not really way to quickly injure somebody, with knee to the chest one would probably require significant weight difference to really damage the chest and insides.

As far as grabbing the clavicle goes, how the hell does one grab it and pulls with enough force to do anything? Even in very thin individuals, it's not exactly available....

[Conners]

A military fellow made an interesting point, once: "In the ring, those boys would beat me to a pulp. Outside of the ring, I'd rip them to shreds."

I really do think the ring fights are different than conflicts of life and death.

[Spiryt]

A military fellow made an interesting point, once: "In the ring, those boys would beat me to a pulp. Outside of the ring, I'd rip them to shreds."

.

That really depends on who "military fellow" exactly was, and was what his experience (if any, in the first place) in gravely situations, unarmed combat, physical shape etc. - but that's mostly wishful thinking.

"Military fellows" are in most cases not really special at unarmed fighting, mostly because modern combat quite obviously rarely involves unarmed combat.

Human ego is weird like that.

Biting, groin attacks, hard surfaces, etc. will without a doubt make situation very different from "not real thing" but person who's better fighter in striking, wrestling, ground control will still have massive advantage, no magic "ripping to shreds" (whatever would that be) will change that. There's absolutely nothing saying/ that 'those guys' cannot use them as well.



I really do think the ring fights are different than conflicts of life and death.

That goes without saying, as no one wants to kill anybody, and stop/referee stops fight in proper moment.

Conflicts of life and death will generally involve weapons anyway, that's out whole homo sapiens mojo. :smallwink:

[Autolykos]

Basically, which technology makes the better electromagnetic launcher: superconducting rails, or superconducting coils? And because of which physics?Depends *a lot* on the details of the available technologies. In general though, coil guns will profit a lot more from using superconductors than rail guns for two simple reasons:

a) The resistance in rail guns is a lot lower already, because they only use two rather short and thick rails instead of coils with very long and thin wire. Really, rail guns don't need superconductors, which is a good thing, because:
b) In rail guns, the projectile has to get in direct contact with conducting parts, heating them in the process. And warm superconductors won't.

On scale:
Small coil guns (using superconductors) will only become a viable alternative once you find superconductors that don't need additional cooling at room temperature. Otherwise, lugging around cans of liquid nitrogen makes that weapon kinda impractical as a handgun. But once you have that, small coil guns will be a lot safer to handle because of the lower currents involved, while the currents used in a practical rail gun design will make anyone small, black and ugly. They'll also scale down a lot better.
Without room-temperature superconductors, you'll have to use rail guns for any kind of small arms. And unless you have batteries with incredibly high power density (which has it's own problems - to quote a friend: 5kF? That's not a capacitor, that's a bomb!), the rails will have to be as long as you can practically make them. Rail guns will make good rifles, but poor pistols.
Actually, energy and power density of current batteries and capacitors is the limiting factor with portable EM-weapons right now, and superconductors won't do very much about it.
On large scale, both would work. Coil guns will be more efficient, but more complex and way more expensive to build. Rail guns are a simpler technology, but you'll need to replace the rails regularly and find a way to get rid of the excess heat (unless ROF isn't a concern to you). They are also quite damaging to the projectile, which can be a Bad Thing when using explosive or rocket assisted projectiles. Both will have to be powered by a large generator (like the nuclear reactor on a ship).

EDIT: For more details on what would be feasible in this setting, I'd need at least a rough estimate of:
- the critical temperature of commercially available superconductors
- the maximum (safe) specific energy of batteries
- the maximum (safe) specific power of capacitors while still reaching a specific energy in the order of magnitude of 1kJ/kg.

[gkathellar]

There's a lot of talk about about things like that in some contest, particualrly some 'mystic' martial arts, but I'm honestly skeptical.

In all kind of full contact striking competitions, training, sparrings, punches, elbows, kicks, knees land hard on the throat side of the neck etc. very hard.

They're perfectly legal most of the times as well, and if they're illegal (throat strikes) they still happen by accident, being somehow unavoidable.

And one never hears about anything similar to internal bleeding from arteries in the neck...

Gloved punches do not even begin to approximate the full depth of hand strikes. This is worth emphasizing — bare knuckle fighting is dramatically more likely to result in serious injury because you're slamming a bunch of limestone spurs into the other guy (which is why without hand conditioning hitting someone full force will rip open your knuckles). And in that environment, you're going to see more hammer blows, more knife and spear hands, and more targeted hits to parts of the body that don't take blows from hardened hands well.

So again, the point is that you can't necessarily use what you see in UFC and other full-contact competitions to accurately gauge things outside of those competition environments.


Bending over a knee is not much of a control, but I would image that full mount could indeed give solid access to neck etc while opponent is at big disadvantage as far as defending it goes.

"Bend your opponent over your knee" was hyperbole, yes. Full mount is one way to gain access to the neck, good timing is another, circling on top of the opponent's guard is a third, etc.


It happened at 0:40 of the very first round, really first serious strike thrown.

Huh. He dropped his guard 40 seconds into the fight against someone who wasn't a renowned striker? I guess some UFC guys do make really stupid, clumsy mistakes for no appreciable reason. Well, there's an opinion lowered.


Because nothing like that is required. KO's in 30 seconds happen all the time in boxing, kickboxing, MMA, any kind of full contact striking in general.

Obviosuly, they require a lot of difference in striking skill, or dumb luck, but not any "wearing down" of mind or body.

I haven't followed any of these with particular interest in the past two years or so, and even when I did I tended to focus on the top fighters, so maybe that's changed or I'm remembering things with rose-tinted glasses. I'll concede the point that if people drop their guards the moment they get into the tick of things, setting up a solid hit would be relatively easy.


Powerful punch lands on the jaw, it's getting twisted bad, equilibrium is completely shut off, brain is concussed or at least shaken very bad, and person's going down.

None of this happens if the person getting hit has strong neck and jaw muscles and knows and remembers how to absorb a hit.


Literally right now clean KO may be happening on some local event, where there's plethora of hard hitting brawlers, but fundamental boxing defense is not exactly very common.

Okay. Yes, fair enough, if you're up against someone who doesn't know how to defend themselves with either their hands or their body mechanics it is relatively easy to take them down with a straightforward blow as long as you have the strength for it.


As far as grabbing the clavicle goes, how the hell does one grab it and pulls with enough force to do anything? Even in very thin individuals, it's not exactly available....

Strike against the clavicle so that the hand rests on either the back of the neck or the back of the shoulder, and apply downward pressure against the bone with the forearm. If you have really absurdly strong fingers, you can do that directly to the bone with your thumb.


Biting, groin attacks, hard surfaces, etc. will without a doubt make situation very different from "not real thing" but person who's better fighter in striking, wrestling, ground control will still have massive advantage, no magic "ripping to shreds" (whatever would that be) will change that. There's absolutely nothing saying/ that 'those guys' cannot use them as well.

Yeah. Outside of a ring situation, plenty of these MMA guys would fight entirely differently to suit the lack of rules. For one thing, those who are capable of handling themselves outside of a ring (probably a lot of them) situation would adopt a more careful, more viciously opportunistic approach. It's doubtful we can judge the full extent of their abilities by what they show us in competition, since competition does not reflect the entire reality of empty-handed combat any more than sport fencing reflects the number of ways a combat-steel foil can be used to injure someone.

[Conners]

Military guy was a top instructor for US Marine training.

[Spiryt]

Gloved punches do not even begin to approximate the full depth of hand strikes. This is worth emphasizing — bare knuckle fighting is dramatically more likely to result in serious injury because you're slamming a bunch of limestone spurs into the other guy (which is why without hand conditioning hitting someone full force will rip open your knuckles). And in that environment, you're going to see more hammer blows, more knife and spear hands, and more targeted hits to parts of the body that don't take blows from hardened hands well.

So again, the point is that you can't necessarily use what you see in UFC and other full-contact competitions to accurately gauge things outside of those competition environments.


That's all obvious, but again, tell me how to 'gauge' accurately things outside of competition environment?

Sport, or even more "hardcore" Vale Tudo I like to watch to, are absolutely not fully accurate in any way, it's always artificial situation.

But it's hard to impossible to find anything as better gauge of some interesting aspect.

Some traditional competitions will be even more limited usually. Thai box, karate, and so on.

Actual taped "street fights" will consist of some psycho bums gassing out quickly while bitting and pinching stuff. Rather fugly.

As far as 'hardened hands' go, then any boxer and other. will have calloused and hardened hands, majority of population not.

I heard that some martial arts "hardening" techniques by breaking them against hard objects etc. are absolutely harmful rubbish. Some people, particularly practitioners will obviously defend it like a grail, so it's difficult topic.



Huh. He dropped his guard 40 seconds into the fight against someone who wasn't a renowned striker? I guess some UFC guys do make really stupid, clumsy mistakes for no appreciable reason. Well, there's an opinion lowered.


Okay, in the first place, it was Strikeforce, not UFC. UFC is an promotion, sport is MMA.

And yes, he didn't show very good form, but vast majority of the people, and I'm talking about fighters in general, have trouble with keeping their other hands up while moving in and striking. Just not very natural instinct.

If you have 'opinion lowered' from that, then you can have high opinion mostly about some ~ top 100 level boxers of the world, who are really well drilled. And random representatives of other striking disciplines.



None of this happens if the person getting hit has strong neck and jaw muscles and knows and remembers how to absorb a hit.


That's widely and often postulated, but it's just not true. As in one cannot state 'none of this happens'. Plenty of guys with absolutely powerful, roided out necks and muscles in general, and striking experience get KO'd as well. Some of them very easily, 'chin' seems to be largely genetic.

Especially if 'strong muscles' are objectively not strong enough, because opponent is of much larger frame.

It happens often, and to good strikers, if they're opponent is just that much better this day. Muscles won't really help.

http://i36.tinypic.com/2yws5jm.jpg

Jerome Le Banner is mountain of a man, and experienced striker all around, at that time already Kickboxing vetera, Kyokushin black belt, ad so on, but stuff happens if you allow opponent to land such a bomb.

It would probably KTFO me trough the glove no matter how 'strong' neck I had, lol, I'm just not build to take something like that (so is not most people who are not of HW frame). :smallbiggrin:

"There are no people immune to strikes, only those who haven't been hit well enough"

Bracing against hit is not always possible, if you're getting feinted and generally bested in striking, but you have written few paragraphs about it anyway.


Okay. Yes, fair enough, if you're up against someone who doesn't know how to defend themselves with either their hands or their body mechanics it is relatively easy to take them down with a straightforward blow as long as you have the strength for it.

And vast majority of population would have absolutely no more idea how to defend themselves than those guys. So equating to some of best martial artists out there, who do it seriosuly and whole time is not the best idea.


