Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI [Archive] - Page 3

Galloglaich

2013-01-02, 06:50 PM

200 pounds crossbow would generally be roughly similar in energetic output as that 70, maybe 90 pound bows, so I don't think that 'would'nt even slow down' applies in any manner. Pretty much the same thing.

Yes but a 200 lb crossbow wouldn't even be military grade by the end of the Medieval period. Basic military crossbows were in the range of 300-450 lbs, which is at least as powerful as any self-bows the Romans were facing from the Huns and Parthians (who as I said, gave them a lot of trouble); but of course by the 14th or 15th Century you also have many crossbows in the 800 lb - 1200 lb range on the Medieval battlefield which are way too much for Roman shields to handle.

In addition, you also have arquebus, roughly equivalent to a 12 - 16 gua shotgun shooting a slug, and various intermediate level guns such as trestle guns, hook-guns, arquebus-a-croc in the 15-40 mm caliber range, plus fast-firing breach loading cannon, and by the late 15th, various precursors of the musket, all of which would be devastating to a Roman army which would really have nothing even nearly equivalent to answer with.

Anyway, what's the source about trouble (and what source of trouble) with Hun arrows? That's sounds very interesting.

There are countless examples, Procopius "The Wars" is full of them, but for one easily accessible case see my link above to the Battle of Carrhae on "Parthian heavy cavalry".

But in any case, Medieval shields, be it wooden or plywood ones, weren't really any heavier or thicker than scuta... They still tend to have way under 1/2'' thickness and are generally not overly heavy.

If you are talking about a Norman kyte shield or a Viking -Era shield, I agree with you.

And 'Heavier' may not have been the best word to use; it would be more accurate to say 'designed to deal with high-velocity missiles'. A steel or even iron rotella, which were ubiquitous by the late Medieval period (based on a design pioneered by the Ottomans) is vastly better protection against bullets, crossbow bolts, or recurve / longbow arrows than something like a scutum. I don't know about all the other types of late Medieval shields but I know that the 'Mini-Pavise' type pioneered by the Lithuanians and spread throughout Central Europe was developed specifically to cope with crossbows of the Teutonic Order and recurve bows of the Tartars. They were made with laminated construction of various materials (including textiles and even paper in some cases, apparently) which seemed to be a step above a regular shield in terms of protection against missiles. They were basically portable versions of the pavise which was designed the same way.

A lot of preserved scuta are very impressive pieces of shield design, so I don't think that they would be any problem at all.

They also 'served' in times and places when javelins of all kind were still very popular, and heavy javelin can easily out penetrate any arrow in wood, if thrown well.

No javelin is going to punch through a steel shield (or steel breastplate), or if it will, I've yet to see it. But the real point (pun intended) is that while javelins do have good penetration at very short range (as the Almogavars proved in Greece with their all iron soliferrum type javelins) a crossbow or a gun has at least equal penetration from 200 meters or more in distance. Which is the problem the Romans had with the Parthian and Hun recurves.

Too much dependence on it, in face of weapons like guns and lances could be bigger problem, obviously.

The Legionairre, with a little tweaking, would be a decent troop type for the late Medieval period, but would need to be accompanied by some kind of better cavalry defense and some better cavalry, and some better 'artillery', I think.

G

Hjolnai

2013-01-02, 08:34 PM

Large (and hence thin) shields may not stop crossbow bolts or arquebus bullets, but they would certainly be slowed. Not enough for lorica, I would expect, but if the pseudo-Legions used updated equipment such as plate, that should be enough to stop the slowed missiles most of the time.

fusilier

2013-01-03, 12:19 AM

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.

15th-16th century is actually a very broad period during which there was a lot of change among the infantry.

Circa 1400, infantry was still pretty static, and that may give a Roman legion some serious advantage. However, even at that date things were changing and infantry was being used more and more aggressively. John Hawkwood in the late 14th century was known to dismount his men at arms and have them wield their lances like pikes, and sometimes even attack with them. Pavises were carried by "shield-bearers", but again were very static and provided cover for the crossbowmen and pikemen.

