Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

[Galloglaich]

Maybe I have failed to articulate my positions well. But, I think for someone who professes ignorance on the subject, this is a very demeaning and rude thing to say. You also began, almost immediately, by attacking my source simply because it was from the 1970s, and I really didn't know how to respond to that (especially when you mentioned a theory that it considered obsolete). I have too much respect for this board, and, believe it or not, you, to continue with this. I'm done.

I have respect for you as well, and your knowledge of the Condottieri which is better than mine. But I'm not entirely ignorant on Italy, I have read a few books on Venice and I've read Burckhardt and Delbruck and some of the other classics, as well as Machiavelli and Boccaccio and some of the other primary sources. I just don't have a bookshelf devoted to the Italian wars or the Condottierri as I do for the Baltic or Central Europe. Too little time and money. But I am well enough versed on the Swiss and the German mercenaries (who eventually became the Landsknechts), and the Czechs, and all three of these groups were involved quite a bit in wars in Italy from the earliest Medieval period.

We have both to some extent or another started talking past each other in this discussion, which I suppose is an inevitable stage of debates like this on the internet. I stuck with it because it's an important issue to me, among a few other similar ones, it's something I've been researching for many years and have tried to debunk myths about for a long time. Miltiias in particular are a special area of interest for me, I just gave a lecture on their role in fencing three weeks ago at a HEMA event in Boston. Like the guilds, the Free Cities, and the European martial arts, I think they are an important part of history which has been largely misrepresented and misunderstood. A lot of why I participate on this forum is to debunk persistent myths like this.

In our discussion, you have referred to 'the militias' in general, when I think you really mean the militias in Northern Italy in a certain specific period. I strongly disagree with a lot of your more general statements on the nature of militias and I believe I have plenty of evidence to support my position, which was arrived at by reading the source data not by any theory. In fact I'm sorely tempted to drill down into your last detailed response and try to refute it point by point! But as the discussion has become a bit too heated for you and I and probably less interesting for the rest of the board I'll respect your request and desist.

I'd just like to leave the argument by continuing to stand by my main assertion: that most fighters in the Middle Ages and even into the Early Modern period were part time 'soldiers' at best, the truly full time professional specialist was a rarity. Many famous figures of the Renaissance dabbled in mercenary work at one time or another, and yet they also did many other things, often brilliantly well. This was the definition of the so-called "Renaissance Man". The militia of the towns in particular, generally speaking, was not the rabble it's often portrayed as by modern people, or useless, in fact they were sometimes so extraordinarily effective they changed the nature of war in our collective history forever. I think it is perhaps an important lesson for today.

My personal opinion on Italy is that in many of the towns, the townsfolk may have simply decided that their freedom was not worth the price of constant warfare and eventually lost interest in it. But I admit this is a provisional theory at best, maybe we can revisit all this one day when we have both had more time to focus on that special place/time in European history where so many of the greatest achievements of art, literature, philosophy, music, architecture and a thousand artisans skills flourished at a peak rarely if ever matched by anywhere or anybody else in the world. And sadly, where war and invasions by powerful States wrought so much havoc and eventually led to decline.

G

[Spiryt]

Wow, those are really brutal! Better than the ones I posted. Where are they from?

G

Supposedly from Dublin and 'Iceland'. Somebody just posted pictures from museums without much description.

[Yora]

I've seen such skulls from BBC documentaries. Even if these ones are forgeries, skulls like that have been found in Northern Europe.

[Mike_G]

Swords will cut right through bone if you can cut properly. The reality of Medieval Warfare is much, much, much more brutal than in Video games, movies, or RPG's. Why? I have no idea since we have all of the above set in modern or sci fi or apocalyptic eras which are plenty gory.

These are from Kutna Hora in Czech Republic, 14th Century
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-W1cPsIhI_HM/Tas4N8y2EVI/AAAAAAAAAII/IEZKFRTXU9A/s1600/DSCF2359.JPG

These are from Wisby in Sweden (Gotland), also 14th Century
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/peter.fairweather/docs/Visby2(2).jpg

Note a humerus (thigh bone) severed, they found a few bodies in that site which had both legs cut through by the same cut- also severed top of a skull.


Hate to be an anatomy geek, but the humerus is the bone of the upper arm, not leg. The femur is the thigh bone.

The second bone from the left is a humerus, severed near the shoulder joint. It's upside down in the photo, the elbow at the top, but you can see the anatomy here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Humerus_post.jpg

The third bone is a left tibia (shin bone) with a chunk taken out of it. It's upside down. You can see the malleolus of the ankle at the top right of the bore. That's the bump on the inside of your ankle. The blow would have been to the outside of the left lower leg, as one would expect for a guy fighting with a shield, his left foot forward.

Here's a picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gray258.png

A femur has a big ball to fit in the socket of the pelvis to form a hip joint. None of these bones show that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femur
Bones aren't all that hard to cut through with a sharp heavy piece of steel. Butcher do it all the time. I have no trouble believing a blow to an unarmored limb could sever it.

But you generally don't have to cut through bone to incapacitate your enemy. The guy with the divot in his tibia probably had muscle and blood vessels severed by that blow, and likely was out of combat bleeding to death pretty quickly.

Sorry to be pedantic, but there are no severed thighs here.

[Galloglaich]

No you are absolutely right, my bad... I should have said 'bicep bone' or something. I think there were some severed femurs in the famous report on the excavation on Wisby but I may be wrong on that. I better quit while I'm behind!

I can't believe I confused femur for humerus, I used to be a Medic ! :smalleek:

G

[Kurien]

This is a question I have been wondering about for awhile:

Some of you (especially Ad'lan) may know about a guy in Germany named Joerg Sprave (http://www.youtube.com/user/JoergSprave), who runs The Slingshot Channel to celebrate and document his hobby. As he has extensively demonstrated, latex rubber, such as that used in the humble slingshot, is an effective energy-storing material for projectile weapons. I have no doubt that his handheld slingshots are very lethal weapons. But could they be effective on a battlefield? In the realm of muscle-powered weapons, I can't help thinking that historically used weapons (the bow, crossbow and sling) have better overall performance than slingshots.

If (vulcanized?) natural rubber had been discovered and invented in the 12th century and was somehow available, could it have been used to make weapons for warfare, in various civilizations around the world?

I think you would need to consider a number of factors to judge the effectiveness of slingshots and slingbows.

Energy storing and releasing capability; the speed of contraction
Range (related to the above)
Accuracy
Lethality
Durability (how many shots before the rubber breaks?)
Portability
Ease and Cost to Manufacture
Versatility, (such as ability to use different types of ammunition)
Effect of Weather/Climate
Time required to train Soldiers effective in its Use

A lot of these things need some testing to reach a conclusive argument to support or dismiss rubber. I don't recall Joerg ever comparing his slingshots to medieval weapons.

I know this thread is home to a number of people very knowledgeable in medieval weaponry. What are your thoughts?

[Spiryt]

He seems to be getting pretty respectable KE for quite low effort with rather clunky contraptions...

Since I don't think anyone was using slingshots for hunting any bigger game, or something, it will probably be hard to gain serious data.

[Yora]

How much psychological impact did standard bearers actually have? They probably were important in large battles where commanders overlooking the battlefield had to know which unit was which one, but did it really make a difference for the soldiers on the ground to see if someone still held up the flag or not? Was it any indicator for how well the battle was progressing?

[Galloglaich]

From what I've read it seems like in at least some parts of Medieval Europe the Standards were extremely important, especially for the more feudal armies. IIRC at the Battle of Grunwald / Tannenberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grunwald#Battle_continues:_Polish.E2.80. 93Teutonic_fight), one of the pivotal moments was a fight over the Polish (Kraków) standard, which the Poles briefly lost but then recovered. In Medieval Armies the standard bearer was one of the highest ranks, and the standards had special and bodyguards. Unit commanders in the Cavalry were called Bannerets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_banneret) and their men rallied around their banners.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Car1176.jpg/300px-Car1176.jpg
The Italian city-states used to put their standards on a cart called a carroccio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroccio) which was thought of as sort of the soul of the city, from my understanding. The Swiss also put great store into their own banners, the Banner Carrier or Vennerbrunnen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vennerbrunnen) was one of the principle military leaders of the town miltiia, and also a political leader in town.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/VennerBrunnen02.jpg/220px-VennerBrunnen02.jpg

Going further back, losing the three Imperial Eagles at Teutoburg forest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_teutoburg_forest) was a major trauma for the Roman Empire and they made extraordinary efforts to recover them.

I think people tend to dramatically underestimate the role of morale in warfare and in Medieval warfare in particular. One of the best tactical wargames ever made, Squad Leader, was based largely on morale... it ended up being the basis for a lot of successful WW II based computer games like Close Combat, Steel Panthers, and Combat Mission. I think it's one of the most critical elements of Medieval War as well, along with exhaustion, terrain, and kit.

G

[Yora]

So was the standard usually with the commander? That would probably indicate that a lost standard means the leader has fallen.

[eulmanis12]

How much psychological impact did standard bearers actually have? They probably were important in large battles where commanders overlooking the battlefield had to know which unit was which one, but did it really make a difference for the soldiers on the ground to see if someone still held up the flag or not? Was it any indicator for how well the battle was progressing?

The flags were immensly important in battle both from a moral and a tactical point of view. In terms of tactics it was fairly simple. Before modern communications technology looking at the locations of your units flags was the most efective way to tell were everybody was. Generals looked at the flags to see where all their units were, the soldiers in the units looked for their flags to determine where they should be. If the flag was ahead of them they needed to advance, if it was parrallel to them they should stop, if it was behind them they could move backwards, Etc. Since the flag was often the only thing thay you could see above the smoke of battle soldiers would literally have to rally round the flag, otherwise they would not know where to go or where their units were.

From a morale point of view many armies practicaly worshiped their flags. In the Roman army every legionare would sooner die than see the eagle standard taken. there were very few instances of eagles being captured and these only happened when the entire legion was wiped out, Teutoberg forrest for example. Later the Napoleonic French were similarly fanatical about their own eagle standards, only one was captured. This was not limited to the french and romans alone however. The flag is a symbol. It represents everything you are fighting for. As a member of the US Army I can say for myself and I believe most of the others that I know that saying we have a strong attachment to our flag is a huge understatement. The Flag is America, America Is the flag, it represents everything that we work for, and everything that those who came before us work for. We come from different backgrounds, different religions, different states, we have different beliefes, and different goals, but we are all united around the flag. When the flag is raised in the morning and lowered at night the entire base comes to a halt, you drop whatever you are doing no matter what it is, you park your car and get out if you are driving, and you Salute the colors if you are in uniform or place your hand over your heart if you are not. The flag is a BIG deal. The national anthem is about our flag and the fact that despite a horrible bombardment that our men couldn't even reply to it stayed flying over Fort McHenry.

go on youtube and look up "Ragged Old Flag speach" watch that and you will get some idea of about one tenth of what a flag means.

In addition to national flags there are unit flags that sometimes are treated with equal importance. During the Civil War the flag of the Irish Brigade was a good example of the importance of a unit's regimental flag. At Gettysburg the Irish Brigade ran into a Confederate unit at the wheatfield. After heavy fighting the Irish Brigade was forced to start withdrawing. The man carrying the flag got hit and went down, the Confederates charged at exactly the same time. The Irish brigade, seeing their flag get taken immediatly rallied, faced the enemy, and rushed back into the fight, the entire fight for the wheatfield after that was centered around groups of men from both sides fighting over that flag. The union retook the flag, the the confederates got it again, then the Irish took it back, etc.

There are more examples than I can count of things like this happening.

moral of the story, flags were VERY important.

[Galloglaich]

So was the standard usually with the commander? That would probably indicate that a lost standard means the leader has fallen.

I think it was usually seperate, or more accurately, there were both 'unit' standards representing a particular house, town, castle, cause etc., and then there were also personal standards.

It's not my area of expertise but I believe in the Roman army standard bearers were a specific type of troop called (at least at one point) an Aquilifer, who carried the Legions eagle, and the Signifier who carried the cohorts Signum, wore special armor and kit, including an animal head hood.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4133/4949321124_3ff358b532.jpg

http://www.rowanpix.com/reenactments/images/a-Signifer.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquila_(Roman)

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

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

So I think it's not a precise correlation but if the standard falls it is likely the leader has fallen too.

J

[Matthew]

The army standard (and its loss) was immensely important in the Latin east, for example, where it took the form of the "true cross" (or rather a part of it in a representation of the cross). The army of the third crusade similarly employed a large cart driven standard, which was carefully guarded.

[fusilier]

So was the standard usually with the commander? That would probably indicate that a lost standard means the leader has fallen.

It would depend upon the era, but I don't think the loss of a flag typically indicated that the leader had fallen (see below). As stated before, one battlefield function of a standard (or colors) was to indicate where the unit should be. The commander could move around a bit, to observe different aspects of his unit in battle, and hopefully have a better understanding of the overall situation. -- That wasn't always the case, sometimes the commander stuck himself in the front, to have more direct control over the unit, although that was probably rare in the "gunpowder" age.

The colors had an emotional appeal to them, and in a sense they represented the heart and "spiritual" center of the unit. They were the rallying point when things got bad. To lose the colors was considered very disgraceful. Likewise to capture an enemy's colors was usually considered an almost heroic act. It's also possible that the loss of the colors could lead to confusion, as the visual indicator of the point to organize around was now lost.

Also a note about terminology:
"The standard" refers to the standard colors -- i.e. the colors that are standard to the army, or the "national colors". In the American Civil War, Union troops had the basic American battle flag (the stars and stripes).

Alongside this flag would be another flag that represented the particular unit, in the American Civil War: "The regimental colors" (sometimes just the "regimentals", I think). Those colors were personalized, although they may be set to a regulated design. The standard could also have some personalization (the name of the regiment for example), but always had the standard colors and format. Thus the term "standard".

The colors were typically carried together at the center of the regiment. Smaller flags may be carried at either end, known as "guidons", i.e. "guide on" as the flanks of the unit could be the "guides". They are most well known from cavalry depictions, but infantry units could have them too. I've seen a considerable variety of them.

Finally, officially, the colors were not flags -- flags were flown from flagpoles over forts, towns, camps, etc. Colors were carried into battle. "Flags" could be considerably different from standards.

-------
That's all nineteenth century practice though. I'm sure it extends to the 18th century, but earlier than that it probably gets a bit different. Standards do seem to have been fairly common by the time of Emperor Charles V (the cross of burgundy, and the Hapsburg Eagle). Flags were of course used well before that -- but how often they were standard, I don't know. In the Middle Ages more household flags were probably common, and mercenary companies often had their own designs. I would imagine that an army might adopt a common flag to carry to help identify its own units in battle? When commanders typically had an entourage with household banners, to help locate them on the field, then perhaps the loss of *those* banners might indicate a fallen or captured leader. During the 19th century high ranking officers might have similar flags, to aid in the location of headquarters (Division, Corps, Army colors) -- but the flags would stay with the headquarters, and not necessarily with the particular officer (although distinguishing the two could be tricky).

[Fortinbras]

Two more questions on professional medieval armies:

1. I've read that the army that Charles Martel brought to Tours (732 AD) was a professional, full-time army. How was he able to pull this off when, as far as I know, almost everybody else in Europe (baring the Byzantines) would have to rely on feudal levies and mercenaries for the next couple hundred years?

How was such an army recruited, organized, and equipped?

How much resemblance could it be said to bear to a modern state-army?

Did Martel also have to draw on part-time levies to supplement his professionals.

2. Does anybody buy the theory that Cnute the Great (985-1035 AD) led an army of 3,000 or so full-time professional housecarls that received a monthly salary? If so, any ideas how this army was recruited, organized, trained, and equipped?

[Spiryt]

Two more questions on professional medieval armies:

1. I've read that the army that Charles Martel brought to Tours (732 AD) was a professional, full-time army. How was he able to pull this off when, as far as I know, almost everybody else in Europe (baring the Byzantines) would have to rely on feudal levies and mercenaries for the next couple hundred years?

How was such an army recruited, organized, and equipped?

How much resemblance could it be said to bear to a modern state-army?

Did Martel also have to draw on part-time levies to supplement his professionals.

2. Does anybody buy the theory that Cnute the Great (985-1035 AD) led an army of 3,000 or so full-time professional housecarls that received a monthly salary? If so, any ideas how this army was recruited, organized, trained, and equipped?


I would have to research the details, but it really depends on how do you define "professional".

In the first place " feudal levy" usually wouldn't be all that similar to modern conscription - quite often, most of the army would in fact be somehow 'professional'.

Housecarls by definition were rulers retinue - chosen warriors, companions of both drinking and wars, bodyguards etc. Usually enjoying a lot of wealth/privileges, in exchange expected to be dependable fighting force.


How was he able to pull this off when, as far as I know, almost everybody else in Europe (baring the Byzantines)

It really depends on general numbers I guess...

Many, many armies were able to "pull it off", just most had some kind of of "filler" in addition, usually some common man infantry, that, at least for good part of medieval period, wasn't expected to do much in actual clash.


People who were expected/required to take part in war expedition, were also required to own, and be capable of using certain weapons.

We fortunately have a lot of laws preserved, that state what was someone required to bring with himself to war.

[Fortinbras]

My understanding is that Martel's force was either fully composed of, or had a very large corps of, full-time soldiers. That is to say, soldiers who where directly loyal to him and, when not fighting, spent their time training and not practicing any other trades. In other words not a group of people who possessed weapons and knew how to use them and could be called into service when needed, but a large force of soldiers who where always in service. From what I've read, no other medieval European kingdom could field a large force of infantrymen who owed allegiance to the king and spent all their time training to fight in a group. This is what made the Frankish army different from the other armies of medieval Europe, its what allowed them to beat the Moors when other European lords could not. My question, is what else did the Franks do differently from other European kingdoms that allowed them to develop military capabilities that other kingdoms could not?

As for the housecarls, according to Wikipedia, there is a theory that Cnute's housecarls, in addition to hanging with him, protecting him, and fighting along side him, also functioned like a (fairly large for the era) 3,000+ man standing royal army that garrisoned fortifications throughout his territory and where always serving as soldiers. I'm wondering what you folks thing of the validity of this theory.

[Spiryt]

Frankish kingdom and it's subjects were huge, populous, and generally powerful - so it as a result had a lot of people who were pretty much living from a war(s).

That's the simplest answer, obviously reality will be always more complicated.


That is to say, soldiers who where directly loyal to him and, when not fighting, spent their time training and not practicing any other trades.

Every ruler powerful enough had plenty of people like that. People like that were largely pretty much ancestors of later knights and general nobility.

Martel being powerful ruler of something like 1/3 of what would be called Europe back then, could afford to have huge army of such people.

Byzantium being another powerful organism had a lot of professional fighters as well.

Bulgarian, Rus etc. warlords would administer similar forces as well - most probably way smaller though.

[Silverbit]

How effective is a Falx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falx) as a weapon in open battle, as opposed to a more "typical" weapon like a sword or an axe? Could you see it becoming the "standard" weapon for a mercenary company or other such organisations (as the pike for the Swiss, or the pike/greatsword/musket for the Landsknechts)? (Assume late dark ages time period, northern europe-style location).

[Spiryt]

How effective is a Falx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falx) as a weapon in open battle, as opposed to a more "typical" weapon like a sword or an axe? Could you see it becoming the "standard" weapon for a mercenary company or other such organisations (as the pike for the Swiss, or the pike/greatsword/musket for the Landsknechts)? (Assume late dark ages time period, northern europe-style location).

Well, 'typical sword or axe' cover so many things, that it's really hard to compare. :smallwink:

As far as becoming standard goes, something like that quite feasibly could play 'greatsword' part. AFAIU, those finds of two handed 'falx' we have, put it pretty much in somehow similar category as large two handed sword.

It definitely cannot be compared to pike or other such polearm, and most certainly couldn't function like pikes/spears/halberds/guisarmes in formation.

[Silverbit]

Thank you for the swift reply! :smallbiggrin:
I mentioned pikes as an example of a weapon that became the "standard" weapon for a large group, not as something comparable to a falx. A pike is something to be used in tight formation, whereas to use a falx you must be some distance away from any friendlies, to avoid lopping off anyone's limb.
Thanks for the greatsword comparison, it will help me find a place for it in my campaign world.
Oh, and typical was rather imprecise, sorry :smallredface:. I meant the general longsword or battle axe, something a soldier uses when they really want to make the opponent have a bad day.
EDIT:
Another question: could the Falx supplant the sword as an iconic weapon in society?

[Yora]

Do armies have official procedures what to do when having a breather moment during combat and also just 4 rounds left in the magazine?
Do you switch to a new one, or do you wait until the current is empty?

There's good reasons for both, and this seems like something that armies would want soldiers to do by the book and not by guts.

[fusilier]

My understanding is that Martel's force was either fully composed of, or had a very large corps of, full-time soldiers. That is to say, soldiers who where directly loyal to him and, when not fighting, spent their time training and not practicing any other trades. In other words not a group of people who possessed weapons and knew how to use them and could be called into service when needed, but a large force of soldiers who where always in service. From what I've read, no other medieval European kingdom could field a large force of infantrymen who owed allegiance to the king and spent all their time training to fight in a group. This is what made the Frankish army different from the other armies of medieval Europe, its what allowed them to beat the Moors when other European lords could not. My question, is what else did the Franks do differently from other European kingdoms that allowed them to develop military capabilities that other kingdoms could not?

As for the housecarls, according to Wikipedia, there is a theory that Cnute's housecarls, in addition to hanging with him, protecting him, and fighting along side him, also functioned like a (fairly large for the era) 3,000+ man standing royal army that garrisoned fortifications throughout his territory and where always serving as soldiers. I'm wondering what you folks thing of the validity of this theory.

I do not know specifics, and I think that Yora has answered this question pretty well (and certainly seems more informed than I). However, in my research I've seen references to full-time, professional soldiers, but when I get more information they're not what I would necessarily consider full-time. Instead, they seem to have been soldiers that were required to train a certain number of months out of the year, and at other times they were "on call" for immediate service. In the sense that they trained regularly and were "on call", I suppose they could be considered full-time, but that's different from the modern definition for a full-time soldier. Again, this is just some information I've gleaned when studying other forces, and I can't say that it applies to the armies you mentioned. But, their definition of full-time may have been different from ours.

[Norsesmithy]

Do armies have official procedures what to do when having a breather moment during combat and also just 4 rounds left in the magazine?
Do you switch to a new one, or do you wait until the current is empty?

There's good reasons for both, and this seems like something that armies would want soldiers to do by the book and not by guts.

As far as I know, the latest doctrine is that you reload any time you've got less than a full mag and aren't actively firing. 4 rounds might get treated like an empty, but generally if you've got time, you move mags from your rear most carriers to your empty forward mag carriers, then reload your rearmost pouches with any preloaded or partially loaded mags you may be carrying.

[Matthew]

Two more questions on professional medieval armies:

1. I've read that the army that Charles Martel brought to Tours (732 AD) was a professional, full-time army. How was he able to pull this off when, as far as I know, almost everybody else in Europe (baring the Byzantines) would have to rely on feudal levies and mercenaries for the next couple hundred years?

How was such an army recruited, organized, and equipped?

How much resemblance could it be said to bear to a modern state-army?

Did Martel also have to draw on part-time levies to supplement his professionals.

We are severely limited in what we know about the early medieval period on account of the scarcity of surviving primary sources. There is no way to really know what the exact composition of his forces were, but certainly he was wealthy enough to support a decent sized household of semi-permanent troops and saw enough warfare to have forged them into an effective fighting force.



2. Does anybody buy the theory that Cnute the Great (985-1035 AD) led an army of 3,000 or so full-time professional housecarls that received a monthly salary? If so, any ideas how this army was recruited, organized, trained, and equipped?

Who contests the theory exactly? I thought that it was pretty well accepted that Cnut elevated his housecarls to a semi-permanent military caste.

[eulmanis12]

Do armies have official procedures what to do when having a breather moment during combat and also just 4 rounds left in the magazine?
Do you switch to a new one, or do you wait until the current is empty?

There's good reasons for both, and this seems like something that armies would want soldiers to do by the book and not by guts.

US army procedure is to reload or change to a full magazine whenever you get the oportunity.

[Mike_G]

Do armies have official procedures what to do when having a breather moment during combat and also just 4 rounds left in the magazine?
Do you switch to a new one, or do you wait until the current is empty?


You change magazines when you get the chance. Those four rounds may not be enough once things get ugly again. You don't want to pull the trigger on an empty rifle when the enemy are on top of you.




There's good reasons for both, and this seems like something that armies would want soldiers to do by the book and not by guts.

There really isn't a good reason to keep the nearly empty magazine. A lull is a good time to change, in the middle of a shootout is a bad time. If you keep the nearly empty mag and then have to cover a buddy's rush, and wind up empty when he's halfway to cover, the enemy stop being suppressed while you grope in you pouch for a new clip, and your pal gets lit up. Or your enemy gets to grenade range or a better shooting position or gets away while you try to reload.

You always want to have a full mag when you really need it. Change them whenever you get a chance. Even if you've fired five rounds out of thirty, change it. When you get a long break, top off the partially full ones.

You want to reload when you have a break, not when you have a guy in your sights who is trying to kill you, and you pull the trigger and hear the least comforting lack of noise in the world

[Yora]

I was just wondering about the possibility that you end up with a lot of almost empty magazines during a lengthy firefight. But since it's probably rather rare to have such long fights compared to shorter ones, and it just takes one hit to potentially kill you, I see the logic behind going for maximum efficiency early, when there's a good chance you never get to the point where having lots of almost empty magazines would become a problem.

[Mike_G]

Better to have a full magazine in the rifle and six partially full ones in your pouches than three rounds in the rifle and a nicely organized magazine pouch with two completely empty and four completely full.

At any given second, the only thing that matters at all in the whole world is the magazine in your rifle.

You don't get points for neatness. Just being the not dead guy at the end.

[Fortinbras]

Who contests the theory exactly? I thought that it was pretty well accepted that Cnut elevated his housecarls to a semi-permanent military caste.

Here's a link to the article, http://books.google.fr/books?id=iSB2bsYcx0cC&pg=PA15&dq=housecarl+weapons#v=onepage&q&f=false

The gist of it is that Matthew J. Strickland argues that Cnute retained full-time sailors, not soldiers and that, in Cnute's case, "housecarl" refers to members of his household similar to other noble houses, not a special military organization with its own laws and codes.