Strike against the clavicle so that the hand rests on either the back of the neck or the back of the shoulder, and apply downward pressure against the bone with the forearm. If you have really absurdly strong fingers, you can do that directly to the bone with your thumb.

That seems applicable from thai clinch, but as long as opponents resisting, he can rather easily shrug off the forearm.

What is this supposed to do in effect, anyway?

[Conners]

A lot of the breaking stone tiles and wood is faked, using a physics trick. But, it is possible to train yourself to the extent where you can break a baseball-bat or a concrete slab with your body. It's still overrated, but it's probably useful.

As for hardening hands, gkathellar may be referring to strengthening the muscles in your hands and fingers, so that you can rip things. Found out a while ago from someone that this is actually pretty common among ancient warrior traditions. That cute curled-finger look in the Tiger style of various martial arts, is because the style is about ripping (not so cute).

[Spiryt]

A lot of the breaking stone tiles and wood is faked, using a physics trick. But, it is possible to train yourself to the extent where you can break a baseball-bat or a concrete slab with your body. It's still overrated, but it's probably useful.



That's hardly has anything to do with hardening though, Just proper technique and nothing better to do.

If you smash said baseball bat/small tree/whatever, it will hurt some, if you fail to do so - serious injury is coming.

Thai boxers traditionally chop down local soft trees with low kicks, it help to build endurance, resistance etc.

And is also all over good practice in the scary, alien world where nobody had invented punching bags yet. :smallbiggrin:

[Conners]

What? Technique? I don't really consider harsh physical training to be technique. It might build technique, but that's more of a happy coincidence to being tough as nuts.

[Diamondeye]

Military guy was a top instructor for US Marine training.

A Marine major I was deployed with had this to say about Marine unarmed combat training: "We're getting overly obsessed with physical fitness and close combat in the Marines. These guys are now taking 2 different PT tests, plus this unarmed combat course. They have fun doing it, and it's effective as far as it goes, but I don't know of a single instance of a Marine's life being saved by the unarmed combat we taught him. Now, how many Marines have ended up in the hospital in the process of learning it? And what good were they to the Corps while they were there?"

Unarmed combat has severe limitations on any modern (as in, Civil War or later) battlefield. The weaponry is too deadly for it to be anything more than a personal survival tool.

[Brother Oni]

What? Technique? I don't really consider harsh physical training to be technique. It might build technique, but that's more of a happy coincidence to being tough as nuts.

I usually find that unless your technique is absolutely correct, you end up injuring yourself. For example in the case of the tree kicking Muay Thai boxers, not hitting the tree with the correct part of your shin.


Unarmed combat has severe limitations on any modern (as in, Civil War or later) battlefield. The weaponry is too deadly for it to be anything more than a personal survival tool.

While true, the close quarters encountered in urban combat can often end up with the two sides literally falling over each other.

I remember an interview with a Royal Marine that during counter insurgency operations in Iraq, he ended up bayonetting an enemy during a house clearance. If you're ending up that close, unarmed combat becomes a distinct possibility and in my opinion, it's better to train for it and not need it, than to need it and not have trained for it.

[Autolykos]

If you're ending up that close, unarmed combat becomes a distinct possibility and in my opinion, it's better to train for it and not need it, than to need it and not have trained for it.True in theory, but in practice it's always a trade off. If you run every soldier through the training of a MMA fighter, a lot of his other skills are going to suffer. Stuff like situational awareness, marksmanship, heck, even languages are probably saving his butt more often than unarmed combat.
That's not to say they shouldn't get any training - but it's rater low priority and doesn't need to even come close to a professional level. So it's probably best to teach them a few simple tricks and leave it at that. You can teach someone a few simple knife drills in an afternoon that will be enough to cut even quite experienced martial artists (but maybe not the very best) to pieces. He won't be any good at defending himself, but teaching that is *hard* and won't be cost effective when that weapon is more of a last resort anyway.

[Conners]

Not sure that's true. It's true that time training them CQC could be spent training them in something else. However, at a certain point, you won't see major improvements in a skill (unless you devoted everything to it). As long as they keep their marksmanship and etc. to an adequate level, they should be OK.

[Spiryt]

What? Technique? I don't really consider harsh physical training to be technique. It might build technique, but that's more of a happy coincidence to being tough as nuts.

Well, of course technique.

Kicking technique to get as much impact as possible with given motion, to not hurt yourself doing it, stay balanced, ready to strike again or do any other motion, etc.

The fact that it also 'toughening' is obvious, but that's true for really any hard exercise out there.

Becoming tough as nuts anyway can happen during sparring and actual fights and other stressful and 'extreme' situations, it's 'just' an exercise.

[Conners]

What do you guys know about leather armour? Figured the stuff was mostly fictional, in terms of use within medieval eruope. Also figured the only particularly good stuff was laquered lamellar. Some guys on another forum have been telling me about studded leather armour which works, and some other things of that nature. Here's a couple of the posts:


well Lamellar (sp) is actually what the greek's used it was leather armor with strips of bronze inside of it sewn in. but i had to make a leather jerkin for SCA once and it used 2-3 inch thick pieces of leather cutting them into rectangles 6"x4" punching holes in the 4 corners then boiling them in a mixture of wax/water, then using stud's to secure into a 2-3 inch leather shirt. This is studded leather armor and was COMMON in western europe. I then put it on a maniquin to test it and basically couldn't cut through it with any of the several swords i own. finally tried a ceramic knife and was only able to cut through in 1 spot and that was between the squares. and i literally had to line it up then apply pressure and slowly cut.

basically. Do i think a scimitar honed to a razors edge could cut through leather? YES
Do i think a normal period weapon for England dulled from battle or just normal medieval honing? NO


Lamellar was the popular armor of the European East point example being the Byzantine empire and it was light and more flexible then plate with apparently comparable characteristics. Still inferior overall. I would personally use Lamellar because of weight and protection ratios. Yes it was a full body system if you look at the modern dragon scale armor it has similar ideas.

- Frank Sinatra


Anyone able to shed light on how common and useful leather armour was in Europe?

[Spiryt]

I find those quoted posts... Problematic, especially the first one is complete chaos of made up stuff, SCA-nism etc. Starting with Greek Lammellar...

Anyway, what we do know today are some written mentions of leather defenses, and literally like one find.

Mentioned particularly in tournament context, AFAIR.

http://www.masterarmourer.com/13th_century.html

So while something like that was probably used around 13th and 14th century, we don't really know much about it, and it probably never really caught up.

[Yora]

The British Museum supposedly has a leather armor from the Tomb of Tutankhamun in storage, but there are no pictures of it on the internet.

[Storm Bringer]

As far as i know, "studded Leather" armour was a misunderstanding of the historical "coat of Plates" armour, which was a series of plates rivited onto the inside of a leather or padded garment.

they looked something like this (http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/135/3/7/Coat_of_Plates_by_TheHolyWenzel.jpg), but the reverse looked like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brigandine,_Italian,_c1470,_Royal_Armoury,_Le eds_(internal_view).JPG)and it appears that someone looked at a picture or statue of a person wearing one, guessing it was armour, and assumed that the outer layer (apprantly leather) was the protective layer, "reinforced" by the small stubs in some fashion.

while it's not clear how they thought small metal studs would increase the protective propeties, they clearly thought it must have worked, becuase thier is plently of pictoral evidence of people wearing this stuff in battle scenes.

So the myth of Studded leather was born, or at least as i understand it.

[Spiryt]

Funnily enough, in case of coat of plates and brigandines, leather doesn't even seem to be favorite backing material, heavy fabrics were apparently very popular.

[Yora]

I think leather does funny things when getting wet. There's more than enough types of cloth that don't.

[fusilier]

What about buff coats, and Spanish leather "cueras"? Those are fairly well represented in the historical record if I'm not mistaken. They aren't hardened leather, however.

[Conners]

How good are they as armour?

[fusilier]

How good are they as armour?

That's a good question. At one point they were widespread and common, so they must have had some utility. Buff coats being popular in the first half of the 17th century -- obviously their bullet stopping capabilities couldn't have been too good, which means their primary effectiveness must have been in hand-to-hand. Cueras were reasonably effective against arrows, but tended to be very heavy, and made of several layers of leather.

[Spiryt]

Actually, I think there are some anecdotes about Gustav Adolf shaking off bullets from his coat, so perhaps they could protect from larger distance shots.

Those were pretty much soft, well threated leather, so coat could be sewn together from many layers of it, forming quite stiff defense.

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

[Yora]

What can steel weapons and armor do that bronze doesn't?

It's cheaper when you know how to make steel, but when you already have the finished pieces, what advantage does one have over the other.

[Galloglaich]

What can steel weapons and armor do that bronze doesn't?

It's cheaper when you know how to make steel, but when you already have the finished pieces, what advantage does one have over the other.

The short answer is that bronze is similar in many respects to iron, arguably a bit better in some ways, though a little bit heavier. It is more complex to make though because it requires two metals (copper and tin) rather than one. Steel however surpasses bronze in most respects except in difficulty of production.

All bronze is an alloy, so when you are speaking of bronze you are never speaking of one thing, rather it's always a range. Most 'bronzes' are alloys of copper and tin but some 'bronze' military artifacts turn out to actually be brass (copper and calamide / zinc) or alloys of copper and arsenic.

Most alloys of bronze are actually about 5-10% heavier than iron. Steel weighs the same as iron but steel armor can be made about half as thick or less, for the same strength (so potentially 50% the weight) and steel weapons can be made a little lighter as well while being much stronger. So for example, a ten pound bronze armored corslet might be as effective as a nine pound iron corselet or a five pound steel corslet.

Certain alloys of bronze can actually be stronger than iron, and bronze artifacts can be mass-produced more easily since they can be cast. (Cast iron weapons and armor were never made as far as I'm aware, only forged iron). Some bronze weapons such as those found in China were made of different alloys, harder for the blade edges and more ductile for the spine or the center of the blade, which is similar in effect to early forge-welding and pattern welding techniques done to improve iron. In both cases generally far superior to an ordinary wrought iron or cast bronze blade.

Generally speaking bronze is also much more corrosion resistant than almost any ferrous metal until the invention of chromium (stainless) steel in the 19th Century, although some other high phosophorous alloys such as the famous iron pillar of Delhi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Pillar_of_Delhi) prove that there were some exceptions to this rule.

Bronze is not however anywhere near as springy and tough as properly tempered high-carbon steel. But making properly tempered high-carbon steel was never easy, historically, and it is still a very expensive material even today.

G

[Spiryt]

Most bronze alloys have high resistance to material fatigue failures, AFAIR. Of course, meaning of it in weapons etc. use would be disputable.

Higher density can be also somehow nice perk for weapon - bigger sectional density of given blade in penetrating stuff.

Although the difference here most probably wouldn't be all that very meaningful compared to actual cross-section, tempering and so on.