By 1500, Swiss pikemen were known for their aggressive tactics. Pavises seem to have mostly fallen out of favor (except perhaps in sieges?), as the infantry was more mobile. One response to pikemen was the use of so called "Sword and Buckler" troops.* These were somewhat lightly armored swordsmen, as Galloglaich pointed out the use of a smaller shield would have made a Legionnaire very similar to a such a soldier. In theory they could attack pike formations by diving under the points of the pikes, and hacking away at the legs (which were less likely to be armored) . . . I'm not sure if that was actually the practice, however. The response, supposedly, was to mix some halberdiers in with the pikemen to deal with anybody who got pass the pike heads.

Legionnaires did fight against Phalanx style troops (early on), and the use of a sword and shield in those fights, may have indicated that they had a different tactic to use against such troops. There is a revision to what a Roman Legionnaire was. The traditional interpretation was a swordsmen, who used a couple of javelins to soften up his opponent. There is a more recent work (forget the name of the author), that attempts to turn that around -- they were primarily javelin throwers. There may be some truth to that, but I don't know if it's widely accepted.

By the middle of the 16th century, Sword and Buckler men seem to have disappeared. More firepower was probably a better way of dealing with pike blocks, and the proportion of firearms to pike increased during the century. The Osprey book on Imperial Armies during the Thirty Years War, claims that small bodies of Sword and Buckler troops were still be attached to pike formations, and leading charges, at that late date. However, I recently read in another forum some objections to that theory. Sword and Buckler troops were still be used in sieges at that late date, probably as a role for dismounted cavalry.

*Sword and Buckler troops actually predate the rise of the Swiss pikemen. They were a Spanish innovation, that I know was also adopted in Italy, primarily because they seemed to be better at handling field fortifications. So the use of them against pikemen may have been experimenting with an existing troop type, rather than an innovation.

Brother Oni

2013-01-03, 03:07 AM

I have a question about shield design. Were the majority of them angled to deflect attacks? Or a flat surface to just absorb the impact? I just wonder because it seems to me that it would be smarter to not force a guys shield arm to absorb the full weight of the impact, and even deflecting a bit of the force could mean the difference between a broken arm or a hale and hearty warrior ready to continue. But I recall seeing a lot of movies with different warrior groups and many of them seem to have flat surface shields. Is it that there is a danger of the blow sliding off the shield and hitting the guy behind it?

Depends on the shield really. A lot of shields are flat so they interlink together better, forming a shield wall (norman kite shields and viking round shields for example). Others are more curved to help deflect blows (Roman scutum and I remember a odd one, possibly celtic, which was effectively a 90 degree curve).

Shields generally aren't used statically though and can move to intercept or deflect blows, so it's not really just something for the opponent to practice his cutting/breaking skills on.

Generally shields have protrusions to reinforce their structure and stop weapons sliding around on the surface (the rim of the shield especially).

Large (and hence thin) shields may not stop crossbow bolts or arquebus bullets, but they would certainly be slowed. Not enough for lorica, I would expect, but if the pseudo-Legions used updated equipment such as plate, that should be enough to stop the slowed missiles most of the time.

A seriously doubt a Roman scutum would be effective in protecting against a medieval era military crossbow. When I have more time, I'll look up some values and crunch some numbers to figure out how much of an effect less than an inch of wood would have on stopping a bolt.
To clarify, when I say 'wouldn't be slowed down', I mean the bolt would penetrate through the shield and still significantly injure or incapacitate the person on the other side, to the point where it would be more effective for the person not to be encumbered by the shield.

An updated pavise style shield would be effective though, but we're moving away from your legionary concept.

xeo

2013-01-03, 06:12 AM

Quick question - how do 16thC pikemen fight in a siege? I presume they switch to hand and missile weapons but I'm unsure. I've been reading Spiteri's book on the Siege of Malta and am trying to work out exactly how the Tercios fought during the battles.

It seems that, considering the width and open nature of the ravelin (where they were initially deployed, until it fell) and the breached walls (where there appears to be room to deploy, whilst the barricades they built would have provided protection against skirmishers going under the pikes) it should have been possible for them to fight with the pike.