[Matthew]

Here's a link to the article, http://books.google.fr/books?id=iSB2bsYcx0cC&pg=PA15&dq=housecarl+weapons#v=onepage&q&f=false

The gist of it is that Matthew J. Strickland argues that Cnute retained full-time sailors, not soldiers and that, in Cnute's case, "housecarl" refers to members of his household similar to other noble houses, not a special military organization with its own laws and codes.

Ah right. No, that is a collection of papers edited by Strickland, not a book by him. The guy arguing the case is N. Hooper and the paper was first published in 1992. Did anybody take up his argument, or is it a fringe point of view (I have no idea, I only have a passing interest in Cnut)?

[Fortinbras]

That's sort of what I was asking, I suspect I know even less about Cnut than you do.

[Kalmarvho]

Okay, I'm gonna pop in real quick for a couple questions.

I'm specifically interested in Hundred Years War and Wars of the Roses weapons tech, but I'm having a hard time finding good sources (most of my sources for both conflicts focus on the political and economic ramifications, or on weaving a cohesive historical narrative). I need to know things like, how extensive was the artillery at Crecy? What were the French gendarmes that helped destroy John Talbot equipped with? Were cannonballs stone, metal, or both?

Do you guys have decent sources for those?

[fusilier]

Okay, I'm gonna pop in real quick for a couple questions.

I'm specifically interested in Hundred Years War and Wars of the Roses weapons tech, but I'm having a hard time finding good sources (most of my sources for both conflicts focus on the political and economic ramifications, or on weaving a cohesive historical narrative). I need to know things like, how extensive was the artillery at Crecy? What were the French gendarmes that helped destroy John Talbot equipped with? Were cannonballs stone, metal, or both?

Do you guys have decent sources for those?

I read something recently about artillery at Crecy, but I can't remember where . . .

In general cannons of that time tended to fire stone, but they experimented a lot and if they were of particularly small caliber they might fire iron or even lead.

I'll do some searching and see what I can find.

[Eldan]

A point that just got me thinking in another thread...

Could a modern firearm, say a handgun, fire wooden projectiles? Could you make wood-tipped rifle bullets? Or would they just shatter on impact or even in the weapon?

The subject in question was vampires that can only be wounded by wooden weapons.

[Galloglaich]

Okay, I'm gonna pop in real quick for a couple questions.

I'm specifically interested in Hundred Years War and Wars of the Roses weapons tech, but I'm having a hard time finding good sources (most of my sources for both conflicts focus on the political and economic ramifications, or on weaving a cohesive historical narrative). I need to know things like, how extensive was the artillery at Crecy? What were the French gendarmes that helped destroy John Talbot equipped with? Were cannonballs stone, metal, or both?

Do you guys have decent sources for those?

Osprey is always a prety good source for detals like that.

This is recent, covers a lot of ground but does get into some 100 Years War stuff

http://www.amazon.com/European-Medieval-Tactics-1260-1500-ebook/dp/B008IU9HWG

These aren't as recent but also useful

http://www.amazon.com/French-Armies-Hundred-Years-War/dp/1855327104/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1353080215&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=osprey+100+years+wAR

http://www.amazon.com/Cr%C3%A9cy-1346-Triumph-longbow-Campaign/dp/1855329662/ref=pd_vtp_b_3

http://www.amazon.com/Poitiers-1356-Capture-King-Campaign/dp/1841765163/ref=pd_vtp_b_4

G

[Brother Oni]

A point that just got me thinking in another thread...

Could a modern firearm, say a handgun, fire wooden projectiles? Could you make wood-tipped rifle bullets? Or would they just shatter on impact or even in the weapon?

The subject in question was vampires that can only be wounded by wooden weapons.

Yes, a modern firearm can use wooden bullets, although they're typically for training purposes as the rounds tend to disintegrate before getting too far (I understand the Finnish army uses them as an alternate for blank rounds).

The British Army apparently had a .303 round with a wooden nose cone known as the RG50, but aside from a single link with a cross section, I can't find any more information about it: link (http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot37_2.htm) about half way down.

With regard to vampire hunting, there was a TV series called Ultraviolet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_%28TV_serial%29), where the vampire hunters used carbon tipped rounds to achieve the same staking effect.
In oWoD, wood tipped bullets were classed as insufficient to achieve the staking effect (the stake had to be at least half a foot in length).

[Theodoric]

A point that just got me thinking in another thread...

Could a modern firearm, say a handgun, fire wooden projectiles? Could you make wood-tipped rifle bullets? Or would they just shatter on impact or even in the weapon?

The subject in question was vampires that can only be wounded by wooden weapons.
Most of the projectile burns up during flight leaving nothing harmful. Don't forget that firearms work with explosions and that explosions are just very quick combustions. :smallwink:

As said, it was used often for training purposes, especially at night. During D-Day a couple of Germans were issued rounds with wooden bullets for training purposes, but the Allied soldiers who found them erroneously assumed they were meant to make gruesome wounds.

[Yora]

You could also use less powder and reduce the power of the bullets to leave it intact, but those might not penetrate significantly, if at all.

[Eldan]

I see. Better stick with the classic crossbow, then.

[xeo]

I've read and hugely enjoyed the scholarship of many of the posters on this board so I'd like to pose a few questions semi-related to some of the prior discussion of the Siege of Malta in 1565

How does a boarding action with Renaissance war galleys (like the sort used by the Order of St John and the Ottoman Turks) actually work? Lots of books (like the Osprey one) describe the chase and the gunnery but are content only to say that a ship is boarded. I have a rough idea of how it happened but I'm uncertain on some of the details.


Does ramming (accounting for speed and size) occur with enough force to lock the galleys together? Or does more need to be done, i.e. using grappling hooks? Or does the force of the collision slow the galleys down to the point where they can easily board and be boarded?
Are there other methods, i.e. drawing alongside and using grappling hooks to bind the galleys together? At Lepanto many of the Christian galleys cut their rams off (for better gunnery) - so how did they end up boarding and being boarded by the Turks? Did the Turks ram them or did collisions, deaths amongst the galley slaves and lack of space reduce their speed to the extent that they could board and be boarded?
If you can use grappling hooks, how would you board? Especially considering that the sides of the galley are where the oar banks are and these (especially if occupied by slaves) would be difficult for a boarding party to navigate.
Were planks used as boarding ramps? I've seen one Renaissance painting that suggests so - but then it also depicts the boarding party in pseudo-Roman armour*. If not, were there special boarding ramps - like the "claw" (or "raven's beak" or whatever it's called) in the Classical world?
How did galleys board galleons, considering the height disparity? The Malta 1565 campaign began when Romegas captured the Chief Black Eunuch's galleon (which is clearly depicted in contemporary illustrations, as can be seen in Spiteri's book) but how did he do it?
If the ram works and the boarding party attack across it, how do they get past the forecastle and guns (if those are present on the ship)? Don Juan's Reale (for example) has an enclosed gunnery area which would force boarders to either climb over the guns and through the narrow gun apertures (slow) or to climb into the forecastle and jump down onto the ramp (dangerous). I know the Reale had its ram cut off for Lepanto but I've seen many similar designs in use throughout the 16th century** and presumably they faced similar problems.
Were there any specific tactics for boarding parties seeking to capture another vessel (aside from clearing the enemy deck through use of "duck shot" from the bow-chaser or through fire from arquebusiers and swivel guns)? Or was it simply business as usual?
Boarding was opbviously a dangerous choice in combats between war galleys, as the boarding party would begin at a numerical disadvantage (especially if they could only board at one point, i.e. over the ram), so did the boarders wait until their gunnery had reduced the enemy? Or did they trust to their fighting skill being enough to counter-act weight of numbers? Or did boarding provide some sort of shock advantage (especially with the shock factor of the ramming)?
Capture was clearly pretty common (Valette and Dragut were both galley slaves for a while) but how did it occur? Were boarded galleys offered the choice to surrender pre-boarding? Or were the crews defeated in battle (with the wounded and cowardly taken as slaves/prisoners)? Or did crews surrender at the point in the battle where they realised defeat was inevitable?

*The Boarding Party painting: http://i.imgur.com/5Soux.jpg
**16thC Knight Hospitaller war galley: http://i.imgur.com/VhXuE.jpg

Thanks a bunch for any answers guys.

X

[fusilier]

Okay, I'm gonna pop in real quick for a couple questions.

I'm specifically interested in Hundred Years War and Wars of the Roses weapons tech, but I'm having a hard time finding good sources (most of my sources for both conflicts focus on the political and economic ramifications, or on weaving a cohesive historical narrative). I need to know things like, how extensive was the artillery at Crecy? What were the French gendarmes that helped destroy John Talbot equipped with? Were cannonballs stone, metal, or both?

Do you guys have decent sources for those?

For early cannon and gunpowder weapons, you may want to look for this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Weapons-Warfare-Renaissance-Europe-Technology/dp/0801869943/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1353118546&sr=1-1&keywords=Bert+S+Hall

In it, Hall claims that the artillery at Crecy were probably ribauldequin - like.

Also, another kind of projectile that I forgot about, were basically big arrows. You can see them in early images of cannons.

[fusilier]

A point that just got me thinking in another thread...

Could a modern firearm, say a handgun, fire wooden projectiles? Could you make wood-tipped rifle bullets? Or would they just shatter on impact or even in the weapon?

The subject in question was vampires that can only be wounded by wooden weapons.

Wooden bullets seem to be used primarily as blanks in automatic weapons. The idea being that the wooden bullet survives long enough to develop sufficient pressure for the action to work. I think the bullet is expected to be shredded by the muzzle-blast, or at the very least fracture in such a way that it doesn't travel very far.

As I just noted, historically, sometimes large arrows were used in the early days of gunpowder weapons.

[fusilier]

I've read and hugely enjoyed the scholarship of many of the posters on this board so I'd like to pose a few questions semi-related to some of the prior discussion of the Siege of Malta in 1565

How does a boarding action with Renaissance war galleys (like the sort used by the Order of St John and the Ottoman Turks) actually work? Lots of books (like the Osprey one) describe the chase and the gunnery but are content only to say that a ship is boarded. I have a rough idea of how it happened but I'm uncertain on some of the details.

I'll try to answer these with what I know off the top of my head quickly. I can double check some of my sources later when I get the chance.



Does ramming (accounting for speed and size) occur with enough force to lock the galleys together? Or does more need to be done, i.e. using grappling hooks? Or does the force of the collision slow the galleys down to the point where they can easily board and be boarded?

The design of renaissance galleys (and medieval ones for the most part), had the ram above the water line, it curved upward somewhat, the idea being that the ram didn't so much "pierce" the other ship, but travel up over it, then the weight of the bow would help "pin" the ships together. Grappling hooks may have been used as well, probably to make it more difficult to the opposing galley to pull off, but the ram was to do the main work.

Something else must have been used when dealing with a high-sided sailing ship though. Although in the 16th century the galley typically would have had an advantage in stand-off artillery.


Are there other methods, i.e. drawing alongside and using grappling hooks to bind the galleys together? At Lepanto many of the Christian galleys cut their rams off (for better gunnery) - so how did they end up boarding and being boarded by the Turks? Did the Turks ram them or did collisions, deaths amongst the galley slaves and lack of space reduce their speed to the extent that they could board and be boarded?

The tactic in use was to hold the fire of the main guns until the last moment, just before contact. The Spanish weren't ordered to cut off their rams, but the "tips" of the rams. This allowed the main gun to depress a bit more and could rake the enemy just before boarding. How much that may have affected the ability of the ram to "pin" the ships together I cannot say, but it obviously wasn't a major issue.

Killing the oarsmen is of course a way to disable a galley, but, especially if they were slaves, it might be preferable to capture them and either free them, or use them as galley slaves.

In a running fight, it is conceivable that a galley could fire its main gun, and reload it before boarding. Unfortunately, I don't know if that was done and how often, but there seems to be some indication that it could be done. Perhaps Djerba might provide some examples.


If you can use grappling hooks, how would you board? Especially considering that the sides of the galley are where the oar banks are and these (especially if occupied by slaves) would be difficult for a boarding party to navigate.

Not sure. There benches didn't run all the way to the sides of the vessel, there was a platform between the hull and the "apostis" - the part where the oars pivoted. It was low enough that a ram would pin the vessel at this point. This platform allowed soldiers to be stationed there, so any boarding action would have to fight it's way through those soldiers. I would imagine that the oars and oarsmen must have caused a problem, but they would be able to walk on the benches, and even the defender would probably want to move the oarsmen out of the way (assuming they were slaves) as quickly as possible to allow their own soldiers to counterattack the boarding party.


Were planks used as boarding ramps? I've seen one Renaissance painting that suggests so - but then it also depicts the boarding party in pseudo-Roman armour*. If not, were there special boarding ramps - like the "claw" (or "raven's beak" or whatever it's called) in the Classical world?

I believe planks were used, once the ships were locked together to give more points of attack, but I would have to check my sources. I'm not aware of there being anything special about them.


How did galleys board galleons, considering the height disparity? The Malta 1565 campaign began when Romegas captured the Chief Black Eunuch's galleon (which is clearly depicted in contemporary illustrations, as can be seen in Spiteri's book) but how did he do it?

I would like to see a better answer to this question too. My assumption is that they threw hooks and climbed ropes, given sufficient covering fire from soldiers and light cannon on the galley. I think I've read that the Ottomans attempted to grapple some of the high-sided Galleasses at the battle of Lepanto.


If the ram works and the boarding party attack across it, how do they get past the forecastle and guns (if those are present on the ship)? Don Juan's Reale (for example) has an enclosed gunnery area which would force boarders to either climb over the guns and through the narrow gun apertures (slow) or to climb into the forecastle and jump down onto the ramp (dangerous). I know the Reale had its ram cut off for Lepanto but I've seen many similar designs in use throughout the 16th century** and presumably they faced similar problems.

The forecastles aren't too tall, and the guns could be maneuvered around to enter the "gun deck". Most of the guns on the galley were solidly mounted, and the sailors had to maneuver around them to load them. Typically only the heaviest gun recoiled when fired, which might provide more space. Having fired the battery at the last moment, may have disrupted the integrity of the forecastle.

I imagine that they are basically locked in close combat seconds after the collision. The spaces are very narrow, and easily clogged with men, so they would have to hack their way through. Reinforcements being fed in as each side thought necessary.


Were there any specific tactics for boarding parties seeking to capture another vessel (aside from clearing the enemy deck through use of "duck shot" from the bow-chaser or through fire from arquebusiers and swivel guns)? Or was it simply business as usual?

Not sure. Arquebusiers and swivel guns would be used to harass the rear sections of the ships away from the line of hand-to-hand fighting. Interestingly, they didn't seem to be a free for all, with people fighting everywhere as often shown in pirate movies. Instead, the line of fighting seems to have been well defined, at least in a classic fight. You will encounter remarks about advancing as far as the mast, or being thrown back to the forecastle, etc.


Boarding was opbviously a dangerous choice in combats between war galleys, as the boarding party would begin at a numerical disadvantage (especially if they could only board at one point, i.e. over the ram), so did the boarders wait until their gunnery had reduced the enemy? Or did they trust to their fighting skill being enough to counter-act weight of numbers? Or did boarding provide some sort of shock advantage (especially with the shock factor of the ramming)?

Boarding was used for a couple of reasons:
1. It was the best way to capture an enemy vessel.

2. At this time, it seems to have been the most decisive way of winning a battle. Gunnery was primarily used for defensive action. A good set of artillery could prevent an enemy from boarding (and this is what Galleons and Carracks did at the time), but rarely sink them. Galleys, could use their guns offensively, mainly because their centerline guns were very big and powerful, giving them better range and the potential for a single killing shot. But, if the shot was wasted, the enemy might be able to close to board without fear of return fire.

The Armada campaign is generally seen as the shift in this, where shipboard artillery on sailing vessels became heavy enough to be used offensively, and decisively. But I'm more cautious. If you look at the data, it was possible for a galleon to sink another, but it seemed to take a prodigious effort (many of the Spanish ships sunk outright were outnumbered and attacked for hours by English ships). So it was a shifting trend. Gunnery was more cautious, less risky, but also less decisive than a boarding fight.


Capture was clearly pretty common (Valette and Dragut were both galley slaves for a while) but how did it occur? Were boarded galleys offered the choice to surrender pre-boarding? Or were the crews defeated in battle (with the wounded and cowardly taken as slaves/prisoners)? Or did crews surrender at the point in the battle where they realised defeat was inevitable?

I think crews did surrender during a fight. If surrounded, in a bad position, etc., a galley might be offered terms of surrender. But for the most part, I imagine that surrender was rarely offered before a fight -- at least when dealing with war galleys. Civilian ships were probably run down, and then threatened.

The Osprey book on the Renaissance War Galley is one source. If you can find a copy of Guilmartin's Gunpowder and Galleys, that's the best source I know of for 16th century mediterranean galley info. Try to track it down in a library, it's out of print and very expensive unfortunately.

[fusilier]

Some more info on galleys:

The centerline gun might be able to fire effectively at 500 yards (this is what the artillery manuals at the time state), but that probably required a very calm sea. On the other hand, a galley travelling at "rush speed" could close that distance in about two minutes, which is considerably less than the time needed to reload the main cannon. So trying to whittle away an enemy galley that intends to close for a boarding action is basically impossible.

Stand off fights were possible if the enemy didn't want to close. Or, if it was a major fleet action -- in that case the maximum speed of the galleys is reduced to an estimated two knots or so, as maintaining the formation was tricky. Also, with a fleet in formation (line abreast was standard galley fighting formation), the galleys can cover each other while reloading.

One clever tactic was to beach the galleys stern first on a friendly shore, with the guns pointing to sea. The ciurma (rowing gang), can be disembarked to protect them and keep them fresh, while friendly soldiers can be moved on board as reinforcements. This tactic was particularly successful, as any attacking force would have to keep their ciurma's active to just to maintain formation, potentially exhausting them.

As for galleys attacking galleons, the common interpretation, I think, is that the galleys would maneuver around the galleon to a perceived weak point, move in, fire the main battery, then move out of range to reload. Speculation that the Mary Rose was sunk by galley cannon fire, is supported by an image of the fight, showing French (Genoese?) galleys performing precisely the same maneuver.

[Xuc Xac]

The subject in question was vampires that can only be wounded by wooden weapons.

The purpose of staking a vampire isn't to put a piece of wood in his body. The reason for the stake is to nail the body to the ground so it can't walk around and feed on the living: any sturdy material of sufficient length will work. You can't just put a stake into a vampire. You have to put it through the vampire and into something big and immovable (like the ground) to hold him in place long enough for you to cut off his head.

[Galloglaich]

The principle reason for boarding was if you had an advantage in heavy infantry (either quality or quantity or both), if you could board and you had more or better infantry you could end the battle very quickly.

So for example during the 16th Century the Spanish had very good infantry which they used on their ships. So did the Venetians, who also had a major additional advantage in that (up to the later part of the 16th Century) they were the only major force in the Med who did not use convict or slave labor to row their galleys - instead they used paid sailors, and these men could and did fight when two ships locked together, which effectively doubled in some cases the number of fighting men they had in a given engagement.

Third reason is this is the way to capture a ship, and captured vessels meant personal enrichment for the crew and captain, and also could be strategic assets for the power which employed them. Any given base in the Med usually had numbers of galleys measured in the dozens at most, so capturing even 3 or 4 good ones from your enemy could tip the balance of power in your favor.

Finally naval gunnery in the 15th and 16th Century Mediterranean (and North and Baltic Seas) was not anywhere near what it would become in the open oceans and remote seas of the 17th and 18th Century. Galleys in particular had guns usually mounted on the prow or stern, which meant they had less guns to bear (this was one of the issues meant to be addressed by the Venetian Galleas.)

The high sides of merchant vessels were indeed a very serious problem, both in the Med and on the North end of Europe. In the North and Baltic sea the Cogg beat out the Viking style longships in most open water engagements almost entirely on the strength of their inherent defensive advantage due to height. (the latter remained in use in the rivers for centuries however)

In the Med it was clearly a problem as well. In this book (http://www.amazon.com/1453-Holy-Constantinople-Clash-Islam/dp/1401308503) about the siege of Constantinople, the author describes (based on eyewitness accounts) a dramatic engagement in which a very small force of merchant ships from Venice (or Genoa, I can't remember off the top of my head) ran the blockade by virtually the entire Ottoman navy in the personal command of the fleet Pasha. Twice they almost succeeded in swarming the ship when it was temporarily becalmed but then the wind picked up again and they were beaten back. Essentially they simply couldn't board the ships due to their much higher freeboard, which confered advantages in both attack and defense.

It highlighted the relative merits of the two types of vessels; in the med the merchant ships: the Galleon, the Carrack, and even the more primitive Cogg were still used, but they were subject to becalmings in the unpredictable winds; Galleys could always move but were low in the water (and relatively fragile), subject to the limited endurance of their crews and vulnerable to bad weather.

The Venetian Galleas was a bit of the best of both worlds and could also be used to carry cargo.

G

[Galloglaich]

The Turks of course had their own elite infantry (the Janissaries) which they used much in the same way the Spanish used theirs; they had a further advantage with their recurve bows which due to their characteristics of plunging shots, were particularly useful in naval warfare when exchanging missile fire from a distance.

Some historians have speculated that the real setback for the Ottomans at Lepanto was the loss of so many of their trained archers, which may have contributed to their gradual decline in power from that point onward.

G

[xeo]

Thanks a lot for the very useful answers Fusilier and Galloglaich.

[fusilier]

Some historians have speculated that the real setback for the Ottomans at Lepanto was the loss of so many of their trained archers, which may have contributed to their gradual decline in power from that point onward.

G

Indeed. It's actually quite hard to understand why Lepanto was such a major defeat for the Turks from a modern perspective: they rebuilt their fleet in short order, and the alliance against them fell apart pretty quickly. But galley ships themselves were cheap -- it was the experienced personnel that were very difficult to replace.

[Matthew]

That's sort of what I was asking, I suspect I know even less about Cnut than you do.

As I say, I have never heard the thesis expounded upon, so my guess is that it has not been widely accepted.

[Kalmarvho]

Osprey is always a prety good source for detals like that.

This is recent, covers a lot of ground but does get into some 100 Years War stuff

http://www.amazon.com/European-Medieval-Tactics-1260-1500-ebook/dp/B008IU9HWG

These aren't as recent but also useful

http://www.amazon.com/French-Armies-Hundred-Years-War/dp/1855327104/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1353080215&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=osprey+100+years+wAR

http://www.amazon.com/Cr%C3%A9cy-1346-Triumph-longbow-Campaign/dp/1855329662/ref=pd_vtp_b_3

http://www.amazon.com/Poitiers-1356-Capture-King-Campaign/dp/1841765163/ref=pd_vtp_b_4

G

Awesome. Yeah, I've been meaning to get my hands on some Osprey books just for the sick plates, even if I've heard that they get some things hilariously wrong (i.e. stirrups).


For early cannon and gunpowder weapons, you may want to look for this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Weapons-Warfare-Renaissance-Europe-Technology/dp/0801869943/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1353118546&sr=1-1&keywords=Bert+S+Hall

In it, Hall claims that the artillery at Crecy were probably ribauldequin - like.

Also, another kind of projectile that I forgot about, were basically big arrows. You can see them in early images of cannons.

This looks to be exactly what I was looking for, thanks.

[Brother Oni]

You have to put it through the vampire and into something big and immovable (like the ground) to hold him in place long enough for you to cut off his head.

Then burn the remains and bury the ashes at a crossroads.

I wonder if burying them on a roundabout island would work in modern settings? If it did, then I guess the Magic Roundabout would probably be the equivalent of Fort Knox. :smalltongue:

[Galloglaich]

For a more 'traditional' (and also darkly funny) take on the Vampire, you might like this recent Romanian film

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1117636/

G

[Fortinbras]

Two questions

1. The Wikipedia article on Agincourt refers to the English moving back a step to "wrong-foot" the French charge. Could anybody explain what this means?

2. Does anybody have any idea how fast the Viking longships where? More specifically, how long did it take them to get back to sea from Paris (down the Seine)?

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

I would assume the idea is that at the last moment the English lines stepped back so that the French, who would have been planning on striking springing off their dominant foot, would be forced to take another step and attack springing off their non-dominant foot.

[Thiel]

Two questions

1. The Wikipedia article on Agincourt refers to the English moving back a step to "wrong-foot" the French charge. Could anybody explain what this means?

2. Does anybody have any idea how fast the Viking longships where? More specifically, how long did it take them to get back to sea from Paris (down the Seine)?

Well, the Havhingsten fra Glendalough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havhingsten) can, according to what's I've been able to find online, do 15kts under sail and about 4 or 5kts under oars. Of course that's with a crew of modern volunteers rather than Vikings who has spent their entire life rowing, so they might have been a bit faster.

[BootStrapTommy]

Well, the Havhingsten fra Glendalough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havhingsten) can, according to what's I've been able to find online, do 15kts under sail and about 4 or 5kts under oars. Of course that's with a crew of modern volunteers rather than Vikings who has spent their entire life rowing, so they might have been a bit faster.

Not the height of sources here, but I have it on History channel "Mankind" miniseries at 20 knots with the wind and a trained crew. I've heard that number before from other sources.

[GraaEminense]

1. The Wikipedia article on Agincourt refers to the English moving back a step to "wrong-foot" the French charge. Could anybody explain what this means?
Two possibilities spring to mind, assuming we're talking about infantry combat.

One is more or less what Gwyn said: When striking, you will normally take a step to gain reach and momentum. Depending on weapons and technique, one foot is usually better than the other. Stepping back messes up your opponent's attack. This is a common defensive move, but not realistically applicable on large scale.

Another (more likely) possibility is that the front ranks of the English line performed a controlled, short-distance fall-back. This would be risky, but could really mess up the enemy formation as some would pursue, some would keep the pace and some would hesitate. The charge would hit home out of formation and be vulnerable.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

So, in The Princess Bride, Inigo Montoya and the Man in Black duel. Throughout, they refer to various fencing techniques and the works of various fencing masters. Has anyone ever reshot that scene with swordplay that matches the dialogue? Would such a thing be possible?

[fusilier]

Well, the Havhingsten fra Glendalough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havhingsten) can, according to what's I've been able to find online, do 15kts under sail and about 4 or 5kts under oars. Of course that's with a crew of modern volunteers rather than Vikings who has spent their entire life rowing, so they might have been a bit faster.