[Galloglaich]

What do you guys know about leather armour? Figured the stuff was mostly fictional, in terms of use within medieval europe.

Basically yes.



Also figured the only particularly good stuff was laquered lamellar.
You are probably right about that too.


Some guys on another forum have been telling me about studded leather armour which works, and some other things of that nature.

Here's a couple of the posts:

Originally Posted by FearTheAmish

well Lamellar (sp) is actually what the greek's used it was leather armor with strips of bronze inside of it sewn in. but i had to make a leather jerkin for SCA once and it (snip) This is studded leather armor and was COMMON in western europe. I then put it on a maniquin to test it and basically couldn't cut through it with any of the several swords i own.


Originally Posted by hiddensmoke

Lamellar was the popular armor of the European East point example being the Byzantine empire and it was light and more flexible then plate with apparently comparable characteristics. Still inferior overall. I would personally use Lamellar because of weight and protection ratios. Yes it was a full body system if you look at the modern dragon scale armor it has similar ideas.

- Frank Sinatra

The Byzantines used lamellar but not, so far as I'm aware, leather lamellar. Rather they used iron, which was not necessarily any lighter than plate armor in most cases, probably on balance heavier, since the Byzantine heavy cavalry kit (Klibanion) incorporated lamellar over mail.


Anyone able to shed light on how common and useful leather armour was in Europe?

The very rare examples of what look like stand alone leather armor they have found in Medieval Europe are all heavily tooled parade armor, used for tournaments with non-metal sparring weapons. Leather does not appear to have been used as a primary component of actual battlefield armor in Europe except in the following cases:


Hardened leather as a stiffener under or over mail armor, usually for chest and thighs (cuirass and cuisses), in the 12th-13th Century. The mail of course is the real armor here.
As a component of coat of plates or brigandine armor in the 13th-15th Century (textile was more common but leather was used, I have an image of a Spanish 15th Century brigandine with a leather cover). By this I mean specifically as the backing to which the iron plates were attached, the iron plates being the actual armor.
As a component of textile armor ('aketons' in the British Isles often had a doeskin or leather cover, sometimes sealed in pitch, as a damp weather protection)
and as a secondary armor worn underneath a cuirass, the famous 'buff coats' of the 17th Century.


All these forms of leather armor, except for the last, have proven to be extremely rare. We have probably twenty times the number of cuir-boulli leather water bottles and cups for example from the Medieval period than we have of any kind of leather armor.

All the modern tests we have done show that textiles, linen, silk, fustian, cotton, turn out to be more effective than any kind of leather, hardened or soft, as armor.

The 'buff coat' type armor is a bit more controversial. There are these accounts of 'spent' musket balls falling off of them. Of course there are also similar accounts of Chinese textile coats stopping .45 bullets from Thompson SMG's in the Korean war, but I wouldn't depend on that actually saving your life.

On the other hand, leather (often buffalo hide) lamellar was apparently fairly common in Central Asia however, and as lamellar it may have been reasonably effective protection against arrows, especially flight-arrows. And I've even some examples of something which looks like 'studded leather'.

European swords were not any less sharp than Muslim sabers. There was no such thing as a 'scimetar' anyway, this is sort of a generic European term for a wide variety of Middle Eastern, Central Asian and South Asian sabers, inward-curving swords like the yataghan, and single-edged swords such as falchions (which were also, of course, indigenous to Europe).

G

[Galloglaich]

Most bronze alloys have high resistance to material fatigue failures, AFAIR. Of course, meaning of it in weapons etc. use would be disputable.

Higher density can be also somehow nice perk for weapon - bigger sectional density of given blade in penetrating stuff..


Yes I think this is why Bronze was more commonly used for mace-heads for so long in Central Asia and Central / Eastern Europe, all the way into the 19th Century in some places.

Bronze was also more popular for gun barrels for a long time, for many of the above reasons as well as because it didn't make unexpected sparks.

Cast iron was a rival to bronze for cannon barrels eventually but I think mainly due to being cheaper; I believe (somebody can correct me) bronze cannon barrels were more popular all the way into the 18th Century. I think only when they wanted precision barrels (and features like rifling) did steel actually start to become common for gun barrels and then only (initially) in certain specific regions like Brescia, I think this rather gradually spread from the 16th Century onward.

G

[Yora]

So basically it comes down to what you can get and craftsmanship, with neither being universally superior?

[Tyndmyr]

What do you guys know about leather armour? Figured the stuff was mostly fictional, in terms of use within medieval eruope. Also figured the only particularly good stuff was laquered lamellar. Some guys on another forum have been telling me about studded leather armour which works, and some other things of that nature. Here's a couple of the posts:

Anyone able to shed light on how common and useful leather armour was in Europe?

It's my understanding that leather did see some use...but it was not particularly common, especially in the sort of armor we see at larps now. Soft, thin leather is of pretty marginal value as armor. Hardened armor has some value, though obviously it's inferior to metal. I believe blackened leather saw some use in italy at one point, but for entirely stylistic reasons rather than armor.

Coat of plates is legit, certainly. Leather as a component of armor was a thing, but the actual protective value almost invariably comes from the metal.

Realistically, it's popular in larp-type stuff because it's cheap, especially if unhardened and without metal of any kind. So, you get thin, un-hardened leather that has only the vaguest of resemblance to anything historical because people like to barely follow the rules with the minimal amount of effort/encumbrance. Don't get me wrong...I do leatherworking myself. It can look awesome and be fun, but it's almost pure fantasy instead of history.

[Yora]

But what would people wear when they expect to be attacked by weapons but they could not afford chainmail?

[Galloglaich]

So basically it comes down to what you can get and craftsmanship, with neither being universally superior?

That depends on the time period. In say, 200 BC, I would say this was the case. By say, 200 AD, you probably have more good steel weapons and iron armor than bronze... by 1400 AD, steel weapons are common and cheap. Any steel sword is going to be better than the best bronze sword.

For say, a halberd, or an arrowhead it might not matter so much.

Steel armor is still expensive and somewhat rare (prestige) kit, rather like a really good ballistic (threat level IV?) vest is today, but it's still clearly better than bronze armor.

Bronze is sill being used though at that time for mace-heads and gun barrels, and for some armor.


But what would people wear when they expect to be attacked by weapons but they could not afford chainmail?

In a word, textile. Gambeson / aketon / jupon that sort of thing.

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


G

[Spiryt]

But what would people wear when they expect to be attacked by weapons but they could not afford chainmail?

Usually all sort of gambeson, aketon, padded pourpoint and so on.

At least since around ~ 12th century, we can guess that similar things were in use before.

[Galloglaich]

Realistically, it's popular in larp-type stuff because it's cheap, especially if unhardened and without metal of any kind. So, you get thin, un-hardened leather that has only the vaguest of resemblance to anything historical because people like to barely follow the rules with the minimal amount of effort/encumbrance. Don't get me wrong...I do leatherworking myself. It can look awesome and be fun, but it's almost pure fantasy instead of history.

The other thing to keep in mind, is that in comparison to steel or iron armor, leather thick enough to protect you from being bruised by even a rataan stick ala SCA combat, it not exactly light.

A real historical rivated mail shirt which can actually stop sword cuts and arrows weighs around 12 - 15 lbs and is flexible. A leather cuirass by contrast, hardened or otherwise, thick enough to (maybe) stop a sword cut weighs probably quite a bit more than that and will be very stiff and cumbersome. And fairly expensive.

The idea of leather armor as 'light' and 'flexible' and cheap alternative to metal armor is born of a whole host of cliches and mistakes that keep getting repeated around and around in circles. It's up to us to kind of correct that! :)

G

[Tyndmyr]

But what would people wear when they expect to be attacked by weapons but they could not afford chainmail?

Sometimes nothing. Depends how poor you were. Spiryt is correct, though, in that textiles did see notable use. Wooden shields and such were also a common defensive option, even if cheap shields were fairly disposable... but frankly, not everyone on the battlefield even had defensive stuff. Sometimes you're just a dude with a spear.


The other thing to keep in mind, is that in comparison to steel or iron armor, leather thick enough to protect you from being bruised by even a rataan stick ala SCA combat, it not exactly light.

Larp is larger than just SCA though. Consider other organizations, like Dagorhir, and you can definitely see that the rules allow much cheaper/easier/lighter "armor" than metal. The larps for which combat is more of a tap sport are even less likely to require leather to be particularly thick.

[Galloglaich]

Sometimes nothing. Depends how poor you were. Spiryt is correct, though, in that textiles did see notable use. Wooden shields and such were also a common defensive option, even if cheap shields were fairly disposable... but frankly, not everyone on the battlefield even had defensive stuff. Sometimes you're just a dude with a spear.

That does also depend on the era; on late Medieval battlefields armor was pretty ubiquitous.



Larp is larger than just SCA though. Consider other organizations, like Dagorhir, and you can definitely see that the rules allow much cheaper/easier/lighter "armor" than metal. The larps for which combat is more of a tap sport are even less likely to require leather to be particularly thick.

Well, that isn't relevant to the use of leather for 'armor', because in that case it's just a costume isn't it? I mentioned the SCA gear because their kit is assumed to have some protective quality to it, at least against blunt impact, though again, I don't think leather actually holds up to sharp edges very well regardless of how thick it is.

Basically just trying to provide some context on the heaviness of leather as armor, the way it's depicted in RPG's. Obviously it can thin as you like for clothing or decoration (which is actually all armor usually is in most fantasy films and a lot of RPG's).

G

[Storm Bringer]

Bronze was also more popular for gun barrels for a long time, for many of the above reasons as well as because it didn't make unexpected sparks.

Cast iron was a rival to bronze for cannon barrels eventually but I think mainly due to being cheaper; I believe (somebody can correct me) bronze cannon barrels were more popular all the way into the 18th Century.

G

the most common cannon on both sides of the American Civil War of the 1860s, the 12 pdr Napoleon, was a bronze cannon.

as i understand it, the many early cannons were bonze because the early cannonmakers were mostly Bell makers (the only people of the time with experence in working with large amounts of moltern metal), who worked with bronze. Also, I beleive, but cannot confirm, that bronze was preffered for large metal objects because of problems with casting flaws in cast Iorn over a certian size (which is why the greeks could wear solid bronze breastplates but the romans needed segmented iorn armour), which were only overcome in the 19th century.

[Yora]

Sometimes nothing. Depends how poor you were. Spiryt is correct, though, in that textiles did see notable use. Wooden shields and such were also a common defensive option, even if cheap shields were fairly disposable... but frankly, not everyone on the battlefield even had defensive stuff. Sometimes you're just a dude with a spear.
But are there reasons that would make leather inherently inferior to other materials. Having a fabric armor with leather layers would not be leather armor as in the common image, but is there compelling reasons to not use leather in such constructions?