Any ideas? Or examples from other, similar, sieges?

Yora

2013-01-03, 06:39 AM

I think on Malta they were alredy making extensive use of gunpowder on both sides. If a wall was breached, pikes would be very effective in keeping any attackers from rushing in, but I think most of the fighting was done with guns.

xeo

2013-01-03, 07:58 AM

Spiteri talks about the defending Christians firing arquebuses (or perhaps muskets in the case of the Tercios) from the walls or, after these were breached, from behind barricades. Then when the Turks got close, they picked up swords and other hand to hand weapons that were stacked nearby. However there is relatively little mention of pikes (which the Tercios and mercenaries although probably not the Maltese militia were using) despite them being visible in illustrations:

http://www.ilovefood.com.mt/wp-content/gallery/paintings/assualt-on-post-of-castlian-knights.jpg
Pikes on the right...but not seen in action (sorry for small size of image).

Spiryt

2013-01-03, 09:42 AM

Yes but a 200 lb crossbow wouldn't even be military grade by the end of the Medieval period. Basic military crossbows were in the range of 300-450 lbs, which is at least as powerful as any self-bows the Romans were facing from the Huns and Parthians (who as I said, gave them a lot of trouble); but of course by the 14th or 15th Century you also have many crossbows in the 800 lb - 1200 lb range on the Medieval battlefield which are way too much for Roman shields to handle.

Yeah, I was referring mainly to earlier crossbows.

But we have to remember that even deep in 15th/16th century belt hooks were still very popular, while things bent by windlasses etc. were very often mostly siege bows.

And with increases in draw weight, draw lenght was getting reduced as well, and massive, thicks bows were suffering from some quite harsh diminishing returns effect.

In addition, you also have arquebus, roughly equivalent to a 12 - 16 gua shotgun shooting a slug, and various intermediate level guns such as trestle guns, hook-guns, arquebus-a-croc in the 15-40 mm caliber range, plus fast-firing breach loading cannon, and by the late 15th, various precursors of the musket, all of which would be devastating to a Roman army which would really have nothing even nearly equivalent to answer with.

Yeah, lead/iron balls of such energy would probably tear trough plywood pretty violently, no discussion here.

If you are talking about a Norman kyte shield or a Viking -Era shield, I agree with you.

And 'Heavier' may not have been the best word to use; it would be more accurate to say 'designed to deal with high-velocity missiles'. A steel or even iron rotella, which were ubiquitous by the late Medieval period (based on a design pioneered by the Ottomans) is vastly better protection against bullets, crossbow bolts, or recurve / longbow arrows than something like a scutum. I don't know about all the other types of late Medieval shields but I know that the 'Mini-Pavise' type pioneered by the Lithuanians and spread throughout Central Europe was developed specifically to cope with crossbows of the Teutonic Order and recurve bows of the Tartars. They were made with laminated construction of various materials (including textiles and even paper in some cases, apparently) which seemed to be a step above a regular shield in terms of protection against missiles. They were basically portable versions of the pavise which was designed the same way.

Yes, composite construction was getting big in whole Europe, not only in Prussia/Lithuania at the time.

As far as I recall, nifty thing about early pavises was midrib, with handle being still 'normally' mounted on the rest of the shield - in that simple way any point that penetrated the shield had to go trough additional extra inches to injure the hand of the shield wielder. The steeper angle, the more penetration required as well.

My point is that heavy bows, javelins or powerful missiles in general weren't even anything new on battlefield, so shields of any era would be expected to face it.

Some of early bows splint found appear to be of serious size. Hedeby complete bow is estimated to be around 90 pounds.

https://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php?topic=8175.0

No javelin is going to punch through a steel shield (or steel breastplate), or if it will, I've yet to see it. But the real point (pun intended) is that while javelins do have good penetration at very short range (as the Almogavars proved in Greece with their all iron soliferrum type javelins) a crossbow or a gun has at least equal penetration from 200 meters or more in distance. Which is the problem the Romans had with the Parthian and Hun recurves.