Floating down a river, however, I doubt it will be averaging 15 knots. In fact, I doubt they averaged 15 knots in general. A potential place to look for travel times might be the GURPS Vikings book (I don't have that one, but they tend to be full of little details like that).

[Traab]

So, in The Princess Bride, Inigo Montoya and the Man in Black duel. Throughout, they refer to various fencing techniques and the works of various fencing masters. Has anyone ever reshot that scene with swordplay that matches the dialogue? Would such a thing be possible?

You mean those are real techniques and styles they are naming? I honestly thought it was mainly gibberish.

[Adlan]

Floating down a river, however, I doubt it will be averaging 15 knots. In fact, I doubt they averaged 15 knots in general. A potential place to look for travel times might be the GURPS Vikings book (I don't have that one, but they tend to be full of little details like that).

How fast you go will depend a lot on the skill and experience of the crew and how much their route allows them to use the wind. It might give you a good aproximation if you look at the routes, and see if there's a historical analog that might give you an indication of rough travel time.

[Brother Oni]

You mean those are real techniques and styles they are naming? I honestly thought it was mainly gibberish.

Yup, real techniques: link (http://combativecorner.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/fencing-language-in-the-princess-bride/).
As Kalaska'Agathas said, they're not actually using the techniques they name in the dialogue.

From the article (not sure what Bonetti's defence is), it seems that Wesley is expecting Inigo to attack with Capo Ferro or strong lunges (ie straight linear attacks), which he expects his study of Thibault (logic and geometery based sword defence) to simply get out of the way in an advantagous position.
However Inigo has studied Agrippa (closing distances and short sword/short swording techniques), which will help him in getting close to Wesley and win the ensuing close ranged tussle.

[Mike_G]

So, in The Princess Bride, Inigo Montoya and the Man in Black duel. Throughout, they refer to various fencing techniques and the works of various fencing masters. Has anyone ever reshot that scene with swordplay that matches the dialogue? Would such a thing be possible?

No.

We should not re-shoot the duel from Princess Bride anymore than we should re-paint the Mona Lisa.

To suggest otherwise is heresy.

[Grundy]

No.

We should not re-shoot the duel from Princess Bride anymore than we should re-paint the Mona Lisa.

To suggest otherwise is heresy.

Indeed, it would be one of the classic blunders.

[Traab]

Indeed, it would be one of the classic blunders.

But is it above or behind playing a game of chance with a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line?

[Mike_G]

But is it above or behind playing a game of chance with a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line?

It's nearly as bad as rephrasing the opening narration of Star Trek to avoid splitting the infinitive.

Princess Bride is as close to perfect as any movie I can think of. To tamper with such a thing of beauty over fencing pedantry requires a man with no soul.

[Kalmarvho]

Another question.

Old hand guns, like their bigger cousins, were loaded by charging the barrel, tamping that stuff down, and dropping the ball in, right?

Exactly how much at risk was the ball of falling out? Could a man in difficult conditions keep his pistol loaded even if it was upside down, or would the ball just up and slip out?

[Craft (Cheese)]

Another question.

Old hand guns, like their bigger cousins, were loaded by charging the barrel, tamping that stuff down, and dropping the ball in, right?

Exactly how much at risk was the ball of falling out? Could a man in difficult conditions keep his pistol loaded even if it was upside down, or would the ball just up and slip out?

They would put in what they called wadding into the barrel after the ball specifically to avoid this problem. It grips the walls of the gun just enough to stop gravity from letting the ball fall out, but not enough to significantly obstruct it when it fires. They used pre-made paper packets of gunpowder (called a "cartridge") with a ball included to load their guns quickly and would just stuff the leftover paper into the barrel to serve as wadding.

As for how secure the ball would be in there if you for some reason didn't use wadding, I dunno, though I imagine rifled barrels would be significantly safer: Before the invention of breechloading you had to actually hammer the ball in with a mallet, just a simple ramrod wasn't enough. This is why rifling didn't catch on until several centuries after its discovery.

[Partysan]

I have a speculative question about sword design:

While hardly seen in later historical examples (I think there are Bronze/Iron Age shortswords) fantasy weapons often show a design usually referred to as "leafblade", i.e. a symmetrical blade which is thinner at the middle and broader towards the tip before converging in a point again.

I'd be interested to know what implications for the handling of a weapon this design would have if applied to a long sword (bastard sword if you will), if one disregards the obvious consequence of becoming more top-heavy (lets imagine this being compounded by a heavier pommel or something similar and ignore the increased weight for the purpose of this excercise).

What I could imagine happening is the weapon inflicting deeper wounds because of the curvature but having less penetrating power in thrusts, since the point will be broader. Does that make sense?
Maybe the stability of the blade would be compromised, since the parrying area is less broad? Could one increase the thickness to compensate?
What would be the influence on halfswording and winding?

In short: What happens if one adds curvature to the long sword's blade without taking away its symmetry (for false edge cuts) and balance?

[Brother Oni]

We should not re-shoot the duel from Princess Bride anymore than we should re-paint the Mona Lisa.

How about a fan re-shoot, like that fan remake of Raiders of the Lost Ark, or the internet splice togethers of the first two Star Wars movies?


But is it above or behind playing a game of chance with a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line?

Probably above that, but below the land war in Asia. :smalltongue:


They used pre-made paper packets of gunpowder (called a "cartridge") with a ball included to load their guns quickly and would just stuff the leftover paper into the barrel to serve as wadding.

I believe before the introduction of pre-measured paper cartridges, they just took care not to let the barrel droop and hence the ball rolling out (you can guess how well that went).

I'm not sure how accurate it was, but I remember an episode of Sharpe where they were drilling new recruits in the firing drill and the sergeant at arms was shouting out the commands, along with various 'reminders' about not what to do (like forgetting to remove the ramrod before firing).



As for how secure the ball would be in there if you for some reason didn't use wadding, I dunno, though I imagine rifled barrels would be significantly safer: Before the invention of breechloading you had to actually hammer the ball in with a mallet, just a simple ramrod wasn't enough. This is why rifling didn't catch on until several centuries after its discovery.

Depends on the size of the ball. For ease and speed of loading, undersized balls were popular but they could possibly roll out of the barrel if you weren't careful (the use of which also contributed to the notoriously poor accuracy that smoothbores have).

I would think a properly fitting ball that required a ramrod to get in, would be pretty much safe from falling out without deliberate effort to get it out and probably wouldn't need wadding to stay in place (the gunpowder is a different issue).

[Kalaska'Agathas]

How about a fan re-shoot, like that fan remake of Raiders of the Lost Ark, or the internet splice togethers of the first two Star Wars movies?

That's basically what I was thinking - not a reshoot with the intent to replace the scene, as that would certainly be one of the classic blunders, but rather showing what such a duel would look like. It could serve as a companion to the original, meant as an educational piece.

[Matthew]

In short: What happens if one adds curvature to the long sword's blade without taking away its symmetry (for false edge cuts) and balance?

Not much, assuming it is balanced for fighting. As you suggest, it might be better for cutting/chopping than a conventional straight taper and less suited to the thrust, but to what degree? It is unlikely to be worth measuring for D&D/D20 type game purposes.

[Grundy]

No.

We should not re-shoot the duel from Princess Bride anymore than we should re-paint the Mona Lisa.

To suggest otherwise is heresy.


Not much, assuming it is balanced for fighting. As you suggest, it might be better for cutting/chopping than a conventional straight taper and less suited to the thrust, but to what degree? It is unlikely to be worth measuring for D&D/D20 type game purposes.

True. Consider if you made an axe with a metal haft (sharp or not). That's basically a super exaggerated version of your leaf bladed sword. And now consider the mechanical differences between a long sword and a battle axe in dnd.

[Partysan]

Not much, assuming it is balanced for fighting. As you suggest, it might be better for cutting/chopping than a conventional straight taper and less suited to the thrust, but to what degree? It is unlikely to be worth measuring for D&D/D20 type game purposes.


True. Consider if you made an axe with a metal haft (sharp or not). That's basically a super exaggerated version of your leaf bladed sword. And now consider the mechanical differences between a long sword and a battle axe in dnd.

True, but I'm not asking for D&D purposes (D&D actually has a weapon somewhat like that, the Jovar in the Planar Handbook). I wanted to know about the actual handling of weapons which is why I came to this thread where some people post who are more knowledgeable and trained than I am.

(Another detail question: would this affect the ability to draw cut?)

[Spiryt]

I'd be interested to know what implications for the handling of a weapon this design would have if applied to a long sword (bastard sword if you will), if one disregards the obvious consequence of becoming more top-heavy (lets imagine this being compounded by a heavier pommel or something similar and ignore the increased weight for the purpose of this excercise).

What I could imagine happening is the weapon inflicting deeper wounds because of the curvature but having less penetrating power in thrusts, since the point will be broader. Does that make sense?
Maybe the stability of the blade would be compromised, since the parrying area is less broad? Could one increase the thickness to compensate?
What would be the influence on halfswording and winding?

In short: What happens if one adds curvature to the long sword's blade without taking away its symmetry (for false edge cuts) and balance?

Wounds inflicted by cutting could be deeper, but mainly due to more width at striking area, don't think that this slight curvature would change all that much in impact mechanics.

Overall characteristics depend on 'details' very much, so it's really hard to answer - there is 'leaf' shape, but then there's also overall crossection - thickness at different parts, angles of cross-section and so on.

So it doesn't really have to become "top heavy" either, if broadened part is also proportionally thinner, for example.

[fusilier]

I believe before the introduction of pre-measured paper cartridges, they just took care not to let the barrel droop and hence the ball rolling out (you can guess how well that went).

If the paper cartridge contained both ball and powder, then the paper would serve as wadding to hold the ball in place.

I've read of instances of troops sometimes shoving grass down the barrels to serve as wadding to hold bullets in place (I think in the context of the English Civil War). Others carried bits of paper, or tow, etc., to serve as wadding. If defending high-ground, it may be necessary to depress the barrel and you don't want the bullet simply rolling out.



Depends on the size of the ball. For ease and speed of loading, undersized balls were popular but they could possibly roll out of the barrel if you weren't careful (the use of which also contributed to the notoriously poor accuracy that smoothbores have).

I would think a properly fitting ball that required a ramrod to get in, would be pretty much safe from falling out without deliberate effort to get it out and probably wouldn't need wadding to stay in place (the gunpowder is a different issue).

Until the introduction of paper cartridges, this seems to have been generally true. The use of a tight fitting ball wouldn't require the use of wadding to hold it in place. Ideally, loose fitting balls would be used when rapidity of fire was desirable (the ramrod not even being employed), at which point fear of the bullet dropping out during transport was irrelevant.

As for a pistol: these weapons were loaded before combat and usually used once during a battle. So reloading them on the battlefield under stressful conditions wasn't necessary. They were also carried muzzle down, so the use of a tight ball and wadding was not only a good idea, it was also easy to do.

Using a mallet to ram down a rifle ball was not too common. It did occur, and the tige (?) breech design I think required it, but for the most part the ramrod itself sufficed for loading tight fitting bullets.

[Galloglaich]

Overall characteristics depend on 'details' very much, so it's really hard to answer - there is 'leaf' shape, but then there's also overall crossection - thickness at different parts, angles of cross-section and so on.

So it doesn't really have to become "top heavy" either, if broadened part is also proportionally thinner, for example.

I agree with Spiryt. Historically we have falchions of near hand-and-a-half size which are shaped similarly, somewhat narrow at the forte and broad at the business end, from relatively subtle examples like this

http://www.foxtail.nu/bjorn/images/thorpe.gif

... to really exaggerated examples like this

http://www.foxtail.nu/bjorn/images/hamburg.gif

Now if you imagine this as having double edges you are pretty close to what you are positing. We used to think falchions were big and heavy and crude (which is kind of how they look) but have since learned, from examining antiques, that the blades are very thin toward that business end.

The width does contribute to better percussive cutting (as opposed to draw cutting). This is the same principle as a meat cleaver. The curve might also contribute to better slicing or draw-cutting.

So in terms of pure mass, the blade on a leaf-blade may not be actually very heavy. I've seen some real (Bronze) ones recently at the Higgins armoury and they were quite small and thin overall.

But I do think that the general design of these was designed specifically for use with a shield and / or to cut from horseback, not as much for 'fencing' as a decisive cut.

It's also probably not really necessary - blades which taper seem in some cases to cut very well. Albions famous Brescia Spadona, a millimeter by millimeter copy of a 15th Century original in Italy, is one of the best cutting sword replicas around of any type. This again, was a surprise to a lot of historians and fencing enthusiasts; the conventional wisdom as recently as 10 years ago was that the 'pointy' swords were basically for thrusting. Test cutting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4ucqArlmpk&feature=related) shows us that a blade like the Brescia could easily dismantle a person in very short order indeed.

So there may simply never have been a reason to make the blade flare out like that on a two-handed sword. The actual reason to have a tapering or strait rather than 'leaf shaped' blade may have in fact been more to do with how the sword performs in terms of fencing, i.e. parrying, countering, binding and so on, than how it cuts.

That said, I think there are some iron / steel examples of leaf blade shaped swords, some of the Spartan Xiphos swords were made in iron, and also some much later Medieval swords in Lithuania and Estonia which were somewhat 'leaf' shaped, though they are single-handed swords probably meant to be used with a shield. Some also had 'antenna' hilts too which is interesting. You can see a few here though I'm not sure if you can see any with the leaf blade shape

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=22137&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20

G

[Brother Oni]

Using a mallet to ram down a rifle ball was not too common. It did occur, and the tige (?) breech design I think required it, but for the most part the ramrod itself sufficed for loading tight fitting bullets.

I believe most balls were lead, so would deform quite easily to get into the barrel. Would you know if any other metals were trialled or used, or was lead the default go to?

Looking up some videos, (link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJMbxZ1k9NQ)), it seems to indicate that the entire cartridge would have been rammed down the barrel, with the ball enclosed inside the paper, rather than the gunpowder, wadding and ball being put in separately.

Judging from older depictions of loading muskets using a powder horn with separate wadding and ball, I can see why this innovation was such a landmark.

I do remember that even with the paper cartridges, rifled barrels made loading tight fitting balls slower - during the Napoleonic era, the standard ROF by line infantry using the Brown Bess musket was ~4 shots/minute, while the Baker rifle usually only managed 1 or 2 (and not just because they took the effort to aim).

[Mike_G]

I believe most balls were lead, so would deform quite easily to get into the barrel. Would you know if any other metals were trialled or used, or was lead the default go to?

Looking up some videos, (link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJMbxZ1k9NQ)), it seems to indicate that the entire cartridge would have been rammed down the barrel, with the ball enclosed inside the paper, rather than the gunpowder, wadding and ball being put in separately.

Judging from older depictions of loading muskets using a powder horn with separate wadding and ball, I can see why this innovation was such a landmark.

I do remember that even with the paper cartridges, rifled barrels made loading tight fitting balls slower - during the Napoleonic era, the standard ROF by line infantry using the Brown Bess musket was ~4 shots/minute, while the Baker rifle usually only managed 1 or 2 (and not just because they took the effort to aim).

AS far as I recall, the drill called for tearing the paper cartridge open with your teeth, pouring in the powder, then putting the ball in and ramming it down. That's one of the reasons the Enfield musket helped lead to the Mutiny in India. Sepoys thought the cartridge had been greased with beef or pork fat, and biting such a cartridge would be a tough sell to a Hindu or Muslim.

[fusilier]

I believe most balls were lead, so would deform quite easily to get into the barrel. Would you know if any other metals were trialled or used, or was lead the default go to?

Looking up some videos, (link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJMbxZ1k9NQ)), it seems to indicate that the entire cartridge would have been rammed down the barrel, with the ball enclosed inside the paper, rather than the gunpowder, wadding and ball being put in separately.

Judging from older depictions of loading muskets using a powder horn with separate wadding and ball, I can see why this innovation was such a landmark.

I do remember that even with the paper cartridges, rifled barrels made loading tight fitting balls slower - during the Napoleonic era, the standard ROF by line infantry using the Brown Bess musket was ~4 shots/minute, while the Baker rifle usually only managed 1 or 2 (and not just because they took the effort to aim).

Lead was the most common. Mexico was known to use copper during the 19th century, as that country was copper rich but lead poor. They even used some copper cannonballs which is surprising. I've heard rumors of iron occasionally being used for armor penetration in the 16th century, but I've never been able to confirm that.

As for paper cartridges, that's a "it depends" situation. Paper cartridges can be found in the early 1500s, but they seem to have been rare at that point, and usually used with rather expensive guns. When they start being issued to armies around 1630, I think they were just a premeasured amount of gunpowder, and not powder and ball. Instead they were like the wooden chargers that musketeers would carry on a bandolier, but in paper form. I'd have to double check that, but I don't think it was until the end of the century (if not sometime in the next), that ball and powder started to be packaged together in a paper cartridge.*

What Mike G. states is correct, that biting the cartridge to tear it open was standard procedure (developing at least by the 18th century). If a flintlock weapon, a small amount of powder was then poured into the priming pan and the pan shut. Then the remaining powder was poured down the barrel. At this point, the practices may diverge, depending upon specific drill and the type of weapon/ammunition.

If the weapon was smoothbore then the ball (and buckshot typically), where left inside the paper and the paper and projectile(s) were rammed down together. The paper, in theory, working as a crude patch, in practice it probably sufficed as wadding.

If the weapon was a rifle, firing minie ball, then in US practice the ball was squeezed out of the remaining paper and rammed down the barrel. In CS practice, I believe it was the opposite, the paper was left on the ball and all was rammed down together. However, the windage was so low when using a minie ball, that the paper probably didn't survive being rammed down the barrel. Note that with a minie ball there were actually two paper wrappers: the interior one containing just the powder, and the exterior one containing the interior wrapper and the ball. This was to prevent the grease used on the ball from contaminating the gunpowder.

Rate of fire is tricky, as what was possible and what was commonly done were two different things. I've heard claims for flintlock muskets as high as six shots a minute. This is achieved by all sorts of dangerous and suspect tricks. 1. Don't prime -- the old muskets often had oversized vent-holes, so the hope was enough powder would leak through the vent into the priming pan. 2. Don't ram -- just spit/blow down the barrel and hope that that is enough to seat the ball on the powder. All of this sounds really dodgy, but some claim it worked. The militaries of the world often expected a well trained soldier to load and fire three shots a minute (not skipping any step). For the most part expect a rate of fire of about 1-2 shots a minute from the 18th century onwards.

Riflemen, prior to the introduction of the minie ball, were expected to have a slower rate of fire. Military rifles typically had shorter barrels to help speed up loading.


AS far as I recall, the drill called for tearing the paper cartridge open with your teeth, pouring in the powder, then putting the ball in and ramming it down. That's one of the reasons the Enfield musket helped lead to the Mutiny in India. Sepoys thought the cartridge had been greased with beef or pork fat, and biting such a cartridge would be a tough sell to a Hindu or Muslim.

Beef tallow and pork fat were commonly used lubricants on minie balls at that time. The factories probably used whichever was available/cheapest at the time of manufacture. While it was possible to use an alternative, the original ammunition shipped to India was probably of that style. The minie ball, while designed to expand upon firing, still had a very slight windage, and greasing it was necessary.

*The earliest paper cartridges I've seen, from the 1500s, consist of a paper tube with the ball plugging one end of the tube shut. Again, this seems to have been rare and for expensive hunting weapons (possibly even breechloaders), and not for common military firearms. It should be kept in mind that many ideas took a long time catch on, and during the 17th century you could easily find multiple systems in use simultaneously (paper cartridges, wooden chargers, and flasks).

[Clistenes]

Does any of you know about any test done to compare the effectivity of poleaxes, warhammers and warpicks against plate armor?

I have seen many weapons with an axe blade and a hammer or pick head at the other side, or with both a hammer and a pick head. I think that the axe blade was used against the worst armoured foes, while the pick or hammer head was used against plate armor, and I have heard that the pick head was the most effective anti-armor weapon, but you risked having your weapon stuck after a successful hit, unlike the hammer.

I have heard all those theories, but, do you know about somebody who had scientifically tested the weapons on metal plate?

[Matthew]

True, but I'm not asking for D&D purposes (D&D actually has a weapon somewhat like that, the Jovar in the Planar Handbook). I wanted to know about the actual handling of weapons which is why I came to this thread where some people post who are more knowledgeable and trained than I am.

(Another detail question: would this affect the ability to draw cut?)

Right, I was thinking more along the lines of how specific are you looking to be? Spiryt and Galloglaich seem to have answered this more fully, the general behaviour is predictable, but to what degree depends on numerous other factors. Oh well, difficult question! :smallbiggrin:



Does any of you know about any test done to compare the effectivity of poleaxes, warhammers and warpicks against plate armor?

I have seen many weapons with an axe blade and a hammer or pick head at the other side, or with both a hammer and a pick head. I think that the axe blade was used against the worst armoured foes, while the pick or hammer head was used against plate armor, and I have heard that the pick head was the most effective anti-armor weapon, but you risked having your weapon stuck after a successful hit, unlike the hammer.

I have heard all those theories, but, do you know that somebody who had scientifically tested the weapons on metal plate?

Scientifically? Well, the problem is in recreating the conditions of use as they were at the time and then predicting lethality. For example, on Weapons that Made Britain they conducted various tests for armour piercing, and showed the effects of a pole-axe being brought down hammer first on plate armour with the jelly stuff they use behind. It was pretty awful looking, but then the blow was delivered overarm on a prone plate with no actual body to protect. So much for television science. There have been tests on energy required at Royal Armouries, I believe, but what kind of conclusions are you looking to draw? Pick > Hammer > Axe? They all had their situational uses against an opponent in plate.

[Spiryt]

Does any of you know about any test done to compare the effectivity of poleaxes, warhammers and warpicks against plate armor?

I have seen many weapons with an axe blade and a hammer or pick head at the other side, or with both a hammer and a pick head. I think that the axe blade was used against the worst armoured foes, while the pick or hammer head was used against plate armor, and I have heard that the pick head was the most effective anti-armor weapon, but you risked having your weapon stuck after a successful hit, unlike the hammer.

I have heard all those theories, but, do you know that somebody who had scientifically tested the weapons on metal plate?

I'm afraid that nothing even close to 'scientific' had been done in this particular matter.

Your theories are perfectly 'logical' but at the end it would all depend on particular weapon geometry, mass, etc.

For what it's worth, against full plate armor at least, manuals and illustrations from the period suggest stabbing into joints with pollaxes, anyway.

[Yora]

What type of armor is shown on the soldier sculptures of the terracota army?

http://www.chinatourselect.com/Uploadfile/200902/20090211194655456.jpg

What's it made of and how does it work?

[Spiryt]

Some kind of brigandine/coat of plates. Seemed to be really popular in the Medieval East in general, together with all kinds of scales and lamellars.

Those are from completely different period (http://chinese-armour.freewebspace.com/custom.html) obviously, but still nice example.

http://www.chinese-swords-guide.com/images/asian-history-chinese-armour.jpg

[Clistenes]

For what it's worth, against full plate armor at least, manuals and illustrations from the period suggest stabbing into joints with pollaxes, anyway.

With the axe blade, or with the pick head?


What type of armor is shown on the soldier sculptures of the terracota army?

http://www.chinatourselect.com/Uploadfile/200902/20090211194655456.jpg

What's it made of and how does it work?

That looks like lamellar armor. Just go to wikipedia and search for lamellar.

[Yora]

There seems indeed to be an overlap of the plates rather than them being revited to the backing side by side, as can be seen in the center column. And the shoulder guards clearly show ribbons used for lacing as seen in Japanese lamellar. I hadn't noticed that before.

There also seems to be a buckle near the right shoulder on the cuirass. Any idea what that is for? Reminds me a bit of linothorax reconstructions, maybe the right shoulder can be lifted up and the cuirass can be opened on the right side to get into it.

[Spiryt]

With the axe blade, or with the pick head?



With the top spike, obviously, since it was stabbing. :smallbiggrin:

With weapons that had one, naturally. Though in "pollaxes" top spike was funnily enough pretty much only 'guaranteed' part.



http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/TalhofferPolaxe2.JPG

http://www.the-exiles.org/Images/lejuepoleaxe/image10.GIF

[Yora]

There also seems to be a buckle near the right shoulder on the cuirass. Any idea what that is for? Reminds me a bit of linothorax reconstructions, maybe the right shoulder can be lifted up and the cuirass can be opened on the right side to get into it.
That thing seems to be found in all types of armor on the sculptures. Here's some more.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HworCOZTeFk/T6_gY-Etl8I/AAAAAAAAJY0/w1Fixw7-ZKM/s400/220px-Soldier_Horse.JPG

http://image.made-in-china.com/2f0j00LBSQPNWaVtzU/Armor-Clad-General-Terra-Cotta-Warrior-TS-01-.jpg

http://www.chinatourguide.com/china_photos/xian/Attractions/xian_terracotta_warriors_in_silence_and_beauty.jpg

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/files/2011/03/terra-cotta-warriors-picture-121.jpg

http://www.chinapictures.org/images/terra-cotta-warriors/1/terra-cotta-warriors-40113085453199.jpg
The last one shows very clearly how the lacing for the neck ends in almost the same area. I think it's only a single string that goed from the shoulder plate through the chest plate and then from the inside goes through the shoulder piece again and is then fixed to the chestplate. Which I would dare to say confirms that it is lamellar and that the right shoulder is losened from the chest to get in and out of the armor.

http://www.alitravelstheworld.com/tibetan_areas/china_terracotta_warriors_2_483x396.jpg
On this one I can't see that feature, but it shows very well how the plates overlapp and the lacing at the lower skirt, confirming that it's rivited lamellar.

[Thiel]

AS far as I recall, the drill called for tearing the paper cartridge open with your teeth, pouring in the powder, then putting the ball in and ramming it down.

This is correct. In fact having two teeth capable of biting down on each other was the only medical requirement for Danish conscripts in the 1850ies and 60ies.

[Mike_G]

If the weapon was smoothbore then the ball (and buckshot typically), where left inside the paper and the paper and projectile(s) were rammed down together. The paper, in theory, working as a crude patch, in practice it probably sufficed as wadding.