Cowboys wrapped leather over their trousers, though thorny brambles and cattle horms are a completely different beast than sharpened metal blades.

[Spiryt]

But are there reasons that would make leather inherently inferior to other materials. Having a fabric armor with leather layers would not be leather armor as in the common image, but is there compelling reasons to not use leather in such constructions?

Cowboys wrapped leather over their trousers, though thorny brambles and cattle horms are a completely different beast than sharpened metal blades.

Leather was generally expensive, hard to work with, easily damaged all in all - I posted the image of book page about later buff coats and problems with construction.

They were pretty much layered jacks, only from layers of leather instead of fabric.

As far as I recall, leather was often used in jack and gambesons in Medieval as well - but mostly as outer layer - stuffing/main layers were from linen, wool, animal hair.

Generally our knowledge about soft armors, especially earlier ones, is not very satisfying, but it seems that leather wasn't really favored.

After all, even modern very thin, worked leather is kinda stiff and all.

[GraaEminense]

Leather is harder to repair as well, and often becomes expensive (and thick leather always has been relatively expensive, it comes from cattle after all) as material is replaced rather than patched. This problem is aggravated by the fact that -unlike woven cloth- any stitch requires a hole that weakens the material. Not very desirable qualities in armour intended to see use.

[fusilier]

While cast iron was cheaper for making cannons, bronze was generally considered safer. Some civil war era cannons, like the 3-inch rifle, were made from wrought iron, and, while much safer than cast iron, they were very expensive to make.

Bronze is softer and will eventually wear out from use, but it's easily recycled and doesn't rust! (Bronze corrodes but in a much nicer, less detrimental way). It is often said that rifled bronze cannons didn't last very long and were not successful. But the French made many rifled bronze cannons, including breechloaders, and they don't seem to have suffered from very short lives (this could be due to the use of different/softer materials in the ammunition). I've seen a reference to "compressed bronze"(?) when referring to cannons in the second half of the 19th century, but I have no idea what it may mean.

I know that some bronze cannons were still in use during WW1, but by then steel was certainly the preferred medium.

[Knaight]

That depends on the time period. In say, 200 BC, I would say this was the case. By say, 200 AD, you probably have more good steel weapons and iron armor than bronze... by 1400 AD, steel weapons are common and cheap. Any steel sword is going to be better than the best bronze sword.

For say, a halberd, or an arrowhead it might not matter so much.
I'd also make a note regarding blunt weapons. The advantage of springiness that steel has is pretty much worthless in maces and similar, and the increased density of bronze is downright useful. As such, while steel is far better for swords, longer spear heads, etc. bronze is just as good for non-edged weapons.

Larp is larger than just SCA though. Consider other organizations, like Dagorhir, and you can definitely see that the rules allow much cheaper/easier/lighter "armor" than metal. The larps for which combat is more of a tap sport are even less likely to require leather to be particularly thick.

You don't need armor at all for Dagorhir, you just need to be willing to deal with the occasional bruise. It's generally just a costume, though occasionally you do see thick leather intended to reduce the pain of being hit. Amtgard doesn't even see pain reducing armor, as it uses featherweight weapons where light taps that probably wouldn't even cut skin were the weapons edged count as kills. Incidentally, Dagorhir is only borderline LARP anyways - whether or not roleplaying is involved at all depends on the group, and for some it would be better described as LAP.

[Xuc Xac]

In addition to being easier to work with, bronze was preferred for cannon because it has very low metal-on-metal friction. An iron cannonball with a slight defect might jam in an iron cannon but it'll slip through a bronze barrel as if it were greased.

[fusilier]

In addition to being easier to work with, bronze was preferred for cannon because it has very low metal-on-metal friction. An iron cannonball with a slight defect might jam in an iron cannon but it'll slip through a bronze barrel as if it were greased.

Hmmm. I don't know about that having a practical effect. I think I've heard of stuck projectiles in bronze cannon. More importantly the "windage" was probably the key factor. Windage is basically the difference in size between the diameter of the projectile and the diameter of the bore (i.e. the "gap"). As tolerances improved the windage decreased.

I also just ran across references to bronze-steel in relation to circa 1900 artillery. Other than being an alloy of broze and iron, I don't know much else about its properties.

[Galloglaich]

the most common cannon on both sides of the American Civil War of the 1860s, the 12 pdr Napoleon, was a bronze cannon.

as i understand it, the many early cannons were bonze because the early cannonmakers were mostly Bell makers (the only people of the time with experence in working with large amounts of moltern metal), who worked with bronze. Also, I beleive, but cannot confirm, that bronze was preffered for large metal objects because of problems with casting flaws in cast Iorn over a certian size (which is why the greeks could wear solid bronze breastplates but the romans needed segmented iorn armour), which were only overcome in the 19th century.

I think this is all correct except for the last part; the assumption there seems to be that iron armor was cast, but cast iron wasn't used for armor (it was too brittle). All iron or steel body armor was forged. But you are correct in that while they could cast a large bronze plate, iron (which was forged) was only really available in relatively small pieces during Roman times. Large pieces could be made, but they were more likely to have slag in them, which could make them break.

Very gradually they learned to make large billets of iron, using larger bloomery forges. Eventually by the 8th-9th Century automation became more often part of the process, water wheels (spread around Europe by the Cistercian monks) powered bellows and trip hammers in ever more sophisticated devices, a process which hit an early peak of efficiency probably around the 13th Century. By that time pretty good homogeneous (i.e., all made of the same composition) iron in quite large pieces was increasingly available. So it's no coincidence that this when you start seeing armor made of nicely shaped pieces of iron.

I also don't think it is a coincidence that ever larger iron billets led in short order to ever larger steel swords, peaking with the monster six foot zweihanders in the 16th Century, steel prod crossbows more powerful than anything the world had seen before, steel gun barrels, and so on.

In other places, for example India, you see a similar parallel evolution of ferrous metalurgy coinciding with remarkable military technologies - like steel sword-whips, steel bows, and swords (as well as other weapons) with longer and longer (and more supple) blades, bullet-proof steel shields, and so on.

G

[Conners]

Anyone know much about archers with plate armour? There's an argument about whether archers can wear heavy armour such as plate, and still be effective bowmen. Some people have alluded to archers in Venice of this nature, and some Scottish ones... but there isn't much documentation which is easily found, and the sources are questionable.

How plausible is using a bow in plate armour?

[Spiryt]

Anyone know much about archers with plate armour? There's an argument about whether archers can wear heavy armour such as plate, and still be effective bowmen. Some people have alluded to archers in Venice of this nature, and some Scottish ones... but there isn't much documentation which is easily found, and the sources are questionable.

How plausible is using a bow in plate armour?

It's absolutely plausible, after all shooting bow is way less dynamic and movement dependent thing that actual melee fight - person exerts force in two directions on pretty much one 'plane', and that's it.

http://www.thearma.org/arttalk/SiegeFrench14th_copy.JPG

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/static/miniatures/original/234-26.jpg

http://rpmedia.ask.com/ts?u=/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Battle-poitiers%281356%29.jpg/140px-Battle-poitiers%281356%29.jpg

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/static/miniatures/original/23-1.jpg




Theoretically, gauntlets and closed helmets would be problem, but a lot of sources seem to portray archers shooting in them anyway.

[Galloglaich]

Yeah, I agree with Spyrit, period artwork is full of archers (and gunners, and crossbowmen) wearing plate armor, I mean there are scores, probably hundreds of paintings like the one he linked, esp. from the 14th -15th Centuries. And like Spyrit said, fighting with hand weapons (swords, poleaxes, spears etc.) requires much more range of movement than just shooting a bow or a crossbow.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Battle-poitiers%281356%29.jpg

Horse-archers weren't always heavily armored or even armored at all, but sometimes they were. Russian, Ottoman and Byzantine heavy cavalry for example often carried bows and were fully armored.

Like Vasnetsov's famous Bogatyr

http://www.brookestonejewelry.com/photos/thumbnails/Vasnetsov%20painting%20of%20bogatyr%20on%20horse_5 00x500.jpg

Of course he's just wearing bakhterets (mail and plate) but it's the same difference.

G

[Yora]

But I think it's notable that the artists usually show archers without gauntlets, while everyone else has them. It is something the artists were paying attention to.

[Eldan]

Questions I need for a bit of world-building:

What were the first Spanish conquistadores equipped with? I'm thinking Cortez to Pizarro, beginning of the 16th century. My research shows Arquebuses and early muskets, but what melee weapons would be commonly used by these expeditions? How good were those firearms? Most pictures show steel breastplates and helmets, was that the norm for all troops? Was there other notable equipment? How good was it in quality?

And for statting: does anyone have any data on how long it took them to reload their firearms and how far they could shoot with any degree of accuracy?

[Conners]

Thanks guys. BTW... where do you find all the good artwork? I have trouble finding anything historical, when I do searches.

[Dead_Jester]

Questions I need for a bit of world-building:

What were the first Spanish conquistadores equipped with? I'm thinking Cortez to Pizarro, beginning of the 16th century. My research shows Arquebuses and early muskets, but what melee weapons would be commonly used by these expeditions? How good were those firearms? Most pictures show steel breastplates and helmets, was that the norm for all troops? Was there other notable equipment? How good was it in quality?

And for statting: does anyone have any data on how long it took them to reload their firearms and how far they could shoot with any degree of accuracy?

By the period and the few historical records of equipment I have seen, I'd say they where equipped like the standard Spanish soldiers of the period, so a mix of standard tercio, probably with more Rodeleros and less dedicated pikemen (AFAIR, the standard equipment for most spanish soldiers was spear, morion, and a side-sword, and the force's size was too small for a full Tercio block), and a few arquebusiers and crossbowmen, maybe also a few halberds. The more well-off troops, including most of the cavalry, probably had steel breastplates, but they were not universal.

The firearms where probably of decent to good quality for the period, but as early matchlock arquebuses, they where heavy and inaccurate, due to having a usually non-standardized bore size. The impact would probably have been psychological more than anything, considering the relatively small contingents.

As for the reload time, I can't seem to find the video demonstrations, but, from what I could find, it was a bit slower than an early matchlock musket, but that may have been caused by relative inexperience in the use of a firearm with a gun fork by the testers, so maybe 1 or 2 shots per minute for trained shooters in good conditions, maybe 3 at best.

[Galloglaich]

There is an excellent first hand account of Cortez initial expedition, by one of the soldiers in it, Bernal Diaz.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Conquest-Spain-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140441239

If I remember correctly the initial force consisted of 500 men, of which there were 12 crossbowmen and 13 arquebusiers (hand-gunners), they also had maybe a half-dozen small-bore cannon, and about 20 cavalry.