Well, arrows or most bolts generally won't punch trough it either, scarcely mentioned in sources, and more serious experiments.

Some heavier javelins would have way higher mass, sectional density, stiffness, and generally 'substance' than arrows or bolts, and could be thrown with a lot of energy - with some running and full body swing the transfer is pretty efficient. Sport javelins can achieve way more than 300 J, even though there's world class athlete and running start factors, those are less than 2 pounds, on the other hand.

http://dregowia.blogspot.com/2011/05/test-wytrzymaosci-pawezy.html

Guy here used 40 pound bow, light javelins, axes and a spear on his 16-20 mm pine, bone glue and linen canvas pavise.

One handed spear thrusts generally made the greatest impression out of point weapons, interestingly or not, though apparently it still wouldn't hurt the wielder.

Too bad he didn't throw the spear, as heavier javelin approximation.

Galloglaich

2013-01-03, 02:17 PM

Yeah, I was referring mainly to earlier crossbows.

But we have to remember that even deep in 15th/16th century belt hooks were still very popular, while things bent by windlasses etc. were very often mostly siege bows.

Windlasses yes, etc., no. For one thing, the cranequin spanned crossbows, which though smaller were just as powerful as the windlass spanned weapons, were frequently used from horseback in Central Europe both for hunting and warfare. They were the premiere missile weapon in the 13 Years War for example.

These weapons, which the Teutonic Order referred to as 'statchel' (stinger) or as german winders (to distinguish from the windlass spanned weapons, which were called 'english winders') were very expensive and required skilled users. But there were other spanning tools used for weapons in between the simple knottelarmbruste (wood prod) crossbows and the statchel or 'english winders'. As you can see Leo Todeschini of Todsstuff demonstrating here with a 300 lb draw weapon, a goats foot, also very popular in the 14th and 15th Centuries, allows him to span it with very little effort indeed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIkxyjVu9gc

From experience recently spanning a 200 lb draw modern hunting crossbow by hand using a foot stirrup, (which is easier than a period equivalent) I can tell you a 300 lb weapon would be beyond me, and I think I'm at least as strong as Leo. The goats foot makes it quite easy.

And with increases in draw weight, draw lenght was getting reduced as well, and massive, thicks bows were suffering from some quite harsh diminishing returns effect.

They were still, based on all the period witnesses and records, more accurate and more lethal than handguns through the end of the 15th Century. But for purposes of discussing shields it's irrelevant. Forget the crossbows and concentrate on the guns which we call can admit were there.

Yes, composite construction was getting big in whole Europe, not only in Prussia/Lithuania at the time.

My only point was that particular type of shield with the midrib seems to have first appeared in Lithuania and then spread throughout Central Europe.

My point is that heavy bows, javelins or powerful missiles in general weren't even anything new on battlefield, so shields of any era would be expected to face it.

I think the crossbow in the 800 - 1200 lb range was unheard of in classical times except possibly for torsion spring artillery, and the latter would be extremely rare. Hand guns were certainly unheard of in classical times. I suspect the ubiquity of really powerful longbows and recurves had increased as well though that is debatable.

Some of early bows splint found appear to be of serious size. Hedeby complete bow is estimated to be around 90 pounds.

Yes but as you know, the Mary Rose bows seem to have averaged around 120 lbs and draw strength for the (more efficient) Turkish and Mongol recurves can be in the 140 lbs range.

Well, arrows or most bolts generally won't punch trough it either, scarcely mentioned in sources, and more serious experiments.

I agree about more experiments being needed, but from what I've seen, a 120 lb longbow will shoot right through a 1/2" piece of wood, and I'm certain a crossbow in the 1200 lbs range will as well; and we both know so will an arquebus or other firearm.

G

Conners

2013-01-03, 04:37 PM

With some of the largest swords and weapons out there, which can actually and have actually been used in war: Would a supernatural level of strength be very beneficial in wielding them?

I've been trying to consider the effects of a character with unreal levels of strength, and how it'd play out in a manner of realistic science-fiction. At a certain level, no matter how strong you are, the weight of the weapon vs. your own, the leverage you have over it, and perhaps some other details will get in the way of wielding absurdly large weapons--and, I suppose, they would also get in the way of wielding a odachi with the speed and ease of a plastic toy.