If the weapon was a rifle, firing minie ball, then in US practice the ball was squeezed out of the remaining paper and rammed down the barrel. In CS practice, I believe it was the opposite, the paper was left on the ball and all was rammed down together. However, the windage was so low when using a minie ball, that the paper probably didn't survive being rammed down the barrel. Note that with a minie ball there were actually two paper wrappers: the interior one containing just the powder, and the exterior one containing the interior wrapper and the ball. This was to prevent the grease used on the ball from contaminating the gunpowder.

Rate of fire is tricky, as what was possible and what was commonly done were two different things. I've heard claims for flintlock muskets as high as six shots a minute. This is achieved by all sorts of dangerous and suspect tricks. 1. Don't prime -- the old muskets often had oversized vent-holes, so the hope was enough powder would leak through the vent into the priming pan. 2. Don't ram -- just spit/blow down the barrel and hope that that is enough to seat the ball on the powder. All of this sounds really dodgy, but some claim it worked. The militaries of the world often expected a well trained soldier to load and fire three shots a minute (not skipping any step). For the most part expect a rate of fire of about 1-2 shots a minute from the 18th century onwards.

Riflemen, prior to the introduction of the minie ball, were expected to have a slower rate of fire. Military rifles typically had shorter barrels to help speed up loading.




I don't see why any army would want to strive for six rounds of musket fire a minute. All those shortcuts will mean more misfires and worse accuracy with the shots that do go off.

Two aimed shots with a properly loaded weapon will get more hits than six haphazard shots, half of which won't even fire.

I know a musket isn't crazy accurate, but most firing was done at a large target, like an enemy battalion, at relatively short rages. Better to maximize the effect of one or two volleys than have a whole regiment spaying lead all over the shop to no effect. Plus it plays hell with supply if each man is firing his pouch dry in two minutes.

[fusilier]

I don't see why any army would want to strive for six rounds of musket fire a minute. All those shortcuts will mean more misfires and worse accuracy with the shots that do go off.

Two aimed shots with a properly loaded weapon will get more hits than six haphazard shots, half of which won't even fire.

I know a musket isn't crazy accurate, but most firing was done at a large target, like an enemy battalion, at relatively short rages. Better to maximize the effect of one or two volleys than have a whole regiment spaying lead all over the shop to no effect. Plus it plays hell with supply if each man is firing his pouch dry in two minutes.

That's why I find such claims suspect. Accuracy wasn't a concern by this time period, but those cheats had to lead to more misfires (and possibly worse), which would probably cancel out any improvement in rate of fire. I was just passing on what I've heard claimed. Other sources state that 1-2 shots a minute was common, and some evidence from the American Civil War claims that those who fired more slowly (taking time to load carefully -- which can have an affect on accuracy), inflicted more damage than those units which loaded and fired as fast as possible.

[Mike_G]

I saw a show on History channel (yeah, I know) where some American Civil War reenactors had two minutes to load and fire as best they could at a group of human silhouette targets in formation 80 yards away.

They averaged four rounds fired per man, with two hits.

Now, these guys were using rifled muskets with paper cartridge Minie ball ammo and percussion caps. They were timed, but nobody was shooting back, so the stress level was less than it would have been at Gettysburg. The cloud of black powder smoke was just as much an issue as it would have been.

It's not even a remotely perfect study but it shows that you can get decent effectiveness from these weapons at a pretty good range for the period. Considering how badly attacking units got shot up during the ACW, I'd say that while I'm sure 50% hits didn't happen, the rifles of the day were very effective against massed infantry.

[Yhynens]

A friend of mine and I were talking about armor in video games (namely Demon's/Dark Souls, but also other things.) We noticed a few different sets of armor had a pauldron just covering one shoulder or mismatched pauldrons in general, which is something I don't think I've seen in any real armor I've looked at. Was real armor ever like that? And if so, what's the reasoning behind it?

[Lapak]

A friend of mine and I were talking about armor in video games (namely Demon's/Dark Souls, but also other things.) We noticed a few different sets of armor had a pauldron just covering one shoulder or mismatched pauldrons in general, which is something I don't think I've seen in any real armor I've looked at. Was real armor ever like that? And if so, what's the reasoning behind it?Two kinds I can think of.

- Jousting armor often had one side that was more reinforced than the other and/or had an enlarged or thickened shoulder on one side that was designed to deal with lance strikes. One side is covered by the shield, but the lance-holding arm needed extra protection. And because one side had the shield, and the armor was only going to be used for a specific purpose while on horseback, concerns about uneven balance and additional weight weren't as much of a problem.

- Gladiator's armor. There are lots of representations of Roman gladiators that have only one shoulder and arm covered as part of their kit; again, this is a specialized use where actually providing the best protection in a real combat situation was not the first design concern.

[Spiryt]

Asymmetrical pauldrons or arm protections in general were pretty common in later 15th century.

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=21152

As far as I know they were common in "Milanese" style of Gothic armor, less so in other regional styles of plate armor.

[Yhynens]

Alright, cool. Needing more protection on one side in a one on one fight is what my theory for it was, but it did seem impractical or weird for a normal armor set. Makes a lot more sense when you look at specialized things like jousting.
Thanks for the help!

EDIT:

Asymmetrical pauldrons or arm protections in general were pretty common in later 15th century.

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=21152

As far as I know they were common in "Milanese" style of Gothic armor, less so in other regional styles of plate armor.

Oh, cool. A lot of that matches Dark Souls's style, so I can see where the inspiration came from. Thanks for the link!

[Spiryt]

Yeah, as far as I understand, certain asymmetry was used on 'normal' armors as well.

Basically, a bit bulked up plates were supposed to replace shield completely - allowing free hand for a lot of things, starting with two handed weapon obviously.

Generally, while fighting on feet, right handed human will assume stance with his left arm forward, obviously, so catching strikes with it was to be expected.

[Traab]

That does make sense. How effective was it overall in comparison to using a shield? Could they make the armor thick enough to match the protection of a shield without hindering movement to the point where the advantage of a free hand was lost?

[bigstipidfighte]

Could a medieval crossbow be kept ready o fire indefinitely? i.e. in the home as a handy way to fend off horse thieves and he like, or in an armory? If not, how long could they safely hold a bolt?

Related question: How much training was needed to operate and care for a crossbow? I've found conflicting accounts on this, some saying it took only a week to become proficient and was a popular peasant's weapon, others claiming loading was very dangerous to the unskilled. Does it vary by type?

[fusilier]

Could a medieval crossbow be kept ready o fire indefinitely? i.e. in the home as a handy way to fend off horse thieves and he like, or in an armory? If not, how long could they safely hold a bolt?

Related question: How much training was needed to operate and care for a crossbow? I've found conflicting accounts on this, some saying it took only a week to become proficient and was a popular peasant's weapon, others claiming loading was very dangerous to the unskilled. Does it vary by type?

The short answer to your first question is it's bad to leave springs under tension: they wear out more quickly. It's probably not terribly safe having loaded crossbows lying around either . . . However, it may be okay to leave a crossbow strung, unlike a bow which should be unstrung (but I'm not certain, it may depend upon the type of prod). Hopefully someone else will know. If it's a relatively light crossbow, it can be loaded quickly without need of extra gear.

For the second question, I don't have specific data at hand. The complexity of the particular crossbow was probably an issue. Possibly hurting one's self while loading it (back injury)? Also accidentally shooting someone. I would imagine it's more difficult to accidentally let an arrow fly from a bow than a crossbow, and in that sense it would be more like a firearm.

[Brother Oni]

The short answer to your first question is it's bad to leave springs under tension: they wear out more quickly. It's probably not terribly safe having loaded crossbows lying around either . . . However, it may be okay to leave a crossbow strung, unlike a bow which should be unstrung (but I'm not certain, it may depend upon the type of prod). Hopefully someone else will know. If it's a relatively light crossbow, it can be loaded quickly without need of extra gear.

While I don't have first hand experience with crossbows, I've been told that they can be stored strung but not under tension, unlike a traditional wood bow, which should be kept unstrung to avoid tension deforming the bow, resulting in a loss of power.

As with all things, it depends on how the crossbow is stored. In a cool, dry location, it could probably last months or longer while strung with no loss of tension.
Somewhere hot and humid would probably cause a noticable loss of power after a compartively short time (corrosion to the metal parts of the mechanism, deformation of the limbs if under tension or decay of the glue in case of laminate limbs).

[Spiryt]

Related question: How much training was needed to operate and care for a crossbow? I've found conflicting accounts on this, some saying it took only a week to become proficient and was a popular peasant's weapon, others claiming loading was very dangerous to the unskilled. Does it vary by type?

As with everything, it depends on what ones means by 'proficiency' - with some goat foot spanned bow, in 'comfortable' conditions, pretty much any healthy human can become very dangerous shooting it with a week of training.

Actually being 'good', so accurate, fast-shooting, able to take care of it was another thing.

Crossbows loaded with every popular belt hook were often different thing - many sources mention 'good archers' being able to span heavy crossbows, shoot them quickly etc.

Action of pulling the bow with your back obviously depends more on strength, coordination and so on, after all.

Crossbow generally wasn't strictly 'peasant' weapon if by 'peasant' we mean someone relatively poor and so on - because crossbows were relatively to very expensive and delicate pieces of craftsmanship.

A lot of steel bows could be relatively 'fool-proof' - but then they were still pretty expensive - piece of heat treated, elastic, properly bending steel isn't that cheap today either.

As for the last, part, I can't honestly see loading crossbow as being very dangerous, at least not to the user.

I guess that someone could ruin his fingers if he had placed them on the path of the string and shot. :smalleek:

[Brother Oni]

As for the last, part, I can't honestly see loading crossbow as being very dangerous, at least not to the user.

I guess that someone could ruin his fingers if he had placed them on the path of the string and shot. :smalleek:

I guess it would depend on the type of crossbow, but never underestimate the stupidity of people.
I can see very clumsy people doing something stupid with a more powerful cranked crossbow, resulting in the string being loosed prematurely, cutting something off.

With hand drawn ones, I agree that the act of loading is very hard to mess up (about all I can think of is missing the string locking mechanism at maximum tension with certain crossbow types), although incorrect loading may cause errors in firing - I was speaking with someone who had trouble drawing the string back evenly, thus the bolt always went off to one side.

[fusilier]

I guess it would depend on the type of crossbow, but never underestimate the stupidity of people.
I can see very clumsy people doing something stupid with a more powerful cranked crossbow, resulting in the string being loosed prematurely, cutting something off.

With hand drawn ones, I agree that the act of loading is very hard to mess up (about all I can think of is missing the string locking mechanism at maximum tension with certain crossbow types), although incorrect loading may cause errors in firing - I was speaking with someone who had trouble drawing the string back evenly, thus the bolt always went off to one side.

I was just reading instructions on how to span a crossbow using a belt hook: they stated that after spanning the hook should be released before the foot is removed from stirrup -- otherwise if the bowstring didn't latch correctly, removing the foot first would cause the crossbow itself to be propelled toward the body, potentially causing serious injury.

[Storm Bringer]

a quick question that popped into my mind:

is thier any record or blackpowder pistols having some form of saftey catch?

as was pointed out upthread, pistols were one of the few projectile weapons of their time that were kept loaded most of the time, and were expected to be carried loaded when other weapons, like muskets. would be left unloaded until they were needed.

was their a significant chance of accidental discharge with pistols? or was it not an issue until the introduction of modern automatic pistols?

[Galloglaich]

That does make sense. How effective was it overall in comparison to using a shield? Could they make the armor thick enough to match the protection of a shield without hindering movement to the point where the advantage of a free hand was lost?

Yes, not so much thick, as strong enough. The earliest plate armor in the 1200's and 1300's was originally iron, usually fairly thin (1-2mm on most of the armor, up to 3-4mm in the thickest parts of the body and helmet). A cavalry harness might be around 60-80lbs.

By the later middle ages (1400's) steel armor began to be more popular, produced in a few key centers in Southern Germany and Northern Italy, notably Milan, Brescia, and Augsburg. Later Innsbruck in Austria. Steel armor was much trickier (and generally, more expensive) to make (and was only made in a few places), but could be much thinner for the same or better level of protection. Well-tempered, medium-carbon steel armor was even rarer, but much stronger. Steel armor tended to be thin, often as little as 2mm in the thickest parts, and therefore lighter - even though they were much stronger than the earlier iron armor. Some gothic harnesses weighed as little as 40 lbs.

After the mid 1500's there were some major changes in the nature of warfare (and the type of people fighting), demand for armor fell, and the most sophisticated centers of the armor-making industry either collapsed or shrank to a luxury product for the very rich. Armor was reduced in scope to just torso and head protection in many cases, and most armor was mass produced by less skilled smiths using iron again. To cope with pistols and musket balls, they started making the iron breast plates and helmets thicker than ever before, some breast plates in the 1600's were as much as 6mm thick and could weigh 40 lbs for the individual piece of armor! And less effective than the best armor from the 1400's and early 1500's.



Related question: How much training was needed to operate and care for a crossbow? I've found conflicting accounts on this, some saying it took only a week to become proficient and was a popular peasant's weapon, others claiming loading was very dangerous to the unskilled. Does it vary by type?

The point of confusion on crossbows is simply that there were many different types of crossbows, which required much different levels of skill to use, cost different amounts, and were used by different types of people.

We also have an overlapping problem with the idea of 'peasants' which I'll try to clear up first. In the pop culture we tend to divide up the pre-industrial world into nobles and 'peasants', by which we really mean serfs. A peasant by definition owned his own land and could be fairly wealthy, and we know from period records more well-off peasants often owned horses, nice armor, and good quality weapons, at least in certain places like Sweden, Poland, Switzerland, and parts of Germany. In addition, you also have burghers, city-dwellers, who were neither serfs, peasants, or nobles. Townfolk were often quite wealthy and by law, had to be quite well armed.

Regrding crossbows, there were many different types.

A weapon like this, with a draw weight of around 150-200 lbs, was fairly simple to use, like a modern hunting crossbow. You could span it with your hands. Often they would have a simple wooden prod (bow), usually made of yew, or sometimes a steel prod like this one. This would basically be a hunting weapon which could also be used in war or for self defense.

http://www.todsstuff.co.uk/images/crossbows/ts-img-battle-crossbow_350x175.jpg

This is a more powerful weapon in the 300-400 lb draw range. To span it you'll need a belt-hook or a device like a 'goats foot'. At that level of power, the bow is somewhat dangerous to use. If you slip while spanning it, or if the prod breaks, you could be injured. A lot of these also had composite prods which could easily be damaged by rain, so the prod had to be kept covered. The string is also vulnerable to moisture regardless of the type of prod.

http://www.todsstuff.co.uk/images/crossbows/ts_img_late-14thc-warbow_500x258

In the later Middle Ages crossbows like these started to appear, with up to 1200 lbs draw. This is a lot more powerful than any crossbow you can get today. So people assume crossbows are like the ones they are familiar with, of the same level of power as the really simple one above. These things can't be spanned by hand, you have to use a device like a jack. If you slip while spanning, if the string or prod breaks, you could get seriously injured. In terms of power it's closer to a rifle or a musket than what we usually think of as a bow. This is a weapon which will be used by an expert.

http://collections.glasgowmuseums.com/media/E_1939_65_te_1&[2]_01_S.jpg

a lot of these weapons were actually used mounted

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/6981/mountedcrossbow.jpg

Similarly, you also have powerful siege crossbows like this, spanned by a windlass.

http://www.todsstuff.co.uk/images/crossbows/ts_img_windlass-crossbow_400x218.jpg

G

[Clistenes]

a quick question that popped into my mind:

is thier any record or blackpowder pistols having some form of saftey catch?

as was pointed out upthread, pistols were one of the few projectile weapons of their time that were kept loaded most of the time, and were expected to be carried loaded when other weapons, like muskets. would be left unloaded until they were needed.

was their a significant chance of accidental discharge with pistols? or was it not an issue until the introduction of modern automatic pistols?

I think the wheellock guns were considered dangerous, and could provoke accidents, but the flintlocks ones were quite safer, and would rarely accidentally discharge while uncocked.

Of course, any kind of gun was VERY likely to accidentally discharge once cocked (you would NEVER keep them cocked, but keep them uncocked and only pull the hammer/dog right before firing, unless you were planning an assassination and were keeping the gun hidden under your cloak).

The flintlocks had a "half-cocked" position that was safe but allowed to **** the weapon faster than from the uncocked position.

[fusilier]

I think the wheellock guns were considered dangerous, and could provoke accidents, but the flintlocks ones were quite safer, and would rarely accidentally discharge while uncocked.

Of course, any kind of gun was VERY likely to accidentally discharge once cocked (you would NEVER keep them cocked, but keep them uncocked and only pull the hammer/dog right before firing, unless you were planning an assassination and were keeping the gun hidden under your cloak).

The flintlocks had a "half-cocked" position that was safe but allowed to **** the weapon faster than from the uncocked position.

Most black-powder pistols will have a safety in the form of a half-**** position for the hammer/****. Flintlocks cannot be left loaded in the uncocked position, as that will mean the pan is open.* Percussion cap weapons can be left in the uncocked position, but this is (and was) considered dangerous practice, and the gun is technically not safe: pulling the trigger won't fire the weapon, but if the hammer is accidentally pulled a little ways back, or receives a strong shock, the gun may fire.

Wheellocks could be made safe by lifting the jaws away from the pan, although in this case the trigger could be pulled, opening the pan cover, unwinding the wheel, and probably disrupting the priming powder. It wouldn't result in an accidental discharge, but it would unready the gun.

However, some early flintlock pistols seem to have lacked a half-**** position. It's not universal, and may be a hold over from wheellock days. My assumption is that the weapon was primed shortly before battle, and simply left at full-****. I think I have seen some saftey mechanisms on early pistols, but I can't recall specifically. I own a repro percussion horse pistol that has a bizarre saftey on it, which basically protects the cap and prevents it from being struck (it also prevents the cap from falling off, and that may have been the primary reason to use it).

*It may be possible to rest the **** against the frizzen, without it forcing the frizzen open, and dumping all the priming powder. The flintlocks I've handled have rather strong mainsprings and I wouldn't count on this.

[fusilier]

a quick question that popped into my mind:

is thier any record or blackpowder pistols having some form of saftey catch?

as was pointed out upthread, pistols were one of the few projectile weapons of their time that were kept loaded most of the time, and were expected to be carried loaded when other weapons, like muskets. would be left unloaded until they were needed.

was their a significant chance of accidental discharge with pistols? or was it not an issue until the introduction of modern automatic pistols?

People shot themselves pretty often unfortunately -- there was little training or education in gun safety, outside of military drills. Double action revolvers were probably the worst; many cowboys accidentally shot themselves (putting their pants on, even). It was probably with double action revolvers that safeties started to become more standard.

The Prairie Traveler by Captain Marcy, 1859, devotes a few pages to gun safety, with many complaints about poor practices. It admonishes people to not pull loaded rifles out of wagons with the muzzle pointing right at them. Complains considerably about the practice of resting the hammer on the cap. And then states that treating all guns as loaded and never pointing them at someone is a good habit, practiced by those most experienced with firearms.

[Kalmarvho]

Most black-powder pistols will have a safety in the form of a half-**** position for the hammer/****. Flintlocks cannot be left loaded in the uncocked position, as that will mean the pan is open.* Percussion cap weapons can be left in the uncocked position, but this is (and was) considered dangerous practice, and the gun is technically not safe: pulling the trigger won't fire the weapon, but if the hammer is accidentally pulled a little ways back, or receives a strong shock, the gun may fire.

Wheellocks could be made safe by lifting the jaws away from the pan, although in this case the trigger could be pulled, opening the pan cover, unwinding the wheel, and probably disrupting the priming powder. It wouldn't result in an accidental discharge, but it would unready the gun.

However, some early flintlock pistols seem to have lacked a half-**** position. It's not universal, and may be a hold over from wheellock days. My assumption is that the weapon was primed shortly before battle, and simply left at full-****. I think I have seen some saftey mechanisms on early pistols, but I can't recall specifically. I own a repro percussion horse pistol that has a bizarre saftey on it, which basically protects the cap and prevents it from being struck (it also prevents the cap from falling off, and that may have been the primary reason to use it).

*It may be possible to rest the **** against the frizzen, without it forcing the frizzen open, and dumping all the priming powder. The flintlocks I've handled have rather strong mainsprings and I wouldn't count on this.

A bit off-topic, but thank you forum autocensor for making this entire post sound obscene when it really, really wasn't.

[fusilier]

A bit off-topic, but thank you forum autocensor for making this entire post sound obscene when it really, really wasn't.

I know, I've commented on it before myself -- it's pretty annoying as it's the correct term to use (in fact it would be pretty awkward not to use it). I wish the moderators would review things from time-to-time and uncensor them.

[endoperez]

A friend linked me to this guy doing very fancy speed-archery. Like jumping down from a raised platform and shooting three arrows, or having 11 arrows in the air before the first hits the ground.

There are probably some errors in the narration ("all cultures used bows", which sounds like it's using speech synthesis, but it's probably still worth seeing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zGnxeSbb3g

[Spiryt]

I have seen this guy already, and while it's definitely on the 'fancy' side, it's still seriously simpressive.

Especially falling from the gymnastic thing and hitting all the targets...

Also, so much **** in this thread. **** thread.

http://i50.tinypic.com/2v0ydfp.jpg



That does make sense. How effective was it overall in comparison to using a shield? Could they make the armor thick enough to match the protection of a shield without hindering movement to the point where the advantage of a free hand was lost?

While plated arm is effectively quite similar in use to forearm-strapped shield, it's not quite the same obviously, so it's hard to compare 'protection' - pretty much most shields would provide a lot more cover and interception than even very big pauldrons, vambraces for example.

[Yora]

Now I want to see a group of 20 or 30 fast shooting archers all shooting at once mad minute style.

[Matthew]

I have seen this guy already, and while it's definitely on the 'fancy' side, it's still seriously simpressive.

Especially falling from the gymnastic thing and hitting all the targets...

Yes, it is the answer to the Seljuk question, but it is a trade off of power for speed. Great accuracy, though!

[Yora]

But how much power do you really need? When you do a skirmishing charge, the guy with three arrows in the chest may not immediately notice that only a single of them penetrated into the body for two centimeters. You probably would have had a hundred of such archers, all charging by on horses, which is bad enough for morale as it is. If you have arrows bounce of your shield and helmet faster than you can count them and the same is happening to the guys around you, I would expect most organised defences to crumble pretty fast. And when you want to go for a killing shot, you can just adjust your firing from fast and weak to strong and slow at any moment. Knowing the technique doesn't mean you have to use it all the time.

[Matthew]

Quite a lot if you are shooting at a load of plate armoured French knights, apparently. It is probably no coincidence that speed shooting was institutionalised as part of the military in a horse archery culture where the form of warfare was largely hit and run.

[Spiryt]

Depends on what one wants to do and at what distance.

Dunno what bow it is, but he is drawing with very easily with kind of "pencil" grip and arrows are very light carbon shafts.



you can just adjust your firing from fast and weak to strong and slow at any moment.

You can't "adjust" your, say 30 pound bow to be strong at some moment...

[Yora]

Yes, but the video that started the whole discussion said the trick for very fast shoting is not to draw the bow to full pull (draw? length?). What I mean is that after shoting a weak arrow, you can just take the next arrow and draw it fully and concentrate on the shot. And then you can switch immediately to fast half-drawn shots without taking your hands of the bow and the arrows that are already in the hand.

[Matthew]

Right, which makes it a trade off, power for speed. Where is the problem?

[Kurien]

*snip*
The point of confusion on crossbows is simply that there were many different types of crossbows, which required much different levels of skill to use, cost different amounts, and were used by different types of people.

*snip*

Regrding crossbows, there were many different types.

A weapon like this, with a draw weight of around 150-200 lbs, was fairly simple to use, like a modern hunting crossbow. You could span it with your hands. Often they would have a simple wooden prod (bow), usually made of yew, or sometimes a steel prod like this one. This would basically be a hunting weapon which could also be used in war or for self defense.

http://www.todsstuff.co.uk/images/crossbows/ts-img-battle-crossbow_350x175.jpg

This is a more powerful weapon in the 300-400 lb draw range. To span it you'll need a belt-hook or a device like a 'goats foot'. At that level of power, the bow is somewhat dangerous to use. If you slip while spanning it, or if the prod breaks, you could be injured. A lot of these also had composite prods which could easily be damaged by rain, so the prod had to be kept covered. The string is also vulnerable to moisture regardless of the type of prod.

http://www.todsstuff.co.uk/images/crossbows/ts_img_late-14thc-warbow_500x258

In the later Middle Ages crossbows like these started to appear, with up to 1200 lbs draw. This is a lot more powerful than any crossbow you can get today. So people assume crossbows are like the ones they are familiar with, of the same level of power as the really simple one above. These things can't be spanned by hand, you have to use a device like a jack. If you slip while spanning, if the string or prod breaks, you could get seriously injured. In terms of power it's closer to a rifle or a musket than what we usually think of as a bow. This is a weapon which will be used by an expert.

http://collections.glasgowmuseums.com/media/E_1939_65_te_1&[2]_01_S.jpg

a lot of these weapons were actually used mounted

*snip*
Similarly, you also have powerful siege crossbows like this, spanned by a windlass.

http://www.todsstuff.co.uk/images/crossbows/ts_img_windlass-crossbow_400x218.jpg

G

Hello again, although it seems no one here has interest in slingshots, I have more questions, all around the idea of muscle-powered projectile weapons. I would appreciate if someone replied.

I guess what I really want to ask is your opinion on the possibility using bows, crossbows and such for civilian/nonmilitary self-defense in the 21st Century. Now, I know this is unrealistic; if under threat from something—be it some kind of gang-related group, paramilitia, rebel/terrorist groups, the walking dead :smallamused:—were threatening one or more people, and those people were faced with little reasonable hope for mercy or escape, then those people would want to use firearms. The reason seems clear: firearms are simply the most deadly individually operated weapons ever devised. But, in some cases the people trying to defend themselves are in a country where one would have a hard time obtaining firearms. Or maybe one doesn't want to attract attention to oneself with loud noises. Hand-to-hand fighting is one option here, but I think, as everyone here agrees, few untrained or half-trained people make it out alive once the knives are drawn. That leaves bows, crossbows, slingshots, spear-guns and the like.