Most of the men including the author, Bernal Diaz, were rotoleros equipped with textile armor (aketon / gambeson) steel helmets, steel shields, and swords like sideswords or 'transitional rapiers'. There were also a number of halberdiers equipped similarly. The cavalry had more complete plate armor (half armor or three quarters harness, or at minimum a cuirass) and lances, and longswords, sideswords or arming swords.

The textile armor could be fairly effective, but it had it's limitations as you can see here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Dn1VmbtEum8&list=UU34A6jd1-A2LV_-fTGRyL_A

Some of the infantry also had mail shirts which would be very helpful, and as Jester said others who were better off had cuirasses.

The fact that they survived and won several battles against huge numbers of locals in their first few weeks in the Yucatan with almost no casualties is amazing. After his first march to Mexico City (Tenochtitlán) Cortez took over a larger Spanish force which had been sent to arrest him, I think something like 1500 troops. Soon after that they had large numbers of native allies, especially Tlaxcalans. But the initial fighting was just this tiny number of mostly light infantry. One of the many strange coincidences about the initial Spanish invasion was it happened at the time, the cusp of the 15th / 16th Century, when the Spanish military with their Tercios was arguably at or near it's peak of effectivness, having just defeated the Moors... they had even learned to beat the Swiss. Arguably they were the toughest infantry in Europe, certainly in the top 2 or 3.

Cortez was very cunning and used all kinds of tricks. For example they took the fittings off of all the ships they burned and when they got to Mexico City, they made small schooners to sail around the lake, and mounted some of the guns on them. Later when they had to fight their way out block by block, island to island, this saved their lives several times. The locals were afraid of horses and dogs and Cortez used this effectively.

The guns and crossbows were deadly, the former were nothing like a modern assault rifle, more like a 12 gauge shotgun shooting slugs, but that was no joke. The noise did have an effect but the bullets far more so! Against mass formations they didn't have to be particularly accurate. They could still easily shoot individual people within 50 feet or so, and the crossbows probably out to about 80 meters. Into a mass formation and / or shot in volleys both weapons could be lethal out to 300 meters or more.

But a lot of the fighting came down to hand to hand combat for guys with shields, swords, open faced helmets and textile armor.

G

[Galloglaich]

For context on late Medieval handguns:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkbSTyT1COE

G

[Galloglaich]

Thanks guys. BTW... where do you find all the good artwork? I have trouble finding anything historical, when I do searches.

It's a symptom of our modern culture, fake stuff is 1000 times more popular than anything real, and you can multiply this by another 1000 for anything to do with pre-industrial European history.

Or Samuria, or Ninjas... Pirates. A whole host of other things.

So google reflects this back to us. Searches for generic terms rarely give you anything useful. To find that, you learn places to go (like say, the Wiktenauer, Myarmoury, or Schola Gladiatoria forum, Armor Archive, Roman Army Talk, All Empires and so on... and I like to think, this forum). You learn more obscure technical terms which aren't already made into some imbecilic product. 'Schiavona' or 'Yataghan', or 'Jian' instead of sword. Foreign words are even better. You learn the names of artists, authors, and authorities of eras past. For example for anything to do with warfare in France, 'Froissart' is a good search term because he did a beautifully illustrated chronicle covering most wars in that part of the world.

The truth is, to find anything 'real', you have to work hard and learn to do real research at an almost professional level, and it really shouldn't be that hard. It's something those of us who post here regularly are trying to correct. It has gotten slightly better in recent years, as more people become aware of certain things, and more resources have become available. But it's still swimming upstream.

G

[Endon the White]

Been playing Dragon Age: Origins lately, and I've been wondering how effective trained attack dogs would be in an open battle. The Fereldan's seem to just have their Mabari charge the enemy lines, but that doesn't seem like the most efficient way to use them. Were dogs ever used by historical armies for combat? How do you think would be the best way to use Mabari War Hounds (http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Mabari) in a pitch battle?

[Galloglaich]

I think they were... the conquistadors used greyhounds of all things, the Romans used Mastiffs, as did the Irish and many others. I've even seen dog armor, depictions of firepots attached to war-dogs... but I don't know many details of how they were used though.

G

[fusilier]

The war dogs used by Spanish conquistadores are believed to be the ancestors of greyhounds, and not greyhounds per se. (If my recollection serves me right).


The fact that they survived and won several battles against huge numbers of locals in their first few weeks in the Yucatan with almost no casualties is amazing.

The nature of Mesoamerican warfare at the time should also be kept in mind. Mainly that it was concerned with taking captives and not killing the enemy. During the siege of Tenochtitlan it was noted that Spanish sometimes survived, because the enemy was trying to take them alive. Clearly the superior armor and weaponry of the Spanish enhanced the ability to fend off such attacks intended to wound and capture.

Also a few decades later, the Spanish were almost completely outclassed in the field by the Chichimecas. After four or five decades of war, they basically bribed the Chichimecas into peace, as they could not defeat them militarily. The Mapuche resisted the Spanish for something like three centuries! They very quickly learned how to work iron, and were fielding pikemen supported by archers by the early 1600s!

Chain mail seems to have been pretty common among Spanish in the New World, and I have read reports of it at least into the early 17th century. I've also heard that helmets hung on longer too in New Spain.

[I would love to provide more details, but I might not be able to respond for a week or two, as I will be travelling]

[fusilier]

The firearms where probably of decent to good quality for the period, but as early matchlock arquebuses, they where heavy and inaccurate, due to having a usually non-standardized bore size. The impact would probably have been psychological more than anything, considering the relatively small contingents.

As for the reload time, I can't seem to find the video demonstrations, but, from what I could find, it was a bit slower than an early matchlock musket, but that may have been caused by relative inexperience in the use of a firearm with a gun fork by the testers, so maybe 1 or 2 shots per minute for trained shooters in good conditions, maybe 3 at best.

Arquebuses were not terribly heavy. They became longer and heavier --> becoming what is known as the "musket" <-- later in the 1500s. Around 10-lbs or less is probably a good guess for an early arquebus (the early ones did tend to have short but surprisingly thick barrels). There's some debate about how much a musket would weigh -- lately I've been told by a couple of gunsmiths that they never weighed more the 15lbs, though many sources would say 20lbs.

They were not inaccurate because they used a non-standardized bore size. That has nothing to do with accuracy; each gun was provided with a bullet mold to make bullets in the correct size. This was the responsibility of the individual soldier -- and could cause logistical problems. Accuracy of these early weapons are difficult to determine, because there are so many factors at play. Even period sources can be all over the map in terms of accuracy and penetrating power. (For example, it appears the arqubusier could choose to use loose fitting or tight fitting bullets, as he saw fit). However, we can say that the early arquebuses did have rather short barrels, and that would affect the accuracy.

Loading times run into the same problem. Is the soldier using the "rowling" (rolling) gauge ball that's so loose fitting it doesn't need to be seated with a ramrod? Or is he using a tight fitting, bore gauge ball? Or is he using a patch? I've handled and fired a matchlock. The important thing is to not blow yourself up. In one hand you have gunpowder and in the other fire! So I don't try for speed, I try for precision. Nevertheless, about one-minute between shots is what seems to have been expected. Certainly with practice it could be improved, and the smaller lighter weapons (arquebuses, later calivers), would probably be a little faster loading than the heavier ones (muskets). Also the equipment wasn't standard either. Loading from a flask, chargers (small wooden bottles with a pre-measured load), or later paper cartridges, could all have an affect.

[Yora]

The nature of Mesoamerican warfare at the time should also be kept in mind. Mainly that it was concerned with taking captives and not killing the enemy. During the siege of Tenochtitlan it was noted that Spanish sometimes survived, because the enemy was trying to take them alive. Clearly the superior armor and weaponry of the Spanish enhanced the ability to fend off such attacks intended to wound and capture.

Also a few decades later, the Spanish were almost completely outclassed in the field by the Chichimecas. After four or five decades of war, they basically bribed the Chichimecas into peace, as they could not defeat them militarily. The Mapuche resisted the Spanish for something like three centuries! They very quickly learned how to work iron, and were fielding pikemen supported by archers by the early 1600s!
And then 98% of the continents population was killed by smallpox.
Though that still does not negate that Spanish did do really well when it came to actual military engagements.

Been playing Dragon Age: Origins lately, and I've been wondering how effective trained attack dogs would be in an open battle. The Fereldan's seem to just have their Mabari charge the enemy lines, but that doesn't seem like the most efficient way to use them.
Yes, that doesn't make sense. But nothing in that scene really does make any sense. It's Hollywood Tactics at it's best.
For those who don't know the scene. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVrXW0WVXYw)

[a_humble_lich]

Chain mail seems to have been pretty common among Spanish in the New World, and I have read reports of it at least into the early 17th century. I've also heard that helmets hung on longer too in New Spain.


I was at the New Mexico museum of history and I remember they had some chain mail on display. I can't remember when exactly it was from, but northern New Mexico wasn't settled until 1598 so I would think after then. It wouldn't surprise me if things like that hung on longer in New Spain. After all Kearny was attacked by lancers in the Mexican-American war.

[Yora]

Helmets were also the first piece of armor that returned in world war 1. Might not stop a rifle, but there are more than enough things in war that can cause significant head injuries that makes them worth wearing. The same thing would have applied to the spanish in south america.

[eulmanis12]

Got a question about early firearms.

Were there ever line infantry that fought with pistols?

I did some thinking an figured that a flintlock or wheel lock pistol is less than a third the weight of a musket, and carrying a brace of 4 or five pistols was not uncommon at sea (naval combat being a crazed meelee in a boarding action many men carried more than one firearm, pistols being the prefered type due to the ease of carrying more than one of them). So say I have 4 loaded pistols going into battle, I can fire four shots in the time it takes the enemy to fire one, then I can reload a single pistol at the same speed if not faster than the enemy can reload a musket. I know pistols at the time were not very accurate but niether were the muskets and I think against a group of enemies standing in a line the volume of fire would more than make up for the accuracy. Are there any examples of this being done? If so what were the results. If no examples, any ideas as to why? I can think of the cost of providing multiple firearms per man as one but not much else.

[Yora]

With muskets and flintlock pistols, the barrel length should make a huge difference. Longer barrel means more push from the same amount of powder and more stable flight.
I don't know about the actual ranges of engagement. Modern reenactments use much more advanced rifles but are also supposed to be watched and are done with smaller numbers of people, so those don't tell us anything in that regard. But I say that every army would be more than happy to have superior range so they can shot their enemies from a distance they are not at danger themselves. What use are 4 pistols when you've been shot at several times before you have chance for your balls to injure someone?

[Spiryt]

Muskets and other 'full scale' firearms were going to have bigger velocity, so flatter trajectory of bullets, more range, bigger caliber, all in all more power, armor/obstacle penetration, two handed hold was more stable and accurate, and so on.