Galloglaich

2013-01-03, 09:22 PM

awa

2013-01-03, 09:36 PM

yes being extra strong will be useful in a fight. it might not help you fence but being stronger will mean that the weapon wont tire you out as fast which on a battle field would be a great benefit it would allow you to break shields and armor but their will be a degree of limited return. After a certain point any extra strength will either be unnecessary or just break your weapon. Once you can consistently penetrate the heaviest armor the opposition has to offer anything more is unnecessary.

you could wield a bigger sword with more strength but i imagine (this is not my are of expertise) the added size and awkwardness would cancel out any advantage fairly quickly.

Brother Oni

2013-01-03, 09:43 PM

With some of the largest swords and weapons out there, which can actually and have actually been used in war: Would a supernatural level of strength be very beneficial in wielding them?

Generally yes, but it would also depend on the level of strength the character has and whether their own body can withstand the forces exerting that strength will inflict.

There's a good illustration of this by Masamune Shirow for the Ghost in the Shell manga, where a character has a cybernetic arm that can lift 200kg. Unfortunately, the arm's attachment to the body wasn't suitably reinforced, thus the first time the arm tried to lift such a weight, it ripped itself off the person's shoulder.

Actually looking at cyberpunk and similar sci fi would give you a fairly good answer to this and would also illustrate other effects of being supernaturally strong (increased jumping ability, almost ridiculous athletic capabilities, etc).
A strong enough person would have more issue in the environment and the material of his weapon being able to cope with what he's trying to do with it, than against un-augmented opponents.

Unless such a weapon is made out of some supernaturally strong material, the only way to reinforce a standard steel or other metal weapon is to make it bigger, which means additional weapon weight, resulting in inertia and leverage problems as you've noted.

You may also want to have a quick look at the manga Berserk, where the lead character, Guts, is supernaturally strong and uses a massive slab of metal that masquerades as a sword: link (http://images.wikia.com/berserk/images/7/76/DragonslayerWield.jpg).
His attacks are relatively slow and ponderous, but pretty much unstoppable when they get going.
Guts would represent the lower end of the scale - he's strong enough to use his weapon, but not so strong that it's like a plastic toy.

At the other end of the scale, you have the Monkey King who wields a 8.1 metric tonne staff like a child's toy.

awa

2013-01-03, 09:49 PM

to be fair to guts he rarely fights humans most of his battles are against various flavors of giant monsters

Conners

2013-01-03, 11:57 PM

@Galloglaich: That is very true. Still, I imagine there are some advantage you could gain, from high levels of strength. For example, being able to wear heavier armour without it exhausting you and weighing you down to ponderous movements.

Galloglaich, would you have any expertise on how large a sword can be, before the leverage and weight would make it impossible to wield effectively, even with unnatural strength? Someone who has handled many swords like yourself seems the best person to ask.

@Brother Oni: You make a very valid point. Humans are already capable of exerting so much strength that they damage their bodies, so it would be even more so with unnatural strength, if not matched by amazing resilience.

Berserk: Speaking of that, they released a movie focusing on the human-fighting part of Guts' life. The interesting part, is the director stated they were using real techniques from European medieval martial arts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEgcHdTb8t4
The reason for this, is they expect Western audiences to cringe if they see obviously fake depictions of medieval European sword fighting and the like... sometimes ignorance reaps beautiful benefits.

Brother Oni

2013-01-04, 02:53 AM

Skill tends to trump strength when fighting with weapons. There is persistent sort of comic book (and manga) myth of someone being unnaturally strong enough to wield a sledge hammer as if it was a feather, or a 9 foot sword, but the strongest power-lifter in the world would be cut to pieces by an experienced fencer of average strength with any sword. It doesn't matter how hard you can swing if you telegraph your cut and the other guy just steps back a pace and cuts you as your sword goes by.