Medieval type longbows are awesome and extremely deadly (in the right hands, of course), but no one in today's world, with some exceptions, has the time or patience to train for years just to become proficient in their use. What about modern recurves/compound bows, such as those used for hunting? Would any of you consider using them? I can kind of see their drawbacks already (besides the obvious one, that in a fight between any two people with equal training, the one with a gun, such as a hunting rifle, would defeat the one with a bow 9 times out of 10), but I would like other people's opinions.

Crossbows, such as modern ones used for hunting, have the advantage over bows that one can keep the weapon cocked and loaded for longer lengths of time, and better accuracy for the inexperienced shooter. (I've also seen them touted as the ideal anti-zombie weapon). Would any of you take these over bows? I quoted Galloglaich above since I found the medieval crossbows interesting. Would anyone think of using those? I found a video of a latchet crossbow built by Tod from todsstuff as well. It looks very nice. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW4lYh8Yg38)

Here's a video brought to my attention recently of an unusual form of compound bow. What are one's thoughts on it? Link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pODCYp8C-0Q).


A friend linked me to this guy doing very fancy speed-archery. Like jumping down from a raised platform and shooting three arrows, or having 11 arrows in the air before the first hits the ground.

There are probably some errors in the narration ("all cultures used bows", which sounds like it's using speech synthesis, but it's probably still worth seeing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zGnxeSbb3g

That's indeed impressive. I am reading the posts all on this topic attentively.

And for anyone who replies, thank you for taking the time to read my overgrown post, and putting up with my ignorance, which I'm sure shows through all my words like holes in Swiss cheese. :smile:

[Kalmarvho]

A two-parter, one straightforward and one kind of meta.

1. Aside from Norse and Indian cultures, who else used pattern-welded steel? And more to the point, was it, in fact more effective than swords not pattern welded, due to flexibility, strength, and edge retention? Norwood claims it's so, a second opinion would be great.

2. Whose fault is it that people think rapiers are armour piercing? Or that they're military weapons, for that matter? Is there an older genesis for this belief, or do I just, you know, blame Fire Emblem?

[Spiryt]

A two-parter, one straightforward and one kind of meta.

1. Aside from Norse and Indian cultures, who else used pattern-welded steel? And more to the point, was it, in fact more effective than swords not pattern welded, due to flexibility, strength, and edge retention? Norwood claims it's so, a second opinion would be great.


Some form of pattern welding was used all over Europe, since Roman times at least.

Being more "effective" is pretty hard to tell - what's certain is that with more available iron/steel pattern welding ceased to be used.



2. Whose fault is it that people think rapiers are armour piercing? Or that they're military weapons, for that matter? Is there an older genesis for this belief, or do I just, you know, blame Fire Emblem?

It's all relative, rapiers can be certainly 'armour piercing' to some extent, way more able to stab trough a mail than a falchion, for example.

As far as "military" goes, I believe that the confusion here comes from the fact that "rapier" can/could be broad term, and saying what's no longer a "rapier" and what still is, could be quite hard.

Something like that (http://www.muzeumwp.pl/emwpaedia/rapier-bojowy-prawdopodobnie-niemcy-xvi-xvii-wiek.php) tends to be called 'rapier' quite a lot in literature or whatever, while constructionally and funtcionally it definitely isn't actual civilian rapier at all.

It's in fact long, cut&thrust sword with ricasso and elaborate guard with loop guard and all.

[Raum]

1. Aside from Norse and Indian cultures, who else used pattern-welded steel? And more to the point, was it, in fact more effective than swords not pattern welded, due to flexibility, strength, and edge retention? Norwood claims it's so, a second opinion would be great.I suspect most steel using cultures used some form of pattern welding. It's done to homogenize the steel (to a degree) prior to invention / use of crucibles for purification of the metal. A Japanese smith's folding is the same thing, just done a few more times for a much finer pattern.

The only reason to create pattern welded steel today is for the looks. Sufficient reason! :) (Have to admit to owning three.)


2. Whose fault is it that people think rapiers are armour piercing? Or that they're military weapons, for that matter? Is there an older genesis for this belief, or do I just, you know, blame Fire Emblem?I'd never heard that belief...at least no more than the standard myth of any sword going through armor like it wasn't there. The attribute I have seen associated with rapiers is accuracy - experts were supposed to be capable of avoiding armor by hitting targets as small as a moving eye-hole. More an 'armor bypassing' belief than an 'armor piercing'.

[Spiryt]

I suspect most steel using cultures used some form of pattern welding. It's done to homogenize the steel (to a degree) prior to invention / use of crucibles for purification of the metal. A Japanese smith's folding is the same thing, just done a few more times for a much finer pattern.


Most Japanese blades actually weren't pattern welded - Japanese tamahagane (Steel) was being made by folding the same billets of steel time and time again - to make it more pure and homogeneous.

So not the same as folding and twisting together different pieces of iron/steel.

[Raum]

Most Japanese blades actually weren't pattern welded - Japanese tamahagane (Steel) was being made by folding the same billets of steel time and time again - to make it more pure and homogeneous.

So not the same as folding and twisting together different pieces of iron/steel.Technically, it is the same. The difference is you don't see the pattern as easily in the folded (Japanese style) steel - it takes polishing and fairly close inspection. The different steels used in decorative pattern welding make the pattern come out easier, a simple acid wash is often enough for a distinctive contrast.

[Clistenes]

A two-parter, one straightforward and one kind of meta.

1. Aside from Norse and Indian cultures, who else used pattern-welded steel? And more to the point, was it, in fact more effective than swords not pattern welded, due to flexibility, strength, and edge retention? Norwood claims it's so, a second opinion would be great.

2. Whose fault is it that people think rapiers are armour piercing? Or that they're military weapons, for that matter? Is there an older genesis for this belief, or do I just, you know, blame Fire Emblem?

1. Vikings, japanese, persians, arabs, turks...etc. The spaniards, italians and turks copied the arab method who copied the persian method who copied the indian method.
The europeans copied it from either the vikings, the spaniards or the muslims.
If something works, everybody will try to get it (and if they refuse to teach you, you kidnap and torture their swordsmiths).

2. I think people tend to confuse rapiers and estocs. Estocs were armor-piercing stabbing swords that had a superficial resemblance to rapiers. Many cultures get both mixed to some extent; the bullfighting swords are essentially modified rapiers, but they are called "estoques", estocs.

[Fortinbras]

Couple of shield questions:

In terms of fighting on foot is there an advantage to using a "heater-shield" instead of a center-boss "viking" shield? The center-boss shield seems to have a reach advantage it seems like it would be easier to handle in a bind. What about a target or a rotella?

[Galloglaich]

The main advantage of a crossbow in a modern context is that they are quiet. Much quieter even than a silenced rifle could be.

Today only the relatively light hunting crossbows are available, and even these are sometimes used for specialist purposes by 'operators' (very rarely) But I suspect there might well be a bit more use for the more powerful Medieval type weapons which only a handful of experts like Leo Todeschini (Tods Stuff (http://www.todsstuff.co.uk/index.htm)) can make today, if they were more widely available. That latchet crossbow is just one example, he also has a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIkxyjVu9gc) of himself shooting a much more powerful weapon spanned by a goatsfoot which also allows a fairly high rate of shots.

But he is also starting to make the really formidable late Medieval style weapons in the 900 - 1200 lb draw range, and these I suspect might be liked by black ops type guys: extended armor piercing capability (with the right kind of projectile) while also remaining very quiet, plus a vastly extended range over a modern crossbow, close to that of a modern assault rifle.

That said a crossbow would still be very much a niche weapon. For survival / zompoc purposes it's nice that you can reuse ammunition but bolts and arrows have a tendency to break when you shoot them, especially at very high velocity.


Aside from Norse and Indian cultures, who else used pattern-welded steel?

As others said, it was used all over the world, it seems to have been part of a long transitional phase in Europe, seen (very, very rarely) from the beginning of the Iron Age in the 8th Century (associated with the Halstadt and later La Tène ('Celtic', Ligurian, Iberian and Illyrian) cultures, very gradually becoming a bit more common by the 3rd Century AD when Germanic and Scandinavian smiths started making a lot more of them, then fading out by around the 8th Century when the Franks started making a lot of good homogeneous steel.

But in some other places the technique remained popular almost to this day, such as in Malaysia and in certain places in the Philippines. A lot of Barongs are made pattern-welded, like this one:

http://www.oriental-arms.com/photos/items/12/001412/ph-0.jpg

http://www.oriental-arms.com/photos/items/12/001412/ph-3.jpg

http://www.oriental-arms.com/photos.php?id=1412

As to whether these made the blades better, is a subject of hot debate in Academia and among collectors. Some pattern welded Norse blades were known to be extraordinarily flexible, to the extent that they could be bent almost 90 degrees to the side and return to true. Allegedly this test has been done on some antiques though I don't know of any proof of that. Today of course pattern welding is done mainly for aesthetic purposes, sometimes to fool people into thinking it's "Damascus" or Wootz steel, (which is a type of that crucible steel someone mentioned upthread, a different and probably generally superior process). People make fake pattern welded blades by making a knife out of a cable for example.

The original purpose of the technique was to get something like a good homogeneous steel blade out of very small billets of hard-but-too-brittle steely iron (like cast iron) and flexible-but-too-soft wrought iron.

Personally I do suspect some pattern-welded weapons were and are better quality than other steels, though a lot of people would say I'm crazy in that. the swordsmith Petter Johnsson has done some really interesting work recently in figuring out the context of sword design which for me, opens the door on a number of ways which are not obvious to us today, which all kinds of composite construction of blades made them perform better. To paraphrase him, contrary to the Victorian fantasy of a sword being like a sharpened crowbar, a sword blade is really almost more like an airplane wing.


In terms of fighting on foot is there an advantage to using a "heater-shield" instead of a center-boss "viking" shield?

Both types were used but the former seems much more popular through history. I suspect the main reason for the popularity of the heater was, as you seem to be implying, for cavalry. Some arm-grip shields were made for infantry as well though. The trade off is reach and agility vs. stability and ease of holding the thing up for long periods, especially true for heavier shields like some of the steel rotella and those Ottoman bullet-proof shields you start to see in the 16th and 17th Centuries.

G

[GraaEminense]

Strap-on shields are less tiring to keep raised, are held in a stronger grip (harder for an enemy to move them out of the way), are easier to put your shoulder and weight behind (to push or resist push), and some designs give better coverage in close formation.

Center-grip shields give a wider repertoire of offensive techniques.

Very simply, strap-ons are better for defense and center-grips are better offensively. Strap-ons are also more forgiving, being better for fighters with less training.

I have no experience with target or rotella but I do know the buckler. From what I can see the target or rotella would be a more extreme center-grip shield, with exaggerated weaknesses and strengths.



@Kurien:
I do not have a gun in my apartment. I do have a bow. If the apocalypse came I would certainly take it with me, as it is the best tool I have for hurting things at a distance.
I would not use it against people with guns unless I truly had no other choice, as those odds are not in my favour... but you use the tools you have.
Regarding crossbows, I would take one over a bow for the reasons you mention. I would still take a gun over a crossbow.

Plenty of people have died from arrows and bolts over the years, we are not immune to old weapons just because we have new ones.

[Galloglaich]

Crossbows can also be a way to deliver drugs or poisons, (those 'repeating' crossbows were used in China to shoot poisoned darts) or even to place bugs or tiny cameras, or little robots.

In movies you see them used to shoot a grapnel, I don't know how realistic that is but it's probably possible.

Personally I really don't think arm-strap shields are better for defense, they are easier to hold up, but they are also easier to get around because they don't seem to be as agile and are held closer to the body. In the SCA they are popular because you can't aim at the lower legs and they use super heavy shields (much heavier than historical) which would be hard to hold with a center grip.

Historical wooden / composite shields tended to be very light and thin compared to what you see in a re-enactment or SCA context, and somewhat disposable. With some exceptions of course such as the old Greek hoplite shield (which was wood and bronze).

G

[fusilier]

2. I think people tend to confuse rapiers and estocs. Estocs were armor-piercing stabbing swords that had a superficial resemblance to rapiers. Many cultures get both mixed to some extent; the bullfighting swords are essentially modified rapiers, but they are called "estoques", estocs.

This was exactly the point I was going to make. Estoc (Spanish), Stocco (Italian), Tuck (English), were, initially at least, long stiff piercing swords -- however, historically the terminology was all over the map, and what we would call a rapier a 17th century Englishman may have called a "tuck." Modern definitions are often more precise than historical ones.

This sometimes lead to bizarre anachronisms. Collectors will tell you that there is no such thing as a Model 1822 (United States) Musket -- it's a Model 1816 type II. Historically the United States army didn't assign year model designations until the Model 1822 musket was adopted!! (Before that they were referred to as the Common Musket, or something like that). So historically there was no such musket referred to as a "Model 1816", but collectors found it a convenient definition to use (or invent).

[Spiryt]

Technically, it is the same. The difference is you don't see the pattern as easily in the folded (Japanese style) steel - it takes polishing and fairly close inspection. The different steels used in decorative pattern welding make the pattern come out easier, a simple acid wash is often enough for a distinctive contrast.

Well, the thing you can generally see in Japanese blade is layers and layers and layers of the same steel that was folded numerous times.

And not the actual patterns or 'braids' of slightly to very different iron/steel.

Layers instead of patterns, generally.



Couple of shield questions:

In terms of fighting on foot is there an advantage to using a "heater-shield" instead of a center-boss "viking" shield? The center-boss shield seems to have a reach advantage it seems like it would be easier to handle in a bind. What about a target or a rotella?

Generally, throughout most of history, in the whole world, central gripped shield were vastly most popular. Forearm strapping would be somehow more 'specific' design for certain applications.

Like hoplite shields - those presumably were held like that for maximal stability and pushing/impact potential...

Heater shields become popular among people who generally had some arm protection at least.

Quite obviously, for some ordinary Kelt/Swab/Samnite or whoever, wielding shield that he could be nailed to wouldn't be best idea...

The idea was to keep sharp thing as much away from the body as it possible. Thus perpendicular arm, behind the boss/umbo was quite safe from anything that could get stuck in the shield.



1. Vikings, japanese, persians, arabs, turks...etc. The spaniards, italians and turks copied the arab method who copied the persian method who copied the indian method.
The europeans copied it from either the vikings, the spaniards or the muslims.
If something works, everybody will try to get it (and if they refuse to teach you, you kidnap and torture their swordsmiths).


Eh, "Europeans" had it before 'vikings' or 'muslims' were even being talked about. Pattern welding was found in La Tene ('Celtic') and Roman context, among others.

After the fall of Empire, it became prevalent in whole Germanic world, so among "Vikings" (sea riders/merchants from Scandinavia, but not only) as well. Among other people as well, if due to Roman influence, or from other sources is pretty impossible to tell.

Generally any blade or tool made in 'Dark Ages' small, local smithy will be pattern welded, because it would be only way to receive bigger billet of iron/steel from man small bits of iron of different carbonization level and so on.

The trick of "quality" was obviously in details, arrangement, design, plan of this process.

[Clistenes]

Eh, "Europeans" had it before 'vikings' or 'muslims' were even being talked about. Pattern welding was found in La Tene ('Celtic') and Roman context, among others.

After the fall of Empire, it became prevalent in whole Germanic world, so among "Vikings" (sea riders/merchants from Scandinavia, but not only) as well. Among other people as well, if due to Roman influence, or from other sources is pretty impossible to tell.

Generally any blade or tool made in 'Dark Ages' small, local smithy will be pattern welded, because it would be only way to receive bigger billet of iron/steel from man small bits of iron of different carbonization level and so on.

The trick of "quality" was obviously in details, arrangement, design, plan of this process.

OK. I think we, the people in the forum are mixing different things:

There are several methods to get strong steel that leave welding patterns in the steel.

The iron age La Tene people used several methods to strenghen their blades, but those were largely lost before the fall of the Roman Empire. The germanic tribes in the borders of the Empire still created them.

The vikings twisted several high-carbon steel and iron bars like a rope and welded and forged them together. This method fell out of use at the end of the viking era.

The japanese folded a sheet of steel many times and combined a very hardened edge with a softer and more flexible back and sides in their blades.

The indians used crucible steel, and combined a soft core with an outer hardened layer. This is the method that went from India to Persia to Damascus to Europe.

The medieval european weapons with welding patterns are derived either from viking/germanic techniques (earlier ones) or from the indian ones that arrived to Europe through the muslim world (later ones).

[Spiryt]

Well, to clear this all the way




The iron age La Tene people used several methods to strenghen their blades, but those were largely lost before the fall of the Roman Empire. The germanic tribes in the borders of the Empire still created them.



As mentioned, not so much "strengthen" as just produce any suitable blade at all from bloomery iron, usually a lot of small, contaminated bits.


The vikings twisted several high-carbon steel and iron bars like a rope and welded and forged them together. This method fell out of use at the end of the viking era.


"Viking" is obviously more of a profession, not an ethnicity, and Norse people anyway weren't making all that many swords - not that much iron, low population, and so on. Apparently, from the earliest times of "Dark Age", Rhine, Donau, Seine etc. based settlements were main exporters of the blades. Famous "Ulfberth" swords, for example.

But patternwelded weapons were being made all around the Europe, from Rus to Spain, since as mentioned it was often more or less only way to obtain bigger knife or sword.

In fact there are quite a few swords in Poland that had "Ulfberth" badly written on them, so they were probably forgeries, trying to sell themselves as famous "brand". :smallwink:


Anyway, I don't think there's much base in saying that Ancient techniques got "lost" in any way - this was pretty much constant way of making majority of blades until furnaces didn't really kick in.



The japanese folded a sheet of steel many times and combined a very hardened edge with a softer and more flexible back and sides in their blades.

The indians used crucible steel, and combined a soft core with an outer hardened layer. This is the method that went from India to Persia to Damascus to Europe.



And Japanese swords, and many Indian ones, as mentioned, weren't pattern welded. They had patterns, but were made differently.

Japanese swords were laminated steel.

A lot of Indian damascus blades were pretty homogeneous, because famous "Damascus" structure was obtained in other ways than pattern welding, and of apparently tremendous quality.

[Kalmarvho]

Anyway, I don't think there's much base in saying that Ancient techniques got "lost" in any way - this was pretty much constant way of making majority of blades until furnaces didn't really kick in.

It's less that the ancient techniques got lost, perhaps, and more that certain things that made one or another forging process unique got left out in the process. For example, while phosphorus can be problematic to steel, making it more brittle, trace amounts might have had an effect on the forging process. Any forge that used bone in the smelting process would end up with certain of those properties. So regional and cultural differences could have had a whole heap to do with the properties of different forges.

[Raum]

Well, the thing you can generally see in Japanese blade is layers and layers and layers of the same steel that was folded numerous times.

And not the actual patterns or 'braids' of slightly to very different iron/steel.

Layers instead of patterns, generally.Yes. The same layers cause bolder patterns when the steel is differentiated and homogenizing isn't your intent.


Japanese swords were laminated steel.Eh? No. Laminates are made by bonding thin pieces of material together.

Forge welding is simply welding steel* together in the process of forging the piece. Pattern welding is a subset which carries the connotation of going for a bold design in the result. Folding steel is also a subset of forge welding. It's taking the same piece of steel and welding it to itself...many times. Japanese smiths repeated it often enough to homogenize the steel and have extremely fine patterns.

In other words, pattern welding and folding steel are both forge welding.

*There have been pattern welded pieces in bronze also - steel isn't a requirement.

[eulmanis12]

the center grip shield, for example a Roman Scutum, was more manuverable and the center boss allowed it to serve as a giganict set of brass knuckles at need. The disadvantage was that a center grip means that your arm will tire faster and that you can't apply quite as much force when pushing with the shield in a shield wall.

The off center grip with arm strap shield, for example a Greek Hoplon, was much more comfortable to wear for longer periods of time because you wore it, you didn't carry it. It allows you to have a heavier shield and a larger shield. It also allows you to put a lot of weight behind a bashing attack and absorb more of the impact from your opponent's weapon because of the way it is held. In a shield wall it allows you to push forward more easily. The trade off was that you could not reposition it quite as fast and had a much more limited range of motion with one.





On an unrelated note, approximately how far apart were musket volleys normally exchanged and what kind of shots to hits ratios could you expect?

[Mike_G]

On an unrelated note, approximately how far apart were musket volleys normally exchanged and what kind of shots to hits ratios could you expect?

There's a lot of anecdotal stuff on this, but little official.

Colonel John Stark drove a stake into the ground thirty yards from his position on the left flank at Bunker Hill and had his troops hold fire until the British reached it. I don't know the percentage of hits, but the charge of the light companies (the best of what the British had to offer) was broken with 97 men killed.

A history channel show on the American Civil War had reenactors fire rifled muskets as fast as they could reload at a company of silhouettes at 80 yards. They averaged two shots per minute with 50% hits. I don't think this was ever achieved in real life, but it shows that you can be pretty effective at that range.

[Galloglaich]

It's less that the ancient techniques got lost, perhaps, and more that certain things that made one or another forging process unique got left out in the process. For example, while phosphorus can be problematic to steel, making it more brittle, trace amounts might have had an effect on the forging process. Any forge that used bone in the smelting process would end up with certain of those properties. So regional and cultural differences could have had a whole heap to do with the properties of different forges.

Phosphorous in the steel (or steely iron) can make it easier to cold-work harden. Which is how a lot of early 'steel' swords were made. This is a really important difference from later blades.

We know from literary sources and some archeological evidence that they used to introduce phosphorous with both bird droppings and wolf and bear bones, and teeth, among other methods.

The process of heat treatment is really critical to how swords and other blades were made. A steel sword which isn't heat treated may be less flexible, tough, and / or able to hold an edge than a 'steely iron' sword with a lower carbon content, that has been heat treated. I may be wrong but I think the best current evidence is that the Romans were the first to start doing a proper heat treat, including real tempering, to sword blades, in the (formerly Celtic / Illyrian) region of Noricum in the 2nd or 1st Century BC.


That is the other big issue (related to the phosphorous) is what kind of heat treatment was being done, if any. We know that alot of early "Celtic" swords were being made of steel quite early, by at least the 3rd Century BC, and also probably in Iberia at some time between the 3rd and 1st Century BC, and by the Haya people in Africa near the 1st Century AD. Steel (as opposed to "steely iron" or pattern welded iron) wasn't really common in Europe until probably at least the 3rd Century AD and tempered steel not until at least that time. Even by the Medieval era not all blades had a good heat treatment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempering#History

The heat treatment, particularly tempering, are what make the difference between a good and great blade. Without tempering a sword blade is usually going to be pretty brittle. Other related techniques such as differential hardening are also really important, notably with Japanese blades among others. This is part of why you have the hamon pattern between the hard blade and softer spine on a Japanese blade.

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

The term pattern welding can be used to describe a specific, complex type of pattern welding with the lattice type pattern in the center, which you read descriptions of by Romans well before the Viking Age, and much more simple types of forge-welding, such as using an iron core with harder high carbon steel edges. The latter actually remained a constant feature of sword making well into the Renaissance period, the former did kind of 'die out' in Europe by the end of the Viking Age.

G

[Roxxy]

I need help rationalizing the existance of colorful uniforms such as those of the Napoleonic Wars.

In my homebrew campaign setting, civilization is based off of the Georgian era (as in, mid to late 18th and early 19th centuries), albeight with much anacronism and magitech. The primary weapons are smoothbore flintlocks that load from the breech (This is for game speed reasons. I want weapons players can shoot quickly.). Propellant is a solid chunk of a low smoke alchemical substance that will go off soaking wet. The flint is also alchemical, and almost never fails to spark. These weapons have about the accuracy and range of a muzzle loading smoothbore musket, but several times the rate of fire.

I like the colorful uniforms of the Napoleonic Era, and it fits my planned aesthetic for my world, but it seems to me that the existance of common rapid fire and magical support and lack of smoke induced visibility problems would end the era of massed ranks pouring volleys into each other at close range. Casualties would be downright hellish. Without mass volley tactics, it seems there is little reason to wear such colorful uniforms. Can anyone think of a reason I could be wrong here? I want the pretty clothing, but I don't want a situation that makes no sense.

[Thiel]

Why are you bothering with smoothbores?
The breach mechanism was by far the most expensive piece of the early breach loaders, so much so that adding rifling to them wouldn't affect their price in any meaningful fashion. Especially when the breach is self sealing.

As for uniforms, they did in fact remain quite colourful until the end of the 19th century, though they became much more uniform in appearance as training and supply became more and more centralized.

French uniforms anno 1889 (http://www.warflag.com/shadow/uniforms/funiform.htm)

[Clistenes]

I need help rationalizing the existance of colorful uniforms such as those of the Napoleonic Wars.

In my homebrew campaign setting, civilization is based off of the Georgian era (as in, mid to late 18th and early 19th centuries), albeight with much anacronism and magitech. The primary weapons are smoothbore flintlocks that load from the breech (This is for game speed reasons. I want weapons players can shoot quickly.). Propellant is a solid chunk of a low smoke alchemical substance that will go off soaking wet. The flint is also alchemical, and almost never fails to spark. These weapons have about the accuracy and range of a muzzle loading smoothbore musket, but several times the rate of fire.

I like the colorful uniforms of the Napoleonic Era, and it fits my planned aesthetic for my world, but it seems to me that the existance of common rapid fire and magical support and lack of smoke induced visibility problems would end the era of massed ranks pouring volleys into each other at close range. Casualties would be downright hellish. Without mass volley tactics, it seems there is little reason to wear such colorful uniforms. Can anyone think of a reason I could be wrong here? I want the pretty clothing, but I don't want a situation that makes no sense.

Well, another reason to use red and dark blue for uniforms was that those colors helped disguise blood. Black or dark brown would have worked too, but those were seen as bad for morale (depressing, poor-looking colors; bright colors helped the soldiers look more energetic, rich and professional).

[fusilier]

On an unrelated note, approximately how far apart were musket volleys normally exchanged and what kind of shots to hits ratios could you expect?

Exchange volleys? 100 yards or less, and that holds true even for rifled muskets. I've heard as low as ten or fifteen yards but that seems to have been exceptional, 30 - 100 yards more common. That's not necessarily the range at which one would open fire. When we speak of regiments "exchanging" volleys, they are typically stationary and blasting away at each other.

If being attacked, an infantry regiment may open fire at 150 yards with smoothbores, although a bit closer was recommended.* Sometimes there was a decision made to hold fire until very close, as Mike G. pointed out. There was a belief that the first volley was the best, and it should be held until it was most effective. I wouldn't expect many casualties at 150 yards, but you might get a few and that's plenty of time to reload.