Carrying such a lot of pistols would be greatly impractical, in theory it would allow some 'rapid volleys', but in practice would mean a lot of carrying around, trouble, confusion, more things to operate in battle, confusion - which one had I loaded, again? - and so on.

Tactic with firearms anyway revolved around mass volleys, at least roughly coordinated -tough to do if every man would try to shoot as quickly as possible with multiple pistols.

At close ranges, it could possibly be feasible, but at close ranges shooters are obviosuly not going to involve in any serious shooting -it's time to retreat or fight hand to hand.

[Yora]

I've done some searching for effective ranges and for pistols the numbers are estimated at about 15-20 meters and for muskets from 50 up to 100 meters.

[Conners]

How much does a strike's power vary, just on how solidly it lands? Could a strike end up twice as powerful as what's normal, if the opponent was lined up perfectly?

In this case, I mean pure strength and quality of the blow--not hitting a vulnerable spot.

[Yora]

Depends on how much muscle action goes into the blow, how firm the stance of the striker is, and in what direction the opponent is moving and at what speed.
The most powerful strike by a world class boxer to the chest is not any different than a toddler patting you on the leg. Between those every amount of "power" is possible.

[Spiryt]

How much does a strike's power vary, just on how solidly it lands? Could a strike end up twice as powerful as what's normal, if the opponent was lined up perfectly?



Well, I guess we should first come with some definition of "power" - this may not be so obvious.

Sheer kinetic energy of bodies in swing? Kinetic energy actually used to do x? Force of impact between x and y?

Anyway, assuming the same individual, with the same weapon, strikes will vary quite a bit obviously - depending on amount of energy and velocity he can achieve, body mechanics, how much of it is at point of impact, if target is moving, and so on.

Most certainly one can produce a blow two times 'stronger' than some of his other ones.

[Storm Bringer]

Tactic with firearms anyway revolved around mass volleys, at least roughly coordinated -tough to do if every man would try to shoot as quickly as possible with multiple pistols.
.

actaully, as far as i know. coordinated volleys didn't tend to last more than one or two reloadings in a stand up firefight, as, understandably, soliders were rather loathe to wait for the slowpokes when they had a loaded weapon all ready to go, so mustket exchanges often degenerated into two lines of men loading and firing as fast as they could.

also, thier is the cavalry tactic known as Caracole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracole), which involved a unit of cavalry firing two pistols at point blank then retireing to reload while the next rank did the same.

[Conners]

On the mention of cavalry: How does cavalry fighting work historically? Games have given me plenty of mental images of horsemen standing in an infantry line, swinging down from their horse (ala medieval total war). Generally in these games, the horsemen are fragile units.

Realistically, I guess horsemen aren't likely to be so static, and more likely to keep moving when possible? Possibly fighting more like skirmishers ala Mount and Blade, where they sweep in and attack, sweep out, and repeat the process?

[Spiryt]

also, thier is the cavalry tactic known as Caracole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracole), which involved a unit of cavalry firing two pistols at point blank then retireing to reload while the next rank did the same.

Cavalry is different thing, obviously, and cavaliers were generally know to carry few pistols, at least.

They had means to - you can really strap quite a few pistols to the horse, sometimes small arquebus etc.

[Storm Bringer]

On the mention of cavalry: How does cavalry fighting work historically? Games have given me plenty of mental images of horsemen standing in an infantry line, swinging down from their horse (ala medieval total war). Generally in these games, the horsemen are fragile units.

Realistically, I guess horsemen aren't likely to be so static, and more likely to keep moving when possible? Possibly fighting more like skirmishers ala Mount and Blade, where they sweep in and attack, sweep out, and repeat the process?

as i understand it, cavalry almost never charged home into a formed, well ordered infantry unit. For one if they did, then they tended loose badly (like at Crecy, or Waterloo). Somewhat more importantly, though, horses will not gallop headlong into a line of spearpoints or a solid sheild wall. they have brians, and will shy away form a running into a formed unit without a LOT of training, and even then they won't do anything blantantly suicidal.

instead, they preffered to charge into disordered infanty close to breaking, who often did break when they realised the knighters were in the formation. good flim examples would be the japanese conscripts breaking in their first battle agianst the samurai in The Last Samuari, or the Charge of the Rohirim in Return of the King (where, agian, the orcs start to break and run before the charge connects).


ideally, the target infantry have been bombarded with arrow or shot to the point that their line is ragged, theri morale is low, and the sight of a few hundred big men on big horses coming at them is the last straw and the turn to flee, which is the very worst thing they can do, as it lets the horsemen thread a path though the mass of fleeing man, cutting left and right as they go.

[Galloglaich]

Muskets and other 'full scale' firearms were going to have bigger velocity, so flatter trajectory of bullets, more range, bigger caliber, all in all more power, armor/obstacle penetration, two handed hold was more stable and accurate, and so on.

Carrying such a lot of pistols would be greatly impractical, in theory it would allow some 'rapid volleys', but in practice would mean a lot of carrying around, trouble, confusion, more things to operate in battle, confusion - which one had I loaded, again? - and so on.

Tactic with firearms anyway revolved around mass volleys, at least roughly coordinated -tough to do if every man would try to shoot as quickly as possible with multiple pistols.

At close ranges, it could possibly be feasible, but at close ranges shooters are obviosuly not going to involve in any serious shooting -it's time to retreat or fight hand to hand.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Reiter_gdanski_2.1.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_59GYpEVAu0U/TPc5EQgGVoI/AAAAAAAAAlY/98_w5EK5KOY/s1600/pistol_cavalry.PNG

I think it is probably impractical for infantry, probably, but this was used by cavarly quite a bit. The German Reitter, which just means cavalry or rider, came to have a speicific meaning in the 17th Century of pistol armed knights, and they would carry 4-6 pistols on their saddle holsters, in addition to a sword or a saber. These guys wore armor as well, three quarters or half-harness. They were direct competitors with the lance-armed heavy cavalry.

These are horse-pistols so they actually have a bit more range than a regular pistol, though due to the armor the doctrine of the day advocated point blank shooting, literally touching the pistol to the unarmored part of the opponent, or the more lightly armored part like the thigh or the face.

The Polish Hussaria also sometimes carried a brace, or up to four pistols on their saddles, in addition to a ton of other weapons; lance, sword (palash), saber, mace, lasso... sometimes an axe or a stabbing sword (kanzer / estoc).

The Spanish also had some pistol armed cavarly.

I think the reason you might see this on ships and on horseback but not as much on foot is that A) it's a lot to carry around with you (pistols are heavy) if you have to march and B) ship combat almost guarantees close-quarters, at least during any boarding action, and cavarlymen can often arrange for it to happen... but (by the time of flint-lock and wheellock pistols) on he battlefield infantry tends to most often remain at a distance, protected by pikes or later bayonets, and their formation. In a chaotic situation a pistol is great, but at that close of a range, an organized pike phalanx could be more deadly, and muskets are much more likely to be able to pierce armor on the front ranks of the formation.

G

[rrgg]

Personally, I think that the cavalry were a bit hardier then they are generally given credit for and that there would have been very little a man with a one-handed spear or "short" musket and bayonet could physically do against a charging horse, but at the same time I highly doubt suicidal, head on charges would have been popular with anyone for obvious reasons.

I wonder if a knight with a long enough lance could effectively charge, strike, and wheel about without colliding with the enemy line.

[Galloglaich]

On the mention of cavalry: How does cavalry fighting work historically? Games have given me plenty of mental images of horsemen standing in an infantry line, swinging down from their horse (ala medieval total war). Generally in these games, the horsemen are fragile units.

Realistically, I guess horsemen aren't likely to be so static, and more likely to keep moving when possible? Possibly fighting more like skirmishers ala Mount and Blade, where they sweep in and attack, sweep out, and repeat the process?

Yes, I think Mount and Blade is much more realistic for this, even though it's mainly on a smaller scale.

The whole point of cavalry is their incredible mobility, so I agree it's not very realistic to show cavalry always just sanding there and duking it out, though that did sometimes happen (and was a tactic for certain types of 'heavy' cavalry in the 18th and 19th Centuries)

More generally though, cavalry warfare is all about achieving local numerical superiority. Your enemies forces are positioned just so, stronger here, weaker there; more organized in this place, less in the other... up against a natural obstacle like a stream or a hillside in one place, or out in the open on the other.

Cavalry can suddenly concentrate forces where the opponent is weakest. On a smaller scale this can be as simple as a string of enemy soldiers, and the cavalry sweeps down on the tail end of the column and gangs up on the few guys there just long enough to do some damage, then sweeps away again before strong opposition can be organized. On a larger scale, an army can be caught for example while they are crossing a river, with half their forces on one side and half on the other, one side struggling with the baggage train and one ready to fight. The cavalry can go for the former and wreak havoc.

For this reason, situational awareness, battlefield communciation and battlefield intelligence are extremely critical for cavalry warfare. It's why cavalry uses flags, bugles, drums and so on to coordinate their activity. This is where the Mongols, for example, really excelled. They used whistling arrows, flags, and so-called 'arrow riders' (couriers) to communicate, and were really superb at detecting weakness in their enemies armies.

Long range missiles can help create these weaknesses, which again is one of the ubiquitous tactics of the Central Asian steppe, and the Mongols, Ottomans, Mughals, and various nomadic groups thereof. Flight arrows rained down from a distance could create panic among enemy fighters (and their horses) which the Mongols could practically smell...

Many of these tactics, like the couriers and signalling arrows, were quickly adapted (or maybe they already existed and were re-emphasized) by Europeans who had to face Steppe Nomads, particularly in Poland and Hungary, who adapted both light cavalry of the Central Asian style and the heavy cavalry . The Czechs went the other direction and emphasized infantry with war wagons and crossbows (later guns) which properly coordinated, could resist and annihilate cavalry charges.

The charge of the heavy cavalry is also part of cavalry tactics, and it comes at the wavering enemy line, it's a more decisive move, but has always been part of cavalry tactics and actually also originates on the Steppe - the Scythians and Sarmatians had heavy cavalry. This was something the Europeans really perfected, though against more sophisticated cavalry they had to learn to put this type of fighting in it's place.

The other big factor in cavalry warfare is morale. Infantry tends to be more steadfast. A lot of cavalry fighting involves mad chases, confrontations, deceptions, backing down, regrouping, false retreats, sudden splits of formations and coordinated maneuvers... the outnumbered side suddenly becomes the larger force, and vice versa. The morale of both the riders and their horses can suddenly fluctuate, a sudden fullisade of guns, a steady rain of flight arrows, enemy maneuvering which looks like it's cutting off hope of escape. Many cavalry battles seem to hinge on sudden changes in morale. This is why strong personal leadership can be so important, which in turn is, I think, why the best heavy cavalry comes from feudal aristocracies; the best light cavalry from nomadic tribes, and the best infantry from republics.