If attacking, then there are a couple of different schools of thought. A regiment could stop occasionally, fire then resume the advance. But this wasted time, and potentially disrupted the "momentum" of the attack. [As an aside, the advance would be done mostly at a walk -- most infantry weren't trained in running in formation, and would both tire and become disordered].

Buck-and-ball, the standard load for a military musket since at least the 18th century, was more effective at less than 40 yards. Advancing to within that range, firing a volley, then charging, would be another approach. However, a regiment advancing as such, would be taking casualties from enemy fire from about 100 yards and could potentially be weakened. Also, after stopping to fire, it may be difficult to get the troops moving again. Some officers preferred to have their troops charge with empty muskets; the idea being that they would be less likely to stop and exchange volleys if the only weapon immediately useable was the bayonet.

*Against calvary it was different: cavalry could cover about 100 yards before the infantry could reload. They typically tried to stay at this range until the infantry had fired their volley, then charge. The infantry counter tactic was to sucker the cavalry in close, by only having part of the formation fire (e.g. one rank), to trick the cavalry into charging.

[Clistenes]

Exchange volleys? 100 yards or less, and that holds true even for rifled muskets. I've heard as low as ten or fifteen yards but that seems to have been exceptional, 30 - 100 yards more common

And before that, during the XVI century, Duke of Alba used to tell his gunmen not to shoot their weapons until they were less than twelve yards from the enemy ("the length of two pikes").

[fusilier]

I need help rationalizing the existance of colorful uniforms such as those of the Napoleonic Wars.

In my homebrew campaign setting, civilization is based off of the Georgian era (as in, mid to late 18th and early 19th centuries), albeight with much anacronism and magitech. The primary weapons are smoothbore flintlocks that load from the breech (This is for game speed reasons. I want weapons players can shoot quickly.). Propellant is a solid chunk of a low smoke alchemical substance that will go off soaking wet. The flint is also alchemical, and almost never fails to spark. These weapons have about the accuracy and range of a muzzle loading smoothbore musket, but several times the rate of fire.

I like the colorful uniforms of the Napoleonic Era, and it fits my planned aesthetic for my world, but it seems to me that the existance of common rapid fire and magical support and lack of smoke induced visibility problems would end the era of massed ranks pouring volleys into each other at close range. Casualties would be downright hellish. Without mass volley tactics, it seems there is little reason to wear such colorful uniforms. Can anyone think of a reason I could be wrong here? I want the pretty clothing, but I don't want a situation that makes no sense.

Breechloading smoothbore weapons would be both faster firing, and, usually, more accurate than muzzle-loading ones. Part of the reason smoothbores have such a bad reputation for accuracy, is the use of loose-fitting ammo to speed loading. If tight fitting ammo is used, then accuracy is significantly increased. With a muzzle-loader this will slow down loading, unless using something like a Nessler ball (a kind of "minie ball" for smoothbores, in vogue during the transition from smoothbore to rifle-muskets in Europe). As breechloading gets around the problem of slow-loading, tight fitting ammunition can be used as easily as loose. Thus giving an increase in accuracy.

The range could be worse! Depending upon how good of a gas seal the weapon gets.

An historical example of this is the US made M1833 Hall Carbine. A breechloading, smoothbore, weapon used by the Dragoons. They had terrible range though.

As for colorful uniforms -- that's basically up to you. Even after the introduction of smokeless powder it took a few decades before colorful uniforms disappeared. On the other hand, long before its introduction, "camouflage" uniforms were being used. British riflemen started wearing dark green in the early 19th century, Austrian schutzen wore gray, brown was used by Portuguese riflemen, etc. And, in the second half of the 19th century, khaki started to become a common color for colonial uniforms.



Well, another reason to use red and dark blue for uniforms was that those colors helped disguise blood. Black or dark brown would have worked too, but those were seen as bad for morale (depressing, poor-looking colors; bright colors helped the soldiers look more energetic, rich and professional).

I find the first part an unlikely reason at this time period. The Austrians used white uniforms, as did the French and Spanish for a period, and prior to the introduction of national uniform colors, white and light gray were common regimental colors. It typically only took one gun shot wound to fell a soldier, and the garment was marred with a big hole anyway. In earlier time periods, where soldiers would have spent a fair amount of time in hand-to-hand combat picking up blood from others, then perhaps this was a deciding factor in color choice.

The second part is an interesting one. At certain points in history some soldiers may have wanted to wear nice clothes, but would take pride in being individuals, and being set apart from their comrades (take a look at Landsknechts). Also there's Count Tilly's comment: "a ragged soldier and a bright musket", he was probably referring to what we may call "battle hardened" soldiers, whose ragged appearance showed to all that they had been doing some serious campaigning.

Historically, there were wars where both sides were armed with single-shot breechloaders, but, to the best of my knowledge, they were all blackpowder (Franco-Prussian War, and the Russo-Turkish War). They did wear colorful uniforms.

I would not assume that combat would be too deadly for formed ranks of infantry to exchange volleys -- if the guns are single shot. It would be more deadly, but not necessarily total bloodshed. It may shift the advantage to the defender (see the Austro-Prussian War of 1866), and the tactics may get a bit more defense oriented. Having observed the defensive tactics of the Prussians in that war, the standard French tactics during the Franco-Prussian War was to deploy infantry in slit-trenches, but still a fairly tight single rank. Interestingly, while the Prussians were able to successfully take French positions, they often did so with high casualties. So offensive tactics could still work (the Prussians did have better artillery -- but the French rifles had better range than the Prussians' rifles).

[Storm Bringer]

the major reason for the choice of uniform colours was actaully cost.

in the late 17th/early 18th century, when the armies were switching form a more feudal to a more centralised organisation, the cheapest colours you could get en masse for dying woolen uniforms were red, blue and undyed white. hence, most counties ended up with some combination of those colours. the English, Swiss and Danish had red, revolutionary france, Prussia and the U.S. had blue, and Austria and royal france had white.

the real killer for close order drill (i.e. standing shoulder to shoulder) is wether a determined enemy can push his way into close combat. so long as a cavalry charge can reach the line without being totally shot to pieces, then close order drill is still a vital skill.

as others have said, the main problem with breech loaders is getting a tight seal around the breech. several early breech loaders suffered problems with gases escaping the breech (and into the face of the user).

[Brother Oni]

Buck-and-ball, the standard load for a military musket since at least the 18th century, was more effective at less than 40 yards. Advancing to within that range, firing a volley, then charging, would be another approach. However, a regiment advancing as such, would be taking casualties from enemy fire from about 100 yards and could potentially be weakened. Also, after stopping to fire, it may be difficult to get the troops moving again. Some officers preferred to have their troops charge with empty muskets; the idea being that they would be less likely to stop and exchange volleys if the only weapon immediately useable was the bayonet.

Indeed. To add some detail to fusilier's post, the normal British tactics during the Napoleonic era was to advance to about 50 paces, fire a volley, give a loud cheer then rush into melee.

There's a film called Revolution with Al Pacino that has a good depiction of this (Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY5yPGYTMJk)), although it's set a bit earlier in the Revolutionary War. It also highlights the necessity of drummers and pipers - not only for communication, but to keep morale up, especially when your fellow soldiers are dropping like flies around you.

I believe the French in particular were fond of sending their men in with no ammunition, which tragically continued up into the early years of WWI.

[Roxxy]

Why are you bothering with smoothbores?
The breach mechanism was by far the most expensive piece of the early breach loaders, so much so that adding rifling to them wouldn't affect their price in any meaningful fashion. Especially when the breach is self sealing.The breech mechanism is magical in nature, not mechanical, so the cost is not so high (low powered magic is cheap in this world). The lack of rifling is because the worth of rifling has yet to be discovered.

[xeo]

Christopher Duffy's "The Military Experience in the Age of Reason" is probably the best single accessible source on military conduct in the age of horse and musket. Best of all (for those who only speak English like me) he backs up his arguments with plentiful translations from rare (or rarely translated) first hand accounts.

Paddy Griffith also has a good, if slightly old, chapter on low level tactical combat in the Napoleonic Wars (focused around Wellington's armies) in his book "Forward Into Battle".

I've got a quick question for 16th century specialists. Did the crusading Military Orders in the Mediterranean, like the Knights of St John or the Order of Santo Stefano, have a particular training regime or facilities? Obviously, as they were largely comprised of aristocrats, they'd have been well trained but how did they keep that training up? I've read a few accounts of the "average day" for a knight in the Military Orders but these are invariably focused around the 11th-13th centuries. Does anyone know a good source for day to day life in these orders after the fall of the Holy Land?

[Clistenes]

I find the first part an unlikely reason at this time period. The Austrians used white uniforms, as did the French and Spanish for a period, and prior to the introduction of national uniform colors, white and light gray were common regimental colors. It typically only took one gun shot wound to fell a soldier, and the garment was marred with a big hole anyway. In earlier time periods, where soldiers would have spent a fair amount of time in hand-to-hand combat picking up blood from others, then perhaps this was a deciding factor in color choice.

Well, it is said that in 1806, when indigo dye became too expensive due to the british blockade, Napoleon ordered the new french uniforms to be white, but changed his mind after watching how visible were the blood splatter stains on the white uniforms at the Battle of Eylau.

Then again, maybe he thought they looked to much like Austrians, or maybe they looked too much like the old pre-revolutionary uniforms.


The second part is an interesting one. At certain points in history some soldiers may have wanted to wear nice clothes, but would take pride in being individuals, and being set apart from their comrades (take a look at Landsknechts). Also there's Count Tilly's comment: "a ragged soldier and a bright musket", he was probably referring to what we may call "battle hardened" soldiers, whose ragged appearance showed to all that they had been doing some serious campaigning.

Soldiers liked to have a particular look long before military uniforms existed, and tended to look down to soldiers who wore civilian-looking clothes, which often meant plain, non-flashy clothes.

The spanish soldiers took to wear the flashy clothes of the Landsknechts after the Italian Wars of the beginning of the XVI century, and kept using those for the rest of the century, despite spanish fashion being to dress in stark black clothes (this was considered very elegant, sober and serious). When the king tried to create a black uniform for some new tercios (I guess he thought they would look cool all clad in black clothes and silver armor) they made a fuss, saying that they would look "like monks, not like soldiers".


Indeed. To add some detail to fusilier's post, the normal British tactics during the Napoleonic era was to advance to about 50 paces, fire a volley, give a loud cheer then rush into melee.

There's a film called Revolution with Al Pacino that has a good depiction of this (Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY5yPGYTMJk)), although it's set a bit earlier in the Revolutionary War. It also highlights the necessity of drummers and pipers - not only for communication, but to keep morale up, especially when your fellow soldiers are dropping like flies around you.

I believe the French in particular were fond of sending their men in with no ammunition, which tragically continued up into the early years of WWI.

You have to take into account that those guns required to be cleaned constantly or they became useless, and you would have also to change the flint, and that if you fired too fast the bore would get too hot, which would be dangerous. Due to their smoothbores they would have to get really close to cause damage, but after a few shots, the weapons would start to become less effective, to a point a bayonet charge would become more effective.

The XVI c. musketeers/arquebusseers would prepare little more than twelve shots, knowing that, if those weren't enough to break the enemy they would have to discard their guns and start a melee. I know that you are speaking of Napoleonic Era muskets, but besides the different lock, those weren't so different (the enhanced effectiveness was due mostly to the drilling, that allowed a faster rate of fire).

[Mike_G]

I would not assume that combat would be too deadly for formed ranks of infantry to exchange volleys -- if the guns are single shot.

The American Civil War tended to have horrible casualties among infantry exposed to massed rifle fire, even though most soldiers were still using muzzle loaders. Far worse casualties than the Revolution or the War of 1812. Infantry assaults in the ACW tend to be bloody and often fail. Some of that would be the more reliable percussion caps instead of flintlocks and the better accuracy of the rifles, and some may be chalked up to the fact that troops tended not to close and use the bayonet, but to exchange fire for a prolonged period.

Massed units with breechloaders tended to fight colonial battles against native troops without rapid firing weapons. If the Zulu are charging you, standing shoulder to shoulder with your mates won't make you more vulnerable to an assegai, and will help you support one another if the enemy do get to melee. Once you get two European armies with breechloaders shooting it out, casualties get horrific.

[Roxxy]

I read something on Wikipedia about the British Redcoats stating that once a soldier had been in the field in a warm climate for a long time their coats faded to a brownish-red or a pink. This seems to coincide with the above posters' quotes regarding ragged looking soldiers. I like this. My setting carries a theme of widely available (though weak for D&D) magic that has made everything glamourous and wonderful, including impeccably dressed and equipped military units, but underneath this varnish things aren't as pretty as they look (politics are as ugly as ever, crime is endemic in many areas, and magic can be misused in horrifying ways). I think this approach to uniforms backs that up. Sure, they look pretty parading through town, but the rapid fire of breechloaders combined with airburst artillery and battlefield control magic make combat a very, very costly affair, and those uniforms wear out quick if you don't die first. This disconnect between what the public sees and the reality of military life fits my world perfectly.

[Thiel]

The breech mechanism is magical in nature, not mechanical, so the cost is not so high (low powered magic is cheap in this world). The lack of rifling is because the worth of rifling has yet to be discovered.

I can't really see how that's going to work out. Rifling are at least 550 years old and you've removed every obstacle that stood in its way historically.
Heck, the way you describe your magic it sounds like it would make a decent rifling machine.

[Roxxy]

I can't really see how that's going to work out. Rifling are at least 550 years old and you've removed every obstacle that stood in its way historically.

Heck, the way you describe your magic it sounds like it would make a decent rifling machine.The reason is simple: guns are still pretty new. They have advanced rapidly thanks to magic, but it's still a new technology, and nobody has thought of trying to rotate the round yet. Eventually somebody will, but I don't want that much range and accuracy right now. I'd rather force combat to happen at closer ranges.

[Brother Oni]

Due to their smoothbores they would have to get really close to cause damage, but after a few shots, the weapons would start to become less effective, to a point a bayonet charge would become more effective.

I would say really close to be accurate rather than cause damage, but I otherwise agree with you.

Napoleonic era muskets and rifles fired ~19mm balls and the famous shot by Thomas Plunket (depending on which account you use) indicates that they're still lethal up to 600m, even if a Brown Bess couldn't hit the broad side of a barn past 40 yards.


I read something on Wikipedia about the British Redcoats stating that once a soldier had been in the field in a warm climate for a long time their coats faded to a brownish-red or a pink. This seems to coincide with the above posters' quotes regarding ragged looking soldiers. I like this.

You don't even have to be initially wearing bright colours to look like a well seasoned campaigner. The 95th Rifles wore dark green uniforms and after 6 months to a year (I'll have to check the exact numbers) in the field, their uniforms were looking very ragged indeed according to one contemporary account.

[fusilier]

The reason is simple: guns are still pretty new. They have advanced rapidly thanks to magic, but it's still a new technology, and nobody has thought of trying to rotate the round yet. Eventually somebody will, but I don't want that much range and accuracy right now. I'd rather force combat to happen at closer ranges.

Poor gas seal will reduce effective range considerably. Hall rifles and carbines were known for having bad range. In theory, dragoons armed with the M1833 carbine would ride in close, dismount, blast off a few rounds quickly, then ride away.

The famous Prussian Dreyse needle rife, was also known for poor range and accuracy, especially when compared to the French Chassepot. My suspicion is that many of the early breechloaders attempted to make up for the poor gas-seal by increasing the powder charge, which, due to some weirdness of how black-powder burns, would lead to heavier recoil.

With short effective range, rushes may still be practical, but expect pretty high casualties. Even against longer ranged weapons the Prussians were able to attack French positions during the Franco-Prussian War -- but often with high casualties.

[Brother Oni]

My suspicion is that many of the early breechloaders attempted to make up for the poor gas-seal by increasing the powder charge, which, due to some weirdness of how black-powder burns, would lead to heavier recoil.

Out of curiousity, why is that weird? Surely if you put in more powder, there's more force generated and hence more recoil?

[Spiryt]

If there's just more powder, but force of explosion is not spent to propel bullet faster, there will be no more recoil.

There's not (much) more force acting upon the bullet = not (much) more force upon the weapon and shooter.

I would guess that some interaction with other elements of chambers etc. could lead to stronger recoil, despite not much better performance of the bullet.

[Yora]

The way the energy is transfered from the weapon to the body could be different and cause the weapon to jerk around more than usual. That could be called increased recoil even though the amount of energy doesn't increase by much.
The energy is the same when you shot a gun properly braced or shot it from the hip, but the later is still much harder to control. Force isn't everything when it comes to recoil and physics doesn't always scale in a linear way.

[huttj509]

If there's just more powder, but force of explosion is not spent to propel bullet faster, there will be no more recoil.

There's not (much) more force acting upon the bullet = not (much) more force upon the weapon and shooter.

I would guess that some interaction with other elements of chambers etc. could lead to stronger recoil, despite not much better performance of the bullet.

While the post below yours puts things well, I just want to point out that even if the bullet is not going faster, you still have hot gasses escaping from the barrel. Air has mass too, and gas escaping at high velocity can still provide a kick, even if there's no projectile.

*remembers the pressure wave feel when observing a detonation of leftover explosives, that was neat*

[Spiryt]

While the post below yours puts things well, I just want to point out that even if the bullet is not going faster, you still have hot gasses escaping from the barrel. Air has mass too, and gas escaping at high velocity can still provide a kick, even if there's no projectile.


Could it be really 'observable' from the point of the shooter, in case of weapon that weights like few good pounds at least, and shoots quite heavy bullet as well?

[Traab]

I had a question about guns I wanted to ask. I know that most have a range outside which they are not very accurate, but outside THAT range, at what distance does say, a handgun bullet have to travel before it is no longer capable of causing a lethal hit on an unarmored target?

[Roxxy]

I had a question about guns I wanted to ask. I know that most have a range outside which they are not very accurate, but outside THAT range, at what distance does say, a handgun bullet have to travel before it is no longer capable of causing a lethal hit on an unarmored target?This is dependant on several factors. The first is calibre. A 9mm pistol round has a different mass and propellant load than a .45 ACP, so they have different maximum lethal ranges. A second factor is the angle of the shot. Shooting at a target from a 0 degree angle and from a 45 degree angle result in two seperate ranges. Air density and wind velocity can also effect things, and I'm pretty sure there are other factors I am forgetting. There are ballpark figures on maximum ranges, but I don't have them.

[Spiryt]

I had a question about guns I wanted to ask. I know that most have a range outside which they are not very accurate, but outside THAT range, at what distance does say, a handgun bullet have to travel before it is no longer capable of causing a lethal hit on an unarmored target?

In case of 'full scale' rifles, like the ones used commonly in the first half of 20th century, bullets were very lethal on very long ranges, often exceeding one kilometer easily.

Because no-one, let alone ordinary soldier can generally hit anything from much shorter distances anyway, basic infantry weapons became generally less powerful, then came the miniaturization of bullets caliber/general size and so on.

In pistols lethal distance is much shorter, obviosuly, but they certainly can still hurt.

Here (http://gundata.org/blog/post/9mm-ballistics-chart/) I could find only 100 yards data, but on those yards 9mm appears to be deadly enough.

[Brother Oni]

A quick bit of searching gives me this page: link (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/DomnaAntoniadis.shtml).

The caveat at the bottom is important in my opinion - rounds will rarely travel that far before hitting something. This is also not mentioning the speed it's still travelling at when it hits the ground.

[Traab]

Thats the thing though, I dont want to know how far a bullet can theoretically travel before it stops moving, I wanted to know at what distance say, a 9 mm can go and still kill someone. When will it no longer have enough velocity to penetrate several inches into human flesh and puncture an organ?

[Norsesmithy]

In case of 'full scale' rifles, like the ones used commonly in the first half of 20th century, bullets were very lethal on very long ranges, often exceeding one kilometer easily.

Because no-one, let alone ordinary soldier can generally hit anything from much shorter distances anyway, basic infantry weapons became generally less powerful, then came the miniaturization of bullets caliber/general size and so on.

In pistols lethal distance is much shorter, obviosuly, but they certainly can still hurt.

Here (http://gundata.org/blog/post/9mm-ballistics-chart/) I could find only 100 yards data, but on those yards 9mm appears to be deadly enough.

I had a question about guns I wanted to ask. I know that most have a range outside which they are not very accurate, but outside THAT range, at what distance does say, a handgun bullet have to travel before it is no longer capable of causing a lethal hit on an unarmored target?
Earlier this summer, a private citizen with a permit to carry saved a police officer who was ambushed and pinned down by killing a man at 165 yards with his .357 Magnum revolver in Brown County Texas. A google search pulls up some Youtube hits (local news interviews with the county sheriff and the shooter), but I can no longer find the print news links that were being passed around.

It took him 5 shots, but I suspect most of that was figuring the windage.

For what it's worth, a .45 acp is going to be carrying similar energy at that range (due to better ballistic properties of the larger bullet), though it would require a bunch more elevation than the faster, lighter, .357. 9mm would be less potent at that range, but still more potent than light weight cartridges like .25 ACP. In other words, I'm not going to volunteer to be the backstop.

[Roxxy]

Thats the thing though, I dont want to know how far a bullet can theoretically travel before it stops moving, I wanted to know at what distance say, a 9 mm can go and still kill someone. When will it no longer have enough velocity to penetrate several inches into human flesh and puncture an organ?That's difficult to say, because there are so many ways to kill someone. You can tear through a couple inches of flesh and an organ, but you could also cause a fatal tear to a blood vessel with a relatively shallow wound, which requires less velocity. I'm also not sure as to whether or not the maximum lethal range of a 9mm has been put to the test or not.

[Brother Oni]

About the only figure I can find is that '60 foot pounds' is considered 'disabling', which is an infuriatingly vague term.
60 ft lb is about 81 joules and assuming the weight of a 9mm round is ~7.5g, looking at an online calculator I get a value of ~147m/s to hit that 81J mark.

Unfortunately I don't understand the drag equation well enough to calculate the distance a round has travelled before it slows down to 147m/s (that 9mm Luger has an initial velocity of ~344 m/s), so someone better at it than I am will have to calculate it.

I'm a biochemist, not a physicist, dammit! :smallsigh:

Edit: Looking up some more references, it's more complicated than it looks since there's some debate about the usefulness of energy to describe lethality.

As MacAilbert said, location is incredibly important. I've seen values as low as 5J to cause death (BB gun at point blank range in the eye, penetrating into the cranial cavity) all the way up to 100J (this was regarded as the bare minimum for big game like deer though and is probably overkill for a human).

One possibly apocryphal anecdote I read, was that one bloke boasted he could catch a .22 round at 200 yards with nothing more than a leather glove.
It went through the glove and his hand.

[Galloglaich]

It's interesting how much less energy arrows and things like swords and knives actually need to hurt targets and penetrate armor than bullets do. Bullets require an enormous amount of energy, it makes you think there could be a lot of room to develop better armor-piercing rounds (though even basic steel core armor piercing rounds are surprisingly effective)

G

[Spiryt]

It generally depends on 'armor', 'penetrate' and all of that, because different object will interfere differently.

It's pretty easy to pierce sandbag with piece of stiff wire, while a lot of bullets will get stopped hopelessly, and it naturally doesn't mean that piece of wire is good as a missile or weapon of any kind. :smallwink:

As far as I recall, solid surfaces of iron or steel (breastplates, plates, scale, lames etc.) generally require a lot of energy to breach trough, hardness, sectional density, cross section, momentum alone won't do if there's not enough 'punch' there.

So firearms had indeed opened new possibilities.

[Brother Oni]

It's interesting how much less energy arrows and things like swords and knives actually need to hurt targets and penetrate armor than bullets do. Bullets require an enormous amount of energy, it makes you think there could be a lot of room to develop better armor-piercing rounds (though even basic steel core armor piercing rounds are surprisingly effective)

If I were to hazard a guess, it may be a direct consequence of increasing range. You have to put more power into the round to make it go further and subsequently makes the round more 'fragile'.

Mythbusters did a very good investigation on the penetration of bullets into water and all the hypersonic velocity weapons they used pretty much disintegrated after only a very short distance - even a .50 Barrett did fairly poorly.
The slower, lower energy weapons penetrated much better.

All this adds to the side of the argument that energy is a poor indicator of lethality (I think the main alternative is penetration markers), although it's still apparently used for some things (shrapnel lethality and other fragmentation weapons).

I'm wondering if it's not cost effective or too technologically difficult to improve the armour penetrating abilities of small arms as you've suggested. The technology exists - take a look at all the flavours of tank shells - but I suspect scaling it down just isn't worthwhile.

[Traab]

If I were to hazard a guess, it may be a direct consequence of increasing range. You have to put more power into the round to make it go further and subsequently makes the round more 'fragile'.

Mythbusters did a very good investigation on the penetration of bullets into water and all the hypersonic velocity weapons they used pretty much disintegrated after only a very short distance - even a .50 Barrett did fairly poorly.
The slower, lower energy weapons penetrated much better.

All this adds to the side of the argument that energy is a poor indicator of lethality (I think the main alternative is penetration markers), although it's still apparently used for some things (shrapnel lethality and other fragmentation weapons).

I'm wondering if it's not cost effective or too technologically difficult to improve the armour penetrating abilities of small arms as you've suggested. The technology exists - take a look at all the flavours of tank shells - but I suspect scaling it down just isn't worthwhile.

"Fairly" poorly? You could have been hanging out underwater using a straw to breathe and there is a good chance a .50 cal shot at you from a distance of 5 feet would MISS because the bullet practically explodes on impact sending shrapnel off in every other direction but straight ahead. Honestly, a couple feet of water might as well be a bulletproof jacket against any high powered weapons. That was one of the coolest episodes even if the punchline was telegraphed. There was no way in HELL they would have been allowed to shoot those guns into a swimming pool if they didnt already know the bullets would do either jack, or squat. But just to see how ineffective guns are when shot into water? Very cool.

[Spiryt]

All this adds to the side of the argument that energy is a poor indicator of lethality (I think the main alternative is penetration markers), although it's still apparently used for some things (shrapnel lethality and other fragmentation weapons).

.


What actually happens with energy is obviously times more important, but if you know what can happen, the more is generally better - those bullets 'disintegrate' or generally get swayed off course very violently, because they have pretty obscene velocity and energy. Thus very violent effect of rapid change of medium of motion.

From very 'thin' air, to rather dense water.

And because difference between air and human body is rather similar, effects of hitting the flesh are very violent as well. :smalleek:

[fusilier]

It's interesting how much less energy arrows and things like swords and knives actually need to hurt targets and penetrate armor than bullets do. Bullets require an enormous amount of energy, it makes you think there could be a lot of room to develop better armor-piercing rounds (though even basic steel core armor piercing rounds are surprisingly effective)

G

There's been discussions about this before, by people who are far more knowledgeable about the physics involved than I, but I seem to remember that perhaps the problem is that "energy" isn't what performs armor penetration, and perhaps not even damage (that would be energy transfer?), it's merely a convenient, and perhaps overused, descriptor.

I remember looking at some stats on armor piercing small arms ammo, and some of the bullets weighed the same, or even less, than normal "ball" ammo and had about the same muzzle-velocity. The difference was the material, typically harder, so it would deform less when striking something. Armor penetrating ammo, often does little damage to whatever is behind the armor (barring explosives, and weird things like depleted uranium).

[Telok]

(barring explosives, and weird fun (http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/v0.31:Losing) things like depleted uranium).

Fixed that for ya.

[Brother Oni]

"Fairly" poorly? You could have been hanging out underwater using a straw to breathe and there is a good chance a .50 cal shot at you from a distance of 5 feet would MISS because the bullet practically explodes on impact sending shrapnel off in every other direction but straight aheadl.

I'm British. I'm prone to understatement. :smalltongue:

[huttj509]

There's been discussions about this before, by people who are far more knowledgeable about the physics involved than I, but I seem to remember that perhaps the problem is that "energy" isn't what performs armor penetration, and perhaps not even damage (that would be energy transfer?), it's merely a convenient, and perhaps overused, descriptor.

I remember looking at some stats on armor piercing small arms ammo, and some of the bullets weighed the same, or even less, than normal "ball" ammo and had about the same muzzle-velocity. The difference was the material, typically harder, so it would deform less when striking something. Armor penetrating ammo, often does little damage to whatever is behind the armor (barring explosives, and weird things like depleted uranium).

Material and shape of the projectile would both matter.

If you have 2 projectiles of the same shape and material, energy can provide an approximate comparison. In general, something moving faster will do more damage, and something bigger will do more damage on impact.

As an example of how material matters, picture a baseball and a crumpled ball of paper. The paper will be affected more by air resistance, it will deform more on impact, and it's easy to see that even if they had the same KE (really fast paper wad throw), you'd need to look at various additional effects.

As to shape, well, sharp knife vs. blunt knife. Same material, same speed, but they cut differently. Depending on what you're going for, you might not want the equivalent of a clean cut (a thin needle going straight through wouldn't do much collateral internal damage, while something that gets deflected inside the target and stays in could do much more secondary damage).

[genderlich]

My gaming group is trying to develop our campaign setting to a more detailed level. There's this desert region that's a fusion of ancient Egyptian, North African, and Arab cultures. So we're trying to figure out more specifically what kinds of weapons and armor would be used.

Things like spears, axes, bows, etc. are common to all cultures. We think the Khopesh and Scimitar would be common weapons. We're also really not sure about what kinds of armor would be used - maybe light metal mail due to the desert heat? We've done some basic research, but anything helps. What can you think of to give this area a more unique and realistic style?

[Storm Bringer]

well, Arab heavy cavalry of the crusades wore (chain)mail armour as heavy as the crusaders of the same time, but it looks like they never really transitioned to full plate armour, rather they stayed with mail and splint armours, Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ottoman_Mamluk_horseman_circa_1550.jpg)is a picture of a 16th century ottoman Sipahi armour, which is dated as "~1550", and is so roughly comtemptory with Queen Eliizibeth I.

I could have sworn i;ve seen some half-plate style armours in osprey books about the Moors and the conquest of the kingdom of Granada, but can't find any online

[Matthew]

You can pretty much go with whatever sort of sword you like; there is nothing about the desert that makes the scimitar or khopesh better or worse suited to it. That said, the straight/curved blade and their use from horseback is an old chestnut.

[Spiryt]

"Light armor" due to heat is pretty standard assumption, but that being said, it never really appeared to work that way, in the era of Crusades, for most common example.

Like mentioned, Egyptian, Arabian etc. cavalry regularly wore scale, lammelar and similar small plates armors, which are both solid iron surface and heavy.

Heat is definitely problem if one's wearing metal armor, but it doesn't seem that additional weight or lack of such mattered that much...

Other than the fact that armor was always as light as one could make it, obviously.

[Galloglaich]

As is so often the case with these things, you might find that anything based on reality is too far off from your expectations to be satisfying.

But that said...





The most common type of armor used in the Middle East was called a Jazeraint or a Khazaghand or Kazaghand. This was a combination of mail and textile armor, where a mail coat is sandwiched inside two layers of a silk garment stuffed with horse hair or rabbit fur.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Miscellaneous/th_Kazaghand_Ottoman_Mid-15th_C.jpg

http://media.snimka.bg/5038/016330999.jpg

It wasn't necessarily that light, though thanks to using silk instead of linen or fustian, the textile part was lighter than the European equivalent.

Another common type of armor in the Middle East which also doesn't really exist (as such) in RPGs is the Yushman or Bakhterets, sometimes referred to as 'mail and plate' armor by modern academics. This actually covers a wide range of specific subtypes but incluedes the Ottoman armor linked above.

http://media.snimka.bg/7433/021120605.jpg
http://media.snimka.bg/5037/016329797.jpg

I don't think this is equivalent to 'splint mail' because it's certainly not super bulky, maybe closer to 'banded mail' though for me, that isn't really a fit either.

As others mentioned, Islamic swords were typically strait until the 15th Century, like these (http://islamic-creed.com/2007%20screensavers/Abu%20Bakr%20Siddiq%27s%20Swords.jpg). Similar to European swords but with a bit less emphasis on the pommel and the guard.

http://islamic-creed.com/2007%20screensavers/Abu%20Bakr%20Siddiq%27s%20Swords.jpg

The Khopesh had been gone for thousands of years and the term 'scimetar' doesn't really have any actual meaning.

Sabers were gradually introduced by the Mongols but didn't become really popular until the 16th Century, when the idea of the crescent shaped saber became associated in the minds of both the Muslim and the Christian world, with Islam. The Arab saber is called a 'saif (http://www.oriental-arms.com/item.php?id=2233)'.

The Turks used sabers earlier, being closer to the steppe, originally it was basically the Chinese / Mongol Dao type though by the 14th Century they had begun to perfect their own designs. One prominent type was the famous Kilij (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilij), a brutal cutting weapon. Like all sabers, the Kilij was mostly used by cavalry. The Ottoman kilij was the inspiration for a type of Hungarian saber and via Hungary, a whole family of European sabers which remained in use through the 19th Century.

Ottoman infantry generally preferred inward curving swords, like the infamous Yatagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yataghan). These operate on the same principle as a Gurkha Kurkri knife or a Greek Kopis. Really brutal weapons.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Yatagan.jpg/799px-Yatagan.jpg

The Persians had their own version of the saber, the Shamshir, as well as a whole series of other weapons.

Another interesting thing about the Middle East is their use of fire weapons, ranging from simple molatov cocktail type firebombs to much more sophisticated bombs and fire-lances, leading eventually to guns which were first introduced by the Mongols in the 13th Century.

Here is a description of a fire weapon in use during the Crusades, from Usamah Ibn Munqidh:

"One of the Turks climbed, under our very eyes, and started walking towards the tower, in the face of death, until he approached the tower and hurles a bottle of naptha on those who were on top of it. The naptha flashed like a meteor falling upon those hard stones, while the men who were there threw themselves on the ground for fear of being burnt. The Turk then came back to us."


One of the best accounts you'll ever find of the Arab point of view on the Crusades is from a guy called Usama ibn Munqidh, who was an arab equivalent of a knight, and fought the Crusaders (and was also sometimes allied with some of them). His memoir is full of excellent (and surprising) details about the world at that time and place, rich fodder for Campaigns I would think.

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

Nice description of the effects of a sword cut:

"There was in my service a man named Nuamayr al-'Allaruzi. He was a footman, brave and strong. With a band of men from Shayzar, he set out to al-Ruj to attack the Franks. When still in our territory, they came across a caravan of the Franks hiding in a cavern, and each one began to say to the other, "Who should go in against them?" "I," said Nuuamyr. And as he said it, he went in against them. As he entered, one of them came to recieve him, but Numayr stabbed him immediately with the dagger, overthrew him and knelt upon him to slay him. Behind the Frank stood another one with a sword in his hand and he struck Numayr. The latter had on his back a knapsack containing bread, which protected him. Having killed the man under him, Numayr now turned to the man with the sword, intent upon attacking him. The Frank immediately struck him with the sword on the side of his face and cut through his eyebrow, eyelid, cheeck, nose and upper lip, making the whole side of his face hang down his chest. Numayr went out of the cavern to his companions, who bandaged his wound and brought him back during a cold rainy night. He arrived in Shayzar in that condition. there his face was stitched and his cut was treated until he was healed and returned to his former conidtion, with the exception of his eye was lost for good."

and on the effectiveness of 'double mail' armor:

"Another Turk now climbed and started walking on the same wall between the two bastions. He was carrying his sword and shield. There came out to meet him from the tower, at the door of which stood a knight, a Frank wearing double-linked mail and carrying a spear in his hand, but not eqquipped with a shield. The Turk, sword in hand, encountered him. The Frank smote him with the spear, but the Turk warded off the point of the spear with his shield and, notwithstanding the spear, advanced towards the frank. The latter took to flight and turned his back, leaning forward, like one who wanted to kneel, in order to protect hiss head. The urk dealt him a number of blows which had no effect whatsoever, and went on walking until he entered the tower."

There are also, of course, a number of those Osprey books on Middle Eastern warriors which would probably be of some use.

G

[Yora]

The important trait of silk is not its low weight but its very high resistance to tearing. Arrows have a very hard time to cut through the fibers and the silk covering the arrowhead significantly reduces penetration. It works similar to kevlar.

[Galloglaich]

I said it was lighter because they seem to use fewer or thinner layers of the silk, because those Kazaghand usually seem to be thinner than the equivalent aketon and so on.

G

[Brother Oni]

I remember the Mongols wearing silk undershirts for this very reason, though it wasn't to stop the arrow penetrating the body, it was to enable easy extraction of the arrow (broadhead arrows did most of their damage trying to pull the things out) simply by gathering the shirt around the wound and pulling carefully.

[Galloglaich]

Detail of a cool Muslim (I think Persian?) mail and plate armor which was on display at the Higgins Armoury in Massachutsess.

http://www.codexmartialis.com/download/file.php?id=67

G

[eulmanis12]

I'm running a game that takes place in the 1700's, does anyone know where I can find a few Prussian infantry marches? Youtube was no help and wikipedia keeps giving me WWII stuff.

[Storm Bringer]

any of these any good? (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=prussian+march&oq=prussian+march&gs_l=youtube-reduced.3..0l4.2272.17611.0.18186.38.17.12.9.13.0. 104.1392.15j2.17.0...0.0...1ac.1.D_teeIaXCwE)



I particuarlly like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2gDdaF0D6w)offering, which is full of true, honest to god soldiers gallows humour ("goodbye now, luise, wipe your tear/ its not like every ball hits!/ if every ball hits it's Man/ How would the kings get their soliders then?")

[AMX]

I'm running a game that takes place in the 1700's, does anyone know where I can find a few Prussian infantry marches? Youtube was no help and wikipedia keeps giving me WWII stuff.
I found something that seems appropriate on Amazon Germany (http://www.amazon.de/Preu%C3%9Fische-Armeem%C3%A4rsche-18-Jahrhunderts-V-W%C3%B6rrlein-Stabsmusikkorps/dp/samples/B002BW07GW)

[Adlan]

I remember the Mongols wearing silk undershirts for this very reason, though it wasn't to stop the arrow penetrating the body, it was to enable easy extraction of the arrow (broadhead arrows did most of their damage trying to pull the things out) simply by gathering the shirt around the wound and pulling carefully.

That would imply the shirt wasn't cut.

I understood the preference for silk was it didn't leave so many fibres in a wound.

[fusilier]

I'm running a game that takes place in the 1700's, does anyone know where I can find a few Prussian infantry marches? Youtube was no help and wikipedia keeps giving me WWII stuff.

Look for fife and drum corps. Most of them are Revolutionary War or Civil War era, but they used older tunes, and I'm pretty sure some of them are Prussian. Although you will have to do some research into the history of individual tunes.

[TimeWizard]

Detail of a cool Muslim (I think Persian?) mail and plate armor which was on display at the Higgins Armoury in Massachutsess.


The great state of Massachusetts is home to many museums and universities.

[awa]

i had always heard that human skin would break before the silk shirt and that's why it worked

[Caustic Soda]

I've read that peltasts were so called because they supposedly had had crescent-shaped shields, as opposed to simply round shields. The Wikipedia page has two period depictions of such shields, but as usual the page is lacking in detail, and I have no idea if the soruces there are credible. Would anyone here know if that idea is supported by historical finds, and/or what kind of purpose it would serve to have a shield with such a form?

edit: spelling

[Galloglaich]

I've read that peltasts were so called because they supposedly had had crescent-shaped shields, as opposed to simply round shields. The Wikipedia page has two period depictions of such shields, but as usual the page is lacking in detail, and I have no idea if the soruces there are credible. Would anyone here know if that idea is supported by historical finds, and/or what kind of purpose it would serve to have a shield with such a form?

edit: spelling

I think the wiki is legit in that pelta is believed to be as depicted, but this is derived from literary sources and images on vases and so on, not archeological finds. Organic matter rarely lasts more than a few hundred years.

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~klio/im/gr/military/peltast1.jpg

Iron either, for that matter, which is why the number of surviving iron or steel swords drops off precipitously before 1500 AD. Bronze, of course, does a bit better.

G

[Mike_G]

I've read that peltasts were so called because they supposedly had had crescent-shaped shields,

I thought it was because they pelt @** and take names.

[Wardog]

This isn't exactly an armour/weapon question, but this seemed like the best place to ask:

In a typical, northern-European-style medieval feudal realm, what proportion of the population would fill the various social/economic roles?

I.e. What proportion of the population would be ruling nobles?
What proportion would be knights in the service of nobles?
What proportion would be peasants? (And of those, how many farmers vs other trades).
What proportion would be urbanised?

Or, to put it another way, how many peasants do you need to support one knight? (To feed the knight and his horses, to make and maintain his equipment, to feed and clothe the people who do that, etc).


(I realise the initial question is a bit ambiguous, because "medieval Europe" covers about a 1000 years, and several thousand miles, so "typical" might be a bit of an oxymoron).


And as a related question, is Rohan a viable society/culture/economy? I can't think of any real-world culture that was that mounted without also being nomadic.

[Brother Oni]

And as a related question, is Rohan a viable society/culture/economy? I can't think of any real-world culture that was that mounted without also being nomadic.

Just because they primarily used the horse for combat doesn't necessarily mean they were nomadic - take a look at the Mongols after they started conquering.

Only thing I will mention, is that there doesn't seem to be anywhere as much farmland as there should be, at least in the film depictions. Even the vikings managed to eke out something from their homeland, although they did do a lot of fishing (and raiding) to supplement it.

[Mike_G]

IIRC they were originally a nomadic people who settled in that area after allying with Gondor in an earlier war.

While the nobles fought as cavalry, I assumed the bulk of the population were farmers.

At least the descriptions of the people chased out of their villages by the armies of Saruman tend to indicate they were farmers and herdsmen. Eomer's Riders were "men of my own household," so I assume the well armed, mounted warriors were retainers of the nobles, while the bulk of the population were freemen who would fight as militia of some sort.

The language was based on Anglo-Saxon. I felt Tolkien may have been thinking of Housekarls and Fyrdmen. More cavalry centric than the AS were, but I don't see Rohan as implausible.

[Telok]

In a typical, northern-European-style medieval feudal realm, what proportion of the population would fill the various social/economic roles?

Medieval Demographics Made Easy (http://www222.pair.com/sjohn/blueroom/demog.htm)

[Matthew]

Or, to put it another way, how many peasants do you need to support one knight? (To feed the knight and his horses, to make and maintain his equipment, to feed and clothe the people who do that, etc).


(I realise the initial question is a bit ambiguous, because "medieval Europe" covers about a 1000 years, and several thousand miles, so "typical" might be a bit of an oxymoron).

It depends on the period, because the arms and equipment of a knight got more expensive over time (exactly why remains a subject of some interesting study). Basically 90% and more of the population in medieval Europe was rural at any given time. In the late eleventh century there were 5-6,000 knight's fees in England for an estimated population of 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 or so, depending on how you count. At best, then, you are looking at probably 0.5% of the population being knights. That is off the top of my head, mind, you will have to check my facts!

[Galloglaich]

Yeah, it does vary rather enormously, since while I think France had a similar ratio of knights (less than 1%) the ratio of knights (or at any rate, members of the nobility) to the overall population was actually 15-20% in Poland and Lithuania.

Also, some areas were much more urbanized than others. Very generally speaking, France and England were mostly agricultural, but Flanders (today Belgium), Northern Italy, parts of Germany (northern Saxony, parts of the Rhineland), Bohemia, and various other zones, were much more urbanized.

The "Medieval Demographics" page was pretty good, but their data on towns is slightly off. The ratio of say, butchers to general population would represent a 'Master Butcher', i.e. a full guild member. For every Master Butcher you would have 2 or 3 apprentices and 1 or 2 journeymen. I.e. these people also work as butchers, they just dont' get paid as much.

Also, I think the ratios are a bit too high. I know that for Master weavers and Master brewers it was about 20-1 to the overall town population. Augsburg for example had about 750 weavers for 15,000 people.

G

[Spiryt]

Yeah, it does vary rather enormously, since while I think France had a similar ratio of knights (less than 1%) the ratio of knights (or at any rate, members of the nobility) to the overall population was actually 15-20% in Poland and Lithuania.

G

I'm pretty sure it was about 10% at very most, actually, and that obviously involved women and children. Depending on period.

[Theodoric]

And as a related question, is Rohan a viable society/culture/economy? I can't think of any real-world culture that was that mounted without also being nomadic.
The Rohirrim are very strongly based on the Anglo-Saxons, except unlike our Anglo-Saxons they became more Saxon than Anglo instead of vice versa. The Saxons, who lived in current-day Northwestern Germany, were a prominent horse-riding people, who had a horse as their main symbol and had (probably mythological) leaders named Hengest and Horsa, both meaning 'horse'.

So, yeah, it was possible. Tolkien knew what he was doing.

[Knaight]

The "Medieval Demographics" page was pretty good, but their data on towns is slightly off. The ratio of say, butchers to general population would represent a 'Master Butcher', i.e. a full guild member. For every Master Butcher you would have 2 or 3 apprentices and 1 or 2 journeymen. I.e. these people also work as butchers, they just dont' get paid as much.

It also really only works for part of Europe. Trying to use its city numbers for Al-Andalus or similar would be a mistake, particularly as concerns the pre-crusades city and town data. I'd also note that some of the numbers regarding more intellectual trades really, really need to take into account the disproportionate clustering of monasteries and possibly colleges, depending on the period. Similarly, the extent to which fortifications are there lacks anything to account for Roman and Byzantine influence. Then there's the matter of when universities actually do get mentioned, as one simple number - despite the prevalence of universities by population changing drastically.

[fusilier]

Also, some areas were much more urbanized than others. Very generally speaking, France and England were mostly agricultural, but Flanders (today Belgium), Northern Italy, parts of Germany (northern Saxony, parts of the Rhineland), Bohemia, and various other zones, were much more urbanized.

I just recently read that Italy, in the Renaissance, was only about 75% rural.


The "Medieval Demographics" page was pretty good, but their data on towns is slightly off. The ratio of say, butchers to general population would represent a 'Master Butcher', i.e. a full guild member. For every Master Butcher you would have 2 or 3 apprentices and 1 or 2 journeymen. I.e. these people also work as butchers, they just dont' get paid as much.

Also, I think the ratios are a bit too high. I know that for Master weavers and Master brewers it was about 20-1 to the overall town population. Augsburg for example had about 750 weavers for 15,000 people.

G

Yeah, I wondered about the seemingly low number of bakers and butchers.

There's a calculator program here, that allows one to modify various stats:

http://qzil.com/kingdom/

You can easily add new occupations and set the ratios. NB: the number listed is a divisor, so the smaller the number the *more* of that particular profession.

I found it fun to play around with.

[Galloglaich]

It also really only works for part of Europe. Trying to use its city numbers for Al-Andalus or similar would be a mistake, particularly as concerns the pre-crusades city and town data. I'd also note that some of the numbers regarding more intellectual trades really, really need to take into account the disproportionate clustering of monasteries and possibly colleges, depending on the period. Similarly, the extent to which fortifications are there lacks anything to account for Roman and Byzantine influence. Then there's the matter of when universities actually do get mentioned, as one simple number - despite the prevalence of universities by population changing drastically.

Universities (Studium Generale) were pretty rare in Europe until the late Medieval period, and were heavily concentrated in certain areas. In the Early Medieval period the only two were Paris (mainly a theological school) and Bologna (mainly a civil law school). Most of the Universities which came later (including Oxford) were spinoffs of one of those two, very different types of Universities: the aristocratic oriented Paris, or the student run Bologna.

If you want to read a really comprehensive overview of every University in Europe, it's hard to beat this (especially since it's free) http://archive.org/details/universitieseur102rashuoft

There were quite a few schools which eventually became Universities later on, and some places which were licensed as Universities but never really became real ones.

That web page was pretty, broad, for a good sourcebook on 'generic' medieval stuff which is actually somewhat grounded in reality, I think this series is pretty good (and also free)

http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/55264/A-Magical-Medieval-Society%3A-City-Guide

It's not academic level but as game products go it's head and shoulders above just about all of the others I've read. And it's an easy read.

G

[fusilier]

Universities (Studium Generale) were pretty rare in Europe until the late Medieval period, and were heavily concentrated in certain areas. In the Early Medieval period the only two were Paris (mainly a theological school) and Bologna (mainly a civil law school). Most of the Universities which came later (including Oxford) were spinoffs of one of those two, very different types of Universities: the aristocratic oriented Paris, or the student run Bologna.

Yeah, the Paris and Bologna universities came to define different systems. Paris was the "Master" run school, and Bologna, the "Student" run school. Quite an interesting dichotomy if you ever look at their regulations.

There was a medical school in Southern Italy, at Salerno, that predated the Bologna university, but it was organized differently and isn't considered a university by all sources.

The term "university" actually referred to the students and/or masters and meant guild. As a result, universities were mobile, and sometimes left a city that didn't grant their wishes as punishment. Studium Generale was a recognition by the pope [and Holy Roman Emperor], that all universities strove for. (A quick glance at wikipedia, however, claims that the term originally developed organically, and only later did the pope start to influence what counted as a Studium General and what didn't.)

[Telok]

Question. Is thermite still a part of modern military... I'm looking for a word somewhere between "equipment" and "tactics?" It's late at night here.

I ask because some fifteen or twenty years ago I semi-regularly ran across mention of it in militaria and fiction. But I haven't heard of it even once in the last five years or so. Has it been superseded or abandoned? Or have my reading habits changed and I'm just not in those circles much any more?

[Phaedrus2129]

Question. Is thermite still a part of modern military... I'm looking for a word somewhere between "equipment" and "tactics?" It's late at night here.

I ask because some fifteen or twenty years ago I semi-regularly ran across mention of it in militaria and fiction. But I haven't heard of it even once in the last five years or so. Has it been superseded or abandoned? Or have my reading habits changed and I'm just not in those circles much any more?

It's used, but it's niche. It's used in demolition of steel structure, decommissioning of artillery (thermite in the barrel will leave behind an iron "plug", as well as warp the barrel from heat) and it sees some limited use as an incendiary bomb. Problem with thermite is that the heat is very, very intense, but localized. Compare to napalm, gasoline, or white phosphorous, which don't get quite as hot, but tend to spread and affect a much larger area.

And thermite, of course, cannot blow things up. Melt things yes, explode them no. For that you want TNT, RDX, ANFO, or dynamite (the four materials that make the base of 90% of modern explosives, excluding propellants in firearms).

[Roxxy]

I'm wondering if a submarine troopship could be an effective type of naval vessel.

The idea comes form a modern(ish) tech world I'm working on where one of the countries I'm focusing on has a very large number of tropical islands as it's southernmost territory. The primary perceived military threats of this nation are to the south of these islands, so these islands boast a high degree of military readiness, as it is viewed that they are the most likely area of the nation to be attacked.

I'm thinking that, with so many garrisons scattered around these islands, perhaps submarines designed to carry, say, a company of soldiers or some supplies could be used in the event of a fight. These boats would make poor amphibious assault ships, but they could be used to sneak in close to a beleaguered garrison and slip in reinforcements or supplies, or to evacuate a garrison that is about to be overwhelmed or that is needed elsewhere. They would operate by getting as close to shore as possible, then making up the rest of the distance with motorized inflatable rubber boats.

I see this as something that could work in an island warfare situation, but my knowledge of the subject is limited, and I'd like a second opinion.

[awa]

im far from an expert. but I know submarines tend to be super cramped which implies they are not very efficient for use as transports.

I think a high altitude air drop is going to be more efficient for breaking a blockade

[Roxxy]

im far from an expert. but I know submarines tend to be super cramped which implies they are not very efficient for use as transports.

I think a high altitude air drop is going to be more efficient for breaking a blockadeI know it's not efficient. I'm looking more at vulnerability to attack. A high altitude drop can be opposed by fighters and naval SAMs and is easier to spot than a submarine, and is similarly limited in capacity.

[Raum]

A troop ship, no. It's extremely inefficient. However they have been used to deploy special forces.

[Roxxy]

I got linked to this on Alternate History: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_13/soviets_giants.html

It looks like the major issue was endurance, but I want them for local missions, so that should be manageable.

[Mike_G]

Small special forces teams were landed by submarine in WWII.

The Marine Raiders landed on Makin Island and destroyed a Japanese outpost that way. The sub didn't land as such. It surfaced, the Marines got into rubber boats and paddled ashore, then paddled back out to the sub after the mission.