G

[deuxhero]

Does the type of water (such as clean vs dirty, fresh vs salt) used for quenching a blade (or anything you are forging) effect anything about the blade?

[fusilier]

I was at the New Mexico museum of history and I remember they had some chain mail on display. I can't remember when exactly it was from, but northern New Mexico wasn't settled until 1598 so I would think after then. It wouldn't surprise me if things like that hung on longer in New Spain. After all Kearny was attacked by lancers in the Mexican-American war.

It's been way too long since I've been to the Palace of the Governors, or the Albuquerque History Museum, which is a real shame as I live in Albuquerque, but I think there is a chainmail shirt (with a hole through it) at the Albuquerque museum as well.

Mexican (and many other "Latin" Americans) vaqueros used lances in herding, and also warfare against the natives, so they were very adept at lance use.

[fusilier]

Helmets were also the first piece of armor that returned in world war 1. Might not stop a rifle, but there are more than enough things in war that can cause significant head injuries that makes them worth wearing. The same thing would have applied to the spanish in south america.

New Mexico (and old Mexico, and all of central america) are actually part of North America -- although it wouldn't surprise me if this held true across most of "Spanish America".

I think the Pueblans were very fond of slinging/throwing stones, and that's why the Spanish tended to hold on to helmets in New Mexico. They must have fallen out of use sometime around 1700. At which point the conflict may have shifted to the Apaches and Navajos -- or trends in europe and lack of replacements finally caught up with them.

[Yora]

Does the type of water (such as clean vs dirty, fresh vs salt) used for quenching a blade (or anything you are forging) effect anything about the blade?
All I can say is yes, because it's actually prefer to not use water but other liquids. But I can not say what exactly the differences and and what chemical processes are going on there.

Sticking a blade into snow does not work, because the snow touching the blade just evaporates and forms a hole in the snow, you effectively just sprinkle some water on it, which is not enough and results in uneven cooling, most likely destroying the blade.

[a_humble_lich]

It's been way too long since I've been to the Palace of the Governors, or the Albuquerque History Museum, which is a real shame as I live in Albuquerque, but I think there is a chainmail shirt (with a hole through it) at the Albuquerque museum as well.

Mexican (and many other "Latin" Americans) vaqueros used lances in herding, and also warfare against the natives, so they were very adept at lance use.

This was actually at the new history museum right behind the Palace of the Governors, which I thought was really well done. It has been way to long for me as well since I've been to the Palace of the Governors.

And very adapt at lance use is right. If I remember right the US cavalry was initially dismissive of being attacked by "primitive, medieval" weapons. After the battle of San Pasqual I don't think they were as dismissive.

As far as armor goes that is a good question. Why did the Spanish continue to wear armor in the New World but the British/Americans didn't seem to. Given the weapons the Native Americans used, I would think armor would be very effective.


As for liquids used for quenching, my blacksmith friend used oil heated to about 200 C to quench swords. That gave a more gradual quench and made the blade less brittle (If my memory is good).

[Autolykos]

@Quenching: From your descriptions, it's the physical, and not the chemical qualities that matter (mainly the rate at which heat gets transferred away from the blade). And while dissolving salt (or dirt) in water will change it's boiling point slightly, the effect won't be large enough to be noticed. So, for the purpose of quenching a finished blade, all water is equally mediocre, and oil is better.
Where it might make a difference is when the dirt/salt has a chance to get into the metal, for example when pattern welding the steel. It may be a way to get some of the components of the dirt into that "pseudo-alloy". I recall this being done with bird droppings (for phosphorus), but most of it is probably best chalked up to myths that originated with a specific soil in one region (where it worked) and got copied in other regions (where it didn't).
EDIT: Some soils could contain either organic matter (carbon in some form) or flux, so they could be used to adjust the carbon content of the steel. It's different for each region, and would only have the desired effect with a specific combination of iron ore, smelting process and soil type, and be bad with other combinations. The people back then weren't stupid, and probably found out by trial and error.

[Yora]

A mention for people who might be interested.

A Homebrew thread for a "reality inspired" RPG armor system. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=254642)

[Storm Bringer]

Personally, I think that the cavalry were a bit hardier then they are generally given credit for and that there would have been very little a man with a one-handed spear or "short" musket and bayonet could physically do against a charging horse, but at the same time I highly doubt suicidal, head on charges would have been popular with anyone for obvious reasons.

I wonder if a knight with a long enough lance could effectively charge, strike, and wheel about without colliding with the enemy line.


see, the thing is, it's not one spearman vs one rider. its four or five spearmen vs one rider, as any horse and rider who can reach a spearman to strike him is in thrusting range of half a dozen or more spears.


you can charge into the mix, and more than likey knock the frist two guys over.... but your horse will have three mortal wounds in it's chest and your going to be getting a few in a moment.

also, do not forget that for a lot of history, cavalrymen provided their own horses. a well bred war horse was easily as expensive as Full Plate armour, and often more. You wanted to look after that large an investment,

think of it this way. your average sports car might well be able, when driven at high enough speed, to snap a small tree it two. but if it was your sports car, would you try it?

[Galloglaich]

For the most part, I think you are right, but not in all cases... keep in mind for example that it's not just multiple ranks of pikemen, but also multiple ranks (or waves) of heavy cavalrymen whose points can come to bear in an attack... and in the later case often the horses are nearly as well armored as the riders.

It was a power struggle which went back and forth, the best pike infantry could often defeat the middle of the road cavalry but sometimes the best cavalry could defeat middle of the road pike infantry. Even quite late in the game sometimes heavy cavalry maintained their edge; once again we find a good example in the Polish Hussars who seemed to find a way to sometimes beat the pike squares with direct charges, partly because they had such long lances. There is a good article about them here:

http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/HowHussarFought.htm


G

[Spiryt]

It's worth to consider that not every infantry, especially before 15th century was pikemen braced to take a charge.

With less suitable weapons/tactics it would probably be still very possible to receive charge that's hard to retaliate against.

I wonder how reliably could one charge on to hit stuff with lance/spear, but at some angle/lower speed to not get impaled.

[Galloglaich]

The other thing to keep in mind was that while we tend to think in terms of the West, especially Italy and Holland, where pike and shot was the preferred method for infantry to cope with cavalry; in Central Europe and further East where there was perhaps more open ground it was the war- wagon, the tabor, which was the preferred method, and the latter was apparently quite effective indeed, at least with good well disciplined troops. Notably the Czech Hussites and later, the Cossacks, who used this tactic effectively for centuries against both the armored Western heavy cavalry and the nomadic horse-archers of the Turks and the Mongols. The Germans and Hungarians and others also used this system in different variations.

http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/12808314/images/1289852644074.jpg

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/6412/husiteswarwagonigordzis.jpg

Here the challenge for cavalry wasn't as much about out-reaching the enemies pikes but getting at them behind their moving wooden fortress without getting shot or knocked off your horse with a flail.


G

[Yora]

Are those hussite War Wagons?

[Wardog]

“No, no—no water for that; I want it of the true death-temper. Ahoy, there! Tashtego, Queequeg, Daggoo! What say ye, pagans! Will ye give me as much blood as will cover this barb?” holding it high up. A cluster of dark nods replied, Yes. Three punctures were made in the heathen flesh, and the White Whale’s barbs were then tempered.

Tempering (or quenching) a blade in blood is a trope that shows up in stories every now and again. Is there any real benefit (or any effect) of doing so? Can it even work?

[Yora]

Highly doubt it. At temperatures over 40 degrees blood becomes solid and it would just form a baked layer around the blade. With a big clot of hardened blood, cold liquid could not flow in to replace the hot one, making rapid uniform cooling impossible.

I think it's much more likely that an already quenched blade is heated to a relatively low temperature just too hot to touch and then dipped into blood for purely ceremonial or magical purposes. It's a ritual reenactment of the quenching process, symbolically simulating a quenching in blood.
But it shouldn't work as a way to actually heat-treat the metal.

[Mistral]

Are those hussite War Wagons?

Yes, they are, and they are quite lovely. The problem with the war wagons, and the reason they fell out of style, was the development of practical field artillery. In the 15th century, they were lovely works, essentially portable palisades; by the time of the Peasants War a single century later, their opponents could just stand off and bombard them to splinters. It's the reason why, while the Hussites could stand off dear Siggy, they couldn't do the same against Tilly. It's only in the east, where combined arms wasn't a thing and local Tatars and Mongols didn't have foundries or tactics up to the task, such things remained effective, and even in the American Wild West of the 19th century, the same fundamental defensive principle appears in the form of "circling the wagons."

EDIT:
Oh, and ironically, it's also from the Hussites that the first effective field pieces came, with Zizka's ox-drawn howitzers. They really were quite clever.

[Yora]

Must have been really quite spooky to fight them. First you hear about this bohemian rabble who is winning a number of battles against seasoned knights and when you face them they bunker up in their mobile fortresses and have almost all the gunpowder weapons on the battlefield.
And they didn't had half of Europe on their side, they were fighting their reformation war on their own against all of Europe. As Underdog stories go, you hardly can't beat the Hussites.

And on top of that, they won. :smallbiggrin:

[Galloglaich]

Yes, they are, and they are quite lovely. The problem with the war wagons, and the reason they fell out of style, was the development of practical field artillery. In the 15th century, they were lovely works, essentially portable palisades; by the time of the Peasants War a single century later, their opponents could just stand off and bombard them to splinters. It's the reason why, while the Hussites could stand off dear Siggy, they couldn't do the same against Tilly. It's only in the east, where combined arms wasn't a thing and local Tatars and Mongols didn't have foundries or tactics up to the task, such things remained effective, and even in the American Wild West of the 19th century, the same fundamental defensive principle appears in the form of "circling the wagons."

EDIT:
Oh, and ironically, it's also from the Hussites that the first effective field pieces came, with Zizka's ox-drawn howitzers. They really were quite clever.

Yeah it's a good overview of how the war wagons started, but it's not actually true that the Hussite war wagons were so vulnerable to cannon... first of all they were used on the move, not just in the static wagonbergs, which is a common misapprehension, and as a result they were frequently able to outmaneuver cannon used both by the Turks and by Germans and other Western / Central Europeans.. (and as you noted, they had their own guns with them, in fact arguably the most mobile field artillery until Gustavus Adolphus). The wagon forts continued to be used successfully as a tactic in Central Europe all the way into the 18th Century. Why they were never adapted in say, France or Italy or Holland, is subject for conjecture, though in some cases it's because of the terrain.

In the German peasant uprising of the 16th Century, it was first of all the peasants in question were mostly serfs who had no idea how to use war wagons. The Germans in fact historically had rarely managed to get them right (German crusaders tried to use them during the Hussite wars in imitation of the Czechs but could not make the system work and were quickly routed). It was also untrained, ill-disciplined, poorly armed rabble with little to no effective militia elements, which is a big difference from the original Hussites who were formed around militia from several Czech towns and landfryds, and were extremely well disciplined and led.

But this continued well past the era of the Hussite Crusades. After the Czech moderates won the battle of Lipany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lipany) in 1434, disgruntled Hussite radicals formed lapka war bands and went to Hungary and Prussia to fight in the various wars in these places, where they continued to do so for several generations, forming the core of the infantry on both sides of the 13 Years War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteen_Years%27_War_%281454%E2%80%9366%29) (and proving instrumental in several battles) as well as the hard core of the infantry for both Janos Hunyandi's "Black Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Army_of_Hungary)" (and especially under his son Matthias Corvinus) and his fierce rival Janos Jiskra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jiskra_of_Brand%C3%BDs), who went on to found Slovakia.

And under the 'moderate' Hussite armies under the Czech 'commoner king' George of Podebrady (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_of_Pod%C4%9Bbrady) as well, who also relied extensively on the tabor. All of these military leaders were highly successful and won numerous major battles against the Germans, the Austrians, the Turks and the Mongols using the war wagons. In fact in spite of more or less continual efforts to crush the Hussites the articles of Prague remained in effect in Bohemia which remained officially religiously tolerant (and predominantly though by no means exclusively Hussite) until the Battle of White Mountain in 1620.

By the 16th Century the Cossacks of the Zaporizhian Sich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporozhian_Sich) had also adopted the war-wagon tactic from the Czechs and the Poles and successfully adapted it to the open steppe, where they repeatedly defeated the Turks and Tartars (though they also lost a few battles)


Must have been really quite spooky to fight them. First you hear about this bohemian rabble who is winning a number of battles against seasoned knights and when you face them they bunker up in their mobile fortresses and have almost all the gunpowder weapons on the battlefield.


Yes it was apparently quite scary, the Hussites were seen by many as a sign of the apocalypse and viewed with superstitious awe. At the Battle of Meiss for example in 1427 a huge Crusader army basically collapsed as soon as they started to hear the Hussites singing their war-songs. They also had women fighting in their ranks, which was also pretty unusual by Medieval standards (if perhaps not unheard of).

After all their victories against the Crusaders they went on so-called 'beautiful rides' which were brutal raids against all of their neighbors who had sent armies to invade them, and in some cases well beyond, terrorizing Silesia, Hungary, Poland, Austria and a lot of Germany, all the way to Prussia.



G

[Conners]

How are prisoners captured and kept, during battles? You often hear about noble knights being taken prisoner, but hear little about how they are safely taken from the front lines to somewhere they can be safely held, during a battle.

[Galloglaich]

How are prisoners captured and kept, during battles? You often hear about noble knights being taken prisoner, but hear little about how they are safely taken from the front lines to somewhere they can be safely held, during a battle.

That is an interesting question.

I don't know in every case, but in at least some cases, knights were taken prisoner kind of on the honor system. I know of some major battles in Poland where this happened, in fact in one battle a powerful mercenary Captain named Bernard von Zinnenburg was captured by the Poles, but then the battle went the other way and the Poles lost, he actually participated as a leader, but couldn't fight because he had given his word as a knight, and when the battle was over he turned himself back over to the Polish King and was kept by the Poles for 3 years (in comfortable captivity). In cases like this the knight is often even allowed to keep his sword. Some anecdotes suggested that English longbowmen used to use lead mallets to subdue armored French knights on some occasions so they would be relatively unharmed and could be ransomed.

In the short term, in several other cases, captives including knights were disarmed and tied up. Wealthy captives will usually be kept after until they can pay ransom. Captivity could be very comfortable, like an honored guest, or horrible, chained in some damp basement, or even worse.

Ordinary soldiers can have a widely varying fate. In a lot of Central and Northern Europe, Sweden, Germany (HRE), Poland, Bohemia, Silesia, Prussia... captives between Latin Christian armies were frequently 'paroled', i.e. just disarmed and sent home, with or without a promise not to fight their captor in the future. This sounds kind of crazy but the practice remained common all the way up to the first half of the American Civil War. In the case of wars against different ethinc religious groups, such as in the Crusades against the pagan baltic peoples, or wars with the Russians, Turks or Tartars, it was often nastier, captives were more often killed or enslaved.

Further East, Russia and the Ukraine, and Southeast down in the Balkans, it was much more common for battlefield captives to be killed or become permanent property of their owners (or whoever they were sold to), as slaves or serfs. In the Novgorod chronciles they mention how after one victorious battle with another Russsian town (Suzdal) the price of Suzdal captives went down to one wolf pelt on the marketplace. The Mongols tended to kill everyone who weren't ideal as slaves and enslaved the rest, mainly women and young boys. Same for the Turks.

In the West, in France and Spain notably, captives of common blood were often simply executed if they couldn't afford ransom. The English also famously did this to the French on some occasions, notably Agincourt. On others they were more chivalrous. The Swiss used to have a policy of executing all prisoners, knights or commoners. The Italians used to ransom or parole fellow Italians but execute French or Spanish captives since the latter did the same to them.

It seems often in the heat of the battle, right after a victory, blood lust would lead to a lot of captives being murdered. When there is a negotiated truce, or after the initial crazed moment, it was more likely they would survive to captivity or even be released.


G

[Storm Bringer]

How are prisoners captured and kept, during battles? You often hear about noble knights being taken prisoner, but hear little about how they are safely taken from the front lines to somewhere they can be safely held, during a battle.

what Galloglaich said, plus a little extra:

I think it's important to understand that in a culture of capture and ransom, people fought differently.

firstly, a fighter who got his foe in a fight winning position (ie sword to neck, dagger to belly, etc) would tend to offer "surrender or die", as he could profit more form ransoming a living man than looting a dead man. someone knocked senseless by a blow would also be taken captive rather than just stabbed.

Secondly, a man with a realisitic chance of living would, when faced with a "surrender or die" offer, surrender, having nothing to lose, and everything to gain. thus they will be more likey to co-operate with their captors. almost certainly, they would be escorted to a rear holding area by either their captor or thier captors men at arms.

now, such a system was highly dependant on the captives co-operating, but the fact is one man surrounded by dozens of foes is effectively helpless if it tries to resist, so it becomes a "hard way or easy way, your call" system.


also, while we have this mental image of battles being one huge melee, i am under the impression the battles were more organised, and that two lines might be enguaged without being in contact, thus thier are lulls in which wounded who would be killed off in other times are dragged to saftey or captivity, depending on to gets to who first.


as for people honouring promises, it agian relies on them being men of thier word. but many of the promises not to take arms were made in front of a priest or in chruch, i.e. in front of god, which made them more binding. plus, these were normally offerd to rich men "of honour", the sort that couldn't afford to be seen to be going back on thier word.

plus, thier is alway that human drive to limit the excess of wars. "don't kill my prisoners and i won't kill yours", basically.


a rich noble taken captive could expect to pay a small fortune to be released (a kings ransom, in fact, if you would excuse the pun:smallbiggrin:), thus giving the would be captor a major incentive to take a man alive, much as prize courts made capturing ships a major motive of many naval captains in the napoleonic wars.

the english killing the noble captives at agincourt was a case of military nesscitity overriding financial gain, as their was a threat of french reinforcements arriving and freeing the captives. the knights refused to kill thier ransomable french captives, so the archers (who wouldn't get any money form teh ransoms, and would expect to be killed by the french if taken) had to do the dirty work. it was this massacre of prisoners that caused most of the noteable losses, as i understand it, as all those who would have survived the battle normally were killed.

[Galloglaich]

I think this is a good point:


as for people honouring promises, it agian relies on them being men of thier word. but many of the promises not to take arms were made in front of a priest or in chruch, i.e. in front of god, which made them more binding. plus, these were normally offerd to rich men "of honour", the sort that couldn't afford to be seen to be going back on thier word.

To build on what Storm Bringer said, here is an interesting (and I think kind of cool) excerpt from the annals (http://www.amazon.com/The-Annals-Jan-Dlugosz-History/dp/1901019004) of Jan Dlugosz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_D%C5%82ugosz), printed in 1480, on his entry for 1451. I think it's a good example of the price you can pay for not being willing to stick by your word and treat captives fairly. John Hunyadi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hunyadi), a ruthless and very powerful warlord from Hungary accustomed to winning victories in the ultra-high sakes battlefields of the Balkans against Turks, Germans and others, is feuding in the northern part of his realm against a powerful Czech mercenary captain, John Jiskra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jiskra). Hunyadi's reputation for cruelty to the defeated ends up causing him a problem.

"Janos Hunyadi and Jan Giskra are again at loggerheads. Hunyadi is suspected of having tried to kill Giskra while he was attending the wedding of the laters widowed siser. After this, Giskra occupies the monastery at Luzeniec and pronounces Hunyadi his enemy. Hunyadi then invests Luzeniec town which is protected neither by Nature nor by artificial defences; but the fort there is defended by 500 brave and resolute men, who repulse all assaults. Hunyadi surrounds the fort with a double ditch, fenced and reinforced with baskets of earth, and expects it to surrender. The defenders, many of whom are Poles and Czechs, though short of water and provisions, are afraid that if they surrender they will lose eye, nose, face or hands, and so they fight on.

In the meantime, Giskra has assembled a scratch force of some 4,000 foot and horse obtained from outside, and advances against Hunyadi's army, reputed to number some 17,000. Hunyadi is ready to do battle and issues from behind his rampart, leaving only a handful to guard the camp and the waggons, and small force to see that the besieged to not make a sortie. But this is just what the desperate besieged do and attack their besiegers. Hunyadi sends the latter refinforcements, but when the besiegers see them, they think they are fleeing, not coming to their assistance, and so themselves take to their heels; whereupon the rest of Hunyadi's troops follow their example. Giskra's men become exhausted with killing and taking prisoners, one of whom is the Bishop of Eger. Hunyadi's camp is given to the troops to loot, Hunyadi himself escapes."

On the one hand, Hunyadi usually has the element of fear on his side, since he is known to be harsh to those who oppose him (and he rarely loses) but Jiskra, also a successful commander, is known for being fair to his troops and loyal, and the latter have the tough defensive discipline for which the Czechs (and Poles) are known, and in the subtle game of morale that these battles often hinge on, Jiskra's strategy proves to be more beneficial, at least in this case.

G

[Eorran]

Go a question from comments a page or so back. Comments were made to the effect that one of the most important roles of heavy cavalry was to break enemy formations whose morale was low or wavering.

If a commander misjudges the enemy's morale and the infantry holds, this can be disastrous for a cavalry charge, correct?

Was it possible to stop a cavalry attack mid-charge if it became apparent the enemy wasn't going to break?