They took two subs and landed 211 men, so yes, a sub landing a company of troops is not only plausible, it was done.

That said, it poses challenges, but it's a good way to sneakily land a small force.

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

[Roxxy]

During that raid, Argonaut was able to carry 120 troops, and it was converted to a troop transport hastily. With a submarine designed from day one to be a troop transport, and with modern technology available, what's the largest feasible number of troops that could be accommodated? It's probably rather higher than 120, and I want to see how big I can go now that I know my original figure of a company is less of a stretch than I thought.

[Starshade]

Hm, Id think dividing the cost on several subs, and make a fleet of diesel electric rather than atomic ones a good idea. Perhaps even add cannons on them like German ww2 subs sometime had, to support the infantry. An dedicated troop transport would not need the typical sub weapnries as torpedoes, or the endurance (less fuel) if it had supply ships/subs to fuel it. How many troops such a ship would carry I don't know.

[fusilier]

During that raid, Argonaut was able to carry 120 troops, and it was converted to a troop transport hastily. With a submarine designed from day one to be a troop transport, and with modern technology available, what's the largest feasible number of troops that could be accommodated? It's probably rather higher than 120, and I want to see how big I can go now that I know my original figure of a company is less of a stretch than I thought.

The wikipedia article isn't specific about when the troops boarded the submarines -- given how uncomfortable diesel electric submarines were, and how little free space they had, my guess the troops didn't spend more than a few hours on board.

During WW1 Germany produced transport U-boats that could run the blockade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_Deutschland

There were other "cargo submarines" made, although I'm not aware of them being used as troop transports -- at least not on a regular basis.

[Mike_G]

The wikipedia article isn't specific about when the troops boarded the submarines -- given how uncomfortable diesel electric submarines were, and how little free space they had, my guess the troops didn't spend more than a few hours on board.

During WW1 Germany produced transport U-boats that could run the blockade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_Deutschland

There were other "cargo submarines" made, although I'm not aware of them being used as troop transports -- at least not on a regular basis.

Well, if you look at the caption for the photo, they returned to Hawaii eight days after the raid, on the subs in question.

And here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Argonaut_%28SS-166%29

it says that the Argonaut departed August 8 with the landing force. The battle happened on then 17th-18, so the troops were 10 days en route, and about 8 days back.


Submarines aren't an idea troopship, but they are a serviceable one. You are trading space for secrecy. Using subs to move company sized forces past blockades in totally reasonable. They are pretty ideal for special operations, where you want to use a small force, and you want to get them in and out unnoticed.

[fusilier]

Well, if you look at the caption for the photo, they returned to Hawaii eight days after the raid, on the subs in question.

And here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Argonaut_%28SS-166%29

it says that the Argonaut departed August 8 with the landing force. The battle happened on then 17th-18, so the troops were 10 days en route, and about 8 days back.


Submarines aren't an idea troopship, but they are a serviceable one. You are trading space for secrecy. Using subs to move company sized forces past blockades in totally reasonable. They are pretty ideal for special operations, where you want to use a small force, and you want to get them in and out unnoticed.

I think the troops disembarked at 3:30 am on the 17th, so more like eight and a half days en route, but still . . . that must have been pretty terrible. Any idea if they ran with a skeleton crew, and cleared out the torpedos to make extra room?

Largish, merchant submarines were developed in the past, but I'm not aware of any operating on the size of a modern Nuclear submarine. I suppose that converting a ballistic missile sub wouldn't be a bad start . . . ok, looks like I'm not the first to think of this:

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

Historically the Army has packed lots of troops onto passenger vessels for transport -- the Queen Mary, designed for about 2200 passengers in civilian service, apparently transported as many as 16,000 soldiers at once during WW2.

Ah ha, some more poking around on wikipedia:
The Italians built some cargo transport submarines and actually used them during WW2, but during the cold war, the russians designed "amphibious assault submarines":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_assault_submarine

The Russians never completed any of the plans, but did design them, and came close to constructing Project 748, a submarine which would have carried about 20 tanks and APC's and 470 soldiers.

[Yora]

I got a question about knives and how to deal with them in RPGs.

I love knives (and also spears), because they are very small and simple, yet extremely lethal in the hands of even an entirely unskilled person. In the context of fiction, they are great because they enable helpless characters to overcome much stronger opponents simply because they make the descision to kill. Or as No-nonsense Self Defense phrased it, you don't fight with a knive, you use it to assassinate.

And I am wondering how to represent that in a d20-type RPG. Sneak Attack is made just for that, but it's a special ability of specific classes and not available to most characters. There's also a Coup de Grace that deals 2d4 damage and has the target make a DC 12 to DC 18 Fortitude save or die, but the damage is neglible for 3rd level characters and the save relatively easy to make for mid-level characters, and it also pretty much requires the target to be asleep or unconscious.

Now the first question is, how lethal should an unexpected attack with a knive be in the first place? Is a single stab in the back likely going to be fatal or does it take more than that to kill people in most cases? And how quick would it be? Baring cut muscles and tendons in the limbs, would it take seconds for a person to collapse or are we talking about several minutes or even hours? There is probably a very high random factor involved as in gunshots, but what are the general chances to die from one or two stabs to the chest or back?
However unlike shoting someone with a gun, people will still be very close to each other when one goes to the ground, and with the attacker still within easy reach of the wounded victim there is probably a much higher chance the attacker will make sure he's dead before stopping attacking.

Anything useful to add for coming up with a system for suprise attacks with small blades?

[Spiryt]

Or as No-nonsense Self Defense phrased it, you don't fight with a knive, you use it to assassinate.


That honestly sounds like actual nonsense. One obviously can fight with a knife, and it had happened, and is still happening countless times, even in full blown battles....

As far as the lethalitygoes, this is honestly unanswerable without defining "knife" as there were/are countless things that go under that name.

But generally even very small knifes are more than capable of producing terrible injures, including gut leaking out, if used 'right'.

[Storm Bringer]

with regard to how quickly a knife wound can kill someone, the answer is "variable, but a lot slower than on tv".

It is perfectly possible for a person to recieve a leathal wound that is not disabling, and visa versa. a knife in the chest can quite easily cause a wound that will kill a person, but leaves them prefectly capable of continued action for as much as 5 or 10 minutes, until blood loss kills you. conversely, a nasty leg wound that leaves a man unable to stand may not actually kill them, given quick treatment to stop blood loss.

histroy is littered with tales of duels in which one person suffers a wound that leads to their death, but not before they are able to inflict a simmilar wound to the person they are fighting.

One of the regular posters in this thread (i think it's Mike G?) was a paramedic at some point, and has reported in this thread previously stories of people getting potentially leathal wounds, but being able to wander off form the where they were stabbed and go several hundred meters in shearch of help.

also, a lot of "leathal" wounds are "wounds that are expectionally likey to become infected". in a pre-modern setting, the majority of "battle" deaths happened after the battle, when wounds became infected and people died of either the infection, or the surgury to save thier lives (no painkillers, so a amputation on someone already weakened by infections and such was very likey to be kill them by the shock of having a limb cut off).

even a disabling wound that leavea the stabbed person unable to do much more than sit there and bleed will still take a good 5 minutes to actually kill them.




That honestly sounds like actual nonsense. One obviously can fight with a knife, and it had happened, and is still happening countless times, even in full blown battles....




I think what was meant is that when you fight with any sort of weapon, you need to be prepared, mentally, to kill the person you are attacking. Guns, and Knifes, and swords and so on, are all designed to kill. if you are using one, you should be trying to kill the person you are attacking.

Because, rest assured, the person you are fighting is fighting for his life, becuase your holding a gun/knife/whatever. He can't know if you are planning to kill him, so he kind of has to assume you are.

In short, he is going to be fighting to try and kill you. Hence, if you are not prepared to kill him, you should not be carrying a leathal weapon, because by doing so, you are pushing the danger level to "life threatening".


hence, you don't "fight" with a kinfe like you fight with your fists. you use it to "assassinate". to kill. it's a misuse of the word, but it gets across the deadly intent, and willingness to kill someone, that you need to use it.

[Spiryt]

I think what was meant is that when you fight with any sort of weapon, you need to be prepared, mentally, to kill the person you are attacking. Guns, and Knifes, and swords and so on, are all designed to kill. if you are using one, you should be trying to kill the person you are attacking.

Because, rest assured, the person you are fighting is fighting for his life, becuase your holding a gun/knife/whatever. He can't know if you are planning to kill him, so he kind of has to assume you are.

In short, he is going to be fighting to try and kill you. Hence, if you are not prepared to kill him, you should not be carrying a leathal weapon, because by doing so, you are pushing the danger level to "life threatening".

hence, you don't "fight" with a kinfe like you fight with your fists. you use it to "assassinate". to kill. it's a misuse of the word, but it gets across the deadly intent, and willingness to kill someone, that you need to use it.


That's pretty much one pretty specific situation, that also generally looks like that in our time and culture - in pretty much any medieval town in say, 15th century, or Sudanese countryside today, you can expect people to carry around much bigger 'guns' than a knife.


Guns, and Knifes, and swords and so on, are all designed to kill.

And guns, at very least, are very often hoped to intimidate in the first place, so the killing won't be required. If some random thug is trying to mug person who draws the gun, he will pretty much always run away, not risking said life for cell phone he wanted to 'obtain'.

And assassinate is very bad choice of word indeed, anyway.

[Storm Bringer]

That's pretty much one pretty specific situation, that also generally looks like that in our time and culture - in pretty much any medieval town in say, 15th century, or Sudanese countryside today, you can expect people to carry around much bigger 'guns' than a knife.



And guns, at very least, are very often hoped to intimidate in the first place, so the killing won't be required. If some random thug is trying to mug person who draws the gun, he will pretty much always run away, not risking said life for cell phone he wanted to 'obtain'.

And assassinate is very bad choice of word indeed, anyway.

oh indeed. but the point remains, don't threaten any force you are not prepared to use. if you pull out a knife, or a firearm, you should be genuinely ready to stab/shoot the person you are threatening, and be prepared to kill him if you do so. otherwise, if your not prepared to use it, why carry it?

[Phaedrus2129]

Indeed, the intent of drawing a gun is to shoot to kill. If Mr. Bad runs off that's a bonus, not the goal.

[warty goblin]

Anything useful to add for coming up with a system for suprise attacks with small blades?

If the attack is genuinely unexpected - aka from behind against an unaware enemy - and done by somebody with any sort of competence, it'll almost certainly be fatal. It doesn't take a particularly large or sharp knife to open a throat. This isn't something requiring specialized training, it's something any level 1 peasant who's slaughtered an animal larger than a chicken would have first hand experience of.

[Galloglaich]

It is perfectly possible for a person to recieve a leathal wound that is not disabling, and visa versa. a knife in the chest can quite easily cause a wound that will kill a person, but leaves them prefectly capable of continued action for as much as 5 or 10 minutes, until blood loss kills you. conversely, a nasty leg wound that leaves a man unable to stand may not actually kill them, given quick treatment to stop blood loss.

This definitely can be true, though it depends on the knife and the person.


histroy is littered with tales of duels in which one person suffers a wound that leads to their death, but not before they are able to inflict a simmilar wound to the person they are fighting.

One of the regular posters in this thread (i think it's Mike G?) was a paramedic at some point, and has reported in this thread previously stories of people getting potentially leathal wounds, but being able to wander off form the where they were stabbed and go several hundred meters in shearch of help.

I was also a medic in the Army, and I've seen the results of knife wounds from bar brawls many times. There was a particular spate of them in 1987 during a series of riots between US and British occupation troops in Germany (they were usually kept apart but several units were stationed in Frankfurt am Main during a big exercise called Able Archer).

A knife wound can be a lot like a gunshot wound: sometimes people die immediately, sometimes (fairly often) people don't even know they are wounded (even if they have a critical injury).

During able archer we quite often had to do first aid on both the victim and the perpetrator since both were brought to us by the MP's and both were often badly injured. The big difference I noticed, and I believe the FBI reports bear this out, is that a blade longer than 6" tends to be much more dangerous. A wide blade, like a bowie knife, longer than 6" is actually more lethal, statistically, than a .357 if I remember correctly. By contrast, shorter pocket knifes often break, cut the hands of the attacker, and less often seem to penetrate deep enough to cause lethal damage except against a helpless person.

It is true that people can often survive serious knife wounds and may not even be slowed down by them, but the same is true for gunshot wounds, sword wounds, axe wounds etc., especially when inflicted by inexperienced people. But I think the wounding effects of knives and daggers are greatly underestimated in almost all role playing games (not mine or TROS though).



I think what was meant is that when you fight with any sort of weapon, you need to be prepared, mentally, to kill the person you are attacking. Guns, and Knifes, and swords and so on, are all designed to kill. if you are using one, you should be trying to kill the person you are attacking.

hence, you don't "fight" with a kinfe like you fight with your fists. you use it to "assassinate". to kill. it's a misuse of the word, but it gets across the deadly intent, and willingness to kill someone, that you need to use it.

While this is logical, it doesn't always bear out this way. People do just 'fight' with knives. For every serious life threatening knife wound I saw in the army, there were 10 wounds which were just cuts to the extremities, often to both persons, (and both were on their way to the Mannheim military stockade as a result). I've also seen quite a few knife fights on Decatur Street in New Orleans back in the 80's. It's fairly common all around the world, especially in the poorer parts for people to fight with knives without necessarily intending to kill each other (whether that makes sense or not is another issue).

I have a buddy in the HEMA world, Jay Vail, who is something of an expert on knife fighting and knife defense, he made this video you might find interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21Mc9IxpYRM

In there you can see examples of people going down and being disabled very quickly by a knife (like the one in Africa), and other examples where they don't seem to be effected in the short term. You can also see how a big knife can be very dangerous even to people armed with semi-automatic guns, if in a close area and wielded by a determined attacker.

G

[Yora]

Poor choice of words on my part I guess. The idea was that it is relatively rare that you have two people with knive in hand being ready to strike back if the other initiates a fight, and it happens much more often that people who attack with knives do so very suddenly and inflict severe wounds before the other one even realizes what's going on and can do anything to defend himself.

Knive injuries are much more often the result of "getting shanked" than from having a kind of "duel" with knives.

Which is what I am interested in. Maybe allowing characters in an RPG to make two attacks with a small blade instead of one when the enemy is suprised, and another two attacks if he wins initiative and continues his assault before the enemy gets his first turn. That way it's still small wounds, but the defender will have sustained multiple injuries before he strikes back.

[warty goblin]

Poor choice of words on my part I guess. The idea was that it is relatively rare that you have two people with knive in hand being ready to strike back if the other initiates a fight, and it happens much more often that people who attack with knives do so very suddenly and inflict severe wounds before the other one even realizes what's going on and can do anything to defend himself.

Knive injuries are much more often the result of "getting shanked" than from having a kind of "duel" with knives.

Which is what I am interested in. Maybe allowing characters in an RPG to make two attacks with a small blade instead of one when the enemy is suprised, and another two attacks if he wins initiative and continues his assault before the enemy gets his first turn. That way it's still small wounds, but the defender will have sustained multiple injuries before he strikes back.

If you are attempting to kill, the only reason you inflict a 'small' (which I'm reading as minor) wound is that you don't have the opportunity to inflict a large, serious one. If your target is unaware of you, you have pretty much carte blanche to cause any sort of injury you want. Which means you won't be inflicting small wounds. Poking your enemy two or four times in non-lethal or non-disabling ways isn't an action of comparable utility to knifing them repeatedly in the liver, or cutting their throat.

[Fhaolan]

Poor choice of words on my part I guess. The idea was that it is relatively rare that you have two people with knive in hand being ready to strike back if the other initiates a fight, and it happens much more often that people who attack with knives do so very suddenly and inflict severe wounds before the other one even realizes what's going on and can do anything to defend himself.

This conversation reminds me of something my instructor told me when were were going through historical fighting styles. The various fightbooks written by swordmaster George Silver (16th-17th century) seemed to be full of stuff that paraphrases down to 'stop mucking about and kill the other guy.'

I get the impression that a lot of fencing masters of the time were teaching rather complicated and flashy styles that were more dominance displays than combat, and Silver was fed up with it.

[Fortinbras]

I'm a little bit bewildered by the popularity of the rotella, especially with the famous Spanish soldiers who derived their name from using it.

Capo Ferro seems to be saying that the rotella is too heavy and slow to be used to parry by itself. It it is two small to be terribly effective at missile defense. It doesn't have nearly as great reach as the larger "viking" style shields and thus seems to have limited effectiveness when used offensively.

So, I have a two part question:

1. Why did anybody bother with rotellas in the first place?

2. How effective would targeteer type troops be if they were armed with big, center grip shields?

[Fhaolan]

I'm a little bit bewildered by the popularity of the rotella, especially with the famous Spanish soldiers who derived their name from using it.

Capo Ferro seems to be saying that the rotella is too heavy and slow to be used to parry by itself.

It's a time period and regional issue. In Spain rotellas were very popular in the 16th century and according to surviving examples were made of steel. Ridolfo Capo Ferro wrote his fightbooks in Italy in the 17th century, and according to surviving examples of rotellas from that period and region were mostly composite wood and leather. So you're dealing with two objects that *look* the same in illustration, and have the same name, but are fundamentally different in weight and balance.

Also Capo Ferro was a very interesting writer. He constantly talks about how useless things are, like feints, etc. But then later talks about how you shouldn't do anything *but* use feints, etc. He's a bit bipolar.

[Yora]

This conversation reminds me of something my instructor told me when were were going through historical fighting styles. The various fightbooks written by swordmaster George Silver (16th-17th century) seemed to be full of stuff that paraphrases down to 'stop mucking about and kill the other guy.'

I get the impression that a lot of fencing masters of the time were teaching rather complicated and flashy styles that were more dominance displays than combat, and Silver was fed up with it.
It's the difference between fighting for sport and fighting to kill.

As nice as olympic fencing and kendo looks, I don't think it has much to do with actual warfare sword fighting. If the penalty for getting hit is just your opponent scoring points instead of losing a limb or your life, everything changes drastically.

Even if grappling is king in MMA, things would be completely different if one of the fighters had a knife or just a rock in his hand.

[Dienekes]

It's a time period and regional issue. In Spain rotellas were very popular in the 16th century and according to surviving examples were made of steel. Ridolfo Capo Ferro wrote his fightbooks in Italy in the 17th century, and according to surviving examples of rotellas from that period and region were mostly composite wood and leather. So you're dealing with two objects that *look* the same in illustration, and have the same name, but are fundamentally different in weight and balance.

Also Capo Ferro was a very interesting writer. He constantly talks about how useless things are, like feints, etc. But then later talks about how you shouldn't do anything *but* use feints, etc. He's a bit bipolar.

Hmm, it's possible he was using a rhetorical device that was common in Italy in the Renaissance where you advance two competing lines of thought to emphasize the complexity of the situation and to subtle imply your smarter than the reader so they'll hire you to teach them instead of just reading the book.

Or he couldn't make up his mind. Either way.

[Spiryt]

Even if grappling is king in MMA, things would be completely different if one of the fighters had a knife or just a rock in his hand.

It would need defining "king". "Base" would be more appropriate, cause will it's possible to do pretty well in MMA or other "complete" combat without any serious striking, it's impossible without any serious grappling.

And striking with someone who has a knife is pretty suicidal. If one has to fight, grabbing and controlling the knife/knife hand is pretty much most sane cause of action.

[Wardog]

[QUOTE=Yora;14453486
As nice as olympic fencing and kendo looks, I don't think it has much to do with actual warfare sword fighting. If the penalty for getting hit is just your opponent scoring points instead of losing a limb or your life, everything changes drastically.[/QUOTE]

Or even more, if the penalty for getting hit is... nothing at all, because the hit wasn't on the right part of the body/in the right manner to score a point according to the rules of teh sport.

[awa]

I'm designing a setting and in it one of the groups is particularly good at breaking pike formations one of their tricks is charging it with a mixed species force some of them human sized berserkers but some are size small fast and agile capable of running on all fours. so the pike men point their weapons at the larger more threatening guys but at the last moment the small guys drop down and rush under the pikes where they start killing the pike men unable to defend themselves so the formation is disrupted when the bigger guys hit the formation.

so i basically have two questions could you slip under the pikes like that or would they be able to reorient their pikes fast enough to stop it.
and would close combat specialists inside the pike formation lead to anything other then a bloody rout.

[Dead_Jester]

Slipping under pikes is possible (assuming the first ranks are positioned to received a charge), although against pikeless infantry, a pike formation should not be immobile, and the efficiency with which they can redirect the pikes varies greatly according to the training of the troops. Assuming they have seen (or expect) this tactic, they should preemptively lower the pikes in the first few ranks to receive a charge by smaller creatures.

As for the effectiveness of such tactics, it depends greatly on the training of the soldiers in the pike formation (most pikemen carried and trained with other weaponry, but levies may not) as well as to its actual composition (a hybrid formation of pikes and halberds, or pikes and longswords, would be harder to dislodge with an infantry charge). Morale would also play a large role in this; although troops may be able to reach the pikemen, if the formation does not break, than you may end up in a large melee, or the pikemen may simply push through if they can repel the initial charge. Spanish rodeleros were sometimes used in a similar fashion to breach and disturb solid pike formations, with mixed results depending on the training and freshness of the troops.

[Galloglaich]

To build on what Jester said, this idea of running under the pikes was a fairly effective tactic used in the 16th Century particularly by rodeleros (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodeleros) in the Spanish armies, against German Landsknechts and even against the Swiss, who they began to get the better of.

But for context, this was specifically associated with the ratio of weapons in the given armies during a fairly short period; by the 1530's after the reorganization into Tercios (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tercio) the Spanish somewhat de-emphasized this (light skirmisher) troop type, mainly because they were too vulnerable to cavalry. Infantry formations from the mid 15th Century onward to Napoleonic times were made up various combinations of different types of soldiers: pikemen, gunners, heavy infantry (halberdiers or two-hand swordsmen) and skirmishers like rodelero. They all had their advantages at different stages of the battle, and these advantages changed as technology changed, particularly with the gunners. Over time it became more and more just 'pike and shot'

Pikemen are the best for countering cavalry, gunners obviously do damage from long range but are vulnerable to cavalry (so they are protected by the puikes), halberdiers are good when infantry formations are mixing it up with each other, and skirmishers are ideal when formations have broken up. The rodelero became effective when some armies, notably the Swiss, had begun to use too many pikemen and not enough halbediers or swordsmen. Later (late 16th and 17th Century) it became standard for at least some of the pikemen to also have swords and bucklers, and they would wait for the cavalry charge with one hand on their sword and one on their pike!

http://www.cardiffrose.com/pike.gif

As for commentary by various Masters:

What is useful in a one-on-one duel and what is useful in a battle or a large skirmish may be three different things. Many fencing masters prefered the off-hand dagger for defense over a buckler or a rotella, others preferred the buckler. A large shield is not as much of an advantage in an indivudal duel but on the battlefield it's a big bonus! The steel rotella in particular were actually very helpful and were bullet proof at least to some extent.

George Silver, while a respected fencing authority, is well known to have had a rather nationalist or even racist bent; specifically during his own time he was reacting to the sudden and immense popularity of Italian and Spanish rapier fencing, and there were two Italian rapier masters making a fortune teaching rapier fencing in England during his life, Rocco Bonetti and Vincentio Saviolo. Silver famously posted a challenge to Saviolo who ignored him. In Silvers favor, he saw how the craze for rapier (which came late to England but hit hard) was leading to a sharp rise in fatalities from dueling. And he correctly pointed out that it wasn't right to throw out the indiginous fencing systems entirely in favor of the rapier.

But I think history also shows us that rapier fencing was not nearly as useless as he claims; to the contrary, it was quite effective. Each Master has their own biases and contradictions (sometimes they contradict themselves as previously noted) and this has to be taken into consideration, without necessarily picking one over the other.


G

[Traab]

By contrast, shorter pocket knifes often break, cut the hands of the attacker, and less often seem to penetrate deep enough to cause lethal damage except against a helpless person.

I just wanted to agree with this. Pocketknives/swiss army knives, those things are DANGEROUS to try to stab someone with. Most of the ones ive seen or owned have a really crappy grip, so the slightest resistance to your stab means you have a nice even chance of slipping off the grip and cutting your own damn fingers off. (Ok, off might be pushing it, but you wont be happy)and I cant count how many pocket knife blades I have had break on me over the years. I dont know if I just abuse them too much, or if I have the bad luck to buy the really crappy quality ones, but either way, ugh. In a choice between my pocket knife and a stout branch in a fight, im grabbing the branch. Im sure there are excellent quality ones out there, but I never had one.

[Hjolnai]

How effective would a 15th-16th century infantry force be against pikes, if it was equipped in old Roman Legionnaire style - specifically, with large shields, javelins and short swords (probably falchions)? I'm not really asking about anything else which the Legions used, like the hastati/principes/triarii, just the equipment.

I know the Legions were used to good effect against the Macedonian phalangites, but changes to equipment (particularly steel plate harness) and common tactics might reduce their effectiveness.

[Brother Oni]

Nice detail on that pikeman, Galloglaich - you can see how he's using his rear foot to support the pike, but it's obvious from the way he's holding it, he can drop it at a moment's notice to use his sword.
I will say that pike seems a bit short compared to those I've seen used during the English Civil War, so if any cavalry gets past the pikewall, the longer pikes will buy a couple extra valuable seconds for the infantry to draw their swords.


How effective would a 15th-16th century infantry force be against pikes, if it was equipped in old Roman Legionnaire style - specifically, with large shields, javelins and short swords (probably falchions)?

Against a force solely consisting of pikemen? Probably about as well as the rodeleros did, as mentioned by Galloglaich and Dead_Jester.

[Hjolnai]

Against a force solely consisting of pikemen? Probably about as well as the rodeleros did, as mentioned by Galloglaich and Dead_Jester.

I was thinking the situation would be somewhat different - using the full body cover of a large shield to push against pikes, while it would be difficult to pull beneath the pikes. Of course, with plate harness the attractiveness of a heavy shield is much diminished, and I suspect that pushing against the pikes is a losing game.

I would expect that the Roman use of uneven ground (which had minimal impact on their troops, but made a coherent phalanx very difficult to hold) and flanking would apply to pike squares as well as the much earlier sarissa phalanx, but no doubt the same terrain advantage was used in the late middle ages.