While I perfectly agree with you, there is a limit. I wouldn't class having the same strength as the strongest power lifter as being supernaturally strong though.
Suppose there was the same physical disparity between our average strength fencer and the strongman as there was between a 12 year old and a MMA fighter at their peak - then it doesn't just start being an issue of strength, but speed as well and adding supernatural resilience so that the fighter can apply that strength with no issues just becomes unfair.

If we increased the size of this disparity even further then it stops being a contest and more a matter of how long the weaker person can survive or is forced to retreat.

to be fair to guts he rarely fights humans most of his battles are against various flavors of giant monsters

I was thinking more of his Band of Hawks days, where he's running around with an oversized sword although not at the size of the Dragonslayer.

Edit: Thinking about Berserk some more, there's a perfect scene in the TV series (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YIN7O-PmWY) that illustrates Galloglaich's and my points. When Griffith first meets and duels Guts, he's by far the superior swordsman and defeats Gats handily.
It's not until Gats does something completely off the wall that illustrates his strength and determination (not to mention absolutely bat-crap insane levels of aggression) that he even comes close to beating Griffith.

Berserk: Speaking of that, they released a movie focusing on the human-fighting part of Guts' life.

I've only seen the TV series - based on what you've said, I may have to get hold of the movie.

Matthew

2013-01-04, 03:57 AM

The Battle of Carrhae is pretty controversial amongst Roman military enthusiasts, if I recall correctly. In particular, the quality of the Roman troops and commander are highly questionable. Still, overall it reminds me not a little of the disastrous encounters of similarly poorly led and organised crusade forces in Asia Minor. The "Roman Army" is a slippery beast, as what it was in Polybius time is different to what it was in that of Caesar, Augutus, Trajan, Julian, Vegetius and so on. However, I certainly agree that a disciplined force of heavy infantry armed and armoured after the manner of the Roman Imperial Legionary could have had an effective role in 15th century warfare. In general, though, and as we are all well aware, no particular type of soldier triumphs alone in every context (whether hoplite, legionary, Hun, Goth, Lombard, Frank, knight, mamluk, Mongol, or samurai).

Yora

2013-01-04, 08:22 AM

At the other end of the scale, you have the Monkey King who wields a 8.1 metric tonne staff like a child's toy.
Well, he's a toned down version of an Indian god who is known for his feats of strength that are off the scale.

Galloglaich

2013-01-04, 10:41 AM

One area being super-strong might help significantly is in throwing things.

Like the spear or javelin Spyrit was talking about. They had a solid iron javelin called a 'soliferrum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliferrum)' which was apparently (one of the very rare weapons that was) fairly good at armor piercing and killing horses, but of course it had very limited range. If you were super strong, you could have say, a steel soliferrum which could reach out much further.

You could also throw other things. It was common to throw maces on the steppe, these tended to be rather light wooden handled maces but a super strong man could throw one of those all steel flanged maces, or any number of other weapons like some of those wikcked African Throwing knives

http://thedarkblade.com/wp-content/uploads/mabo-tribe-rdc.jpg

Rocks, actually, were vastly more important as weapons historically than anyone (or any RPG) seems to realize or acknowledge. Not just in sieges either. Both the Swiss and the Czechs used rock throwers in their field armies. Imagine someone like a baseball player throwing a piece of granite at you 90 mph. Now imagine some super strong guy throwing rocks. Could be trouble!

G

Spiryt

2013-01-04, 10:54 AM

Best javelin throwers probably aren't all that strong actually. Being tall and lengthy seems to be more important, as far as physicality goes.

But anyway, great physical strength would be hugely important in using pretty much any muscle powered weapon, obviously.

Just not in any way sufficient without skills, speed, courage, concentration and so on.

Galloglaich

2013-01-04, 11:06 AM

Best javelin throwers probably aren't all that strong actually. Being tall and lengthy seems to be more important, as far as physicality goes.

Yeah but how many of them are throwing solid iron javelins? The effective range of a soliferrum was apparently about the length of a horse.

But anyway, great physical strength would be hugely important in using pretty much any muscle powered weapon, obviously.

Just not in any way sufficient without skills, speed, courage, concentration and so on.

Depending on the weapon, I don't really agree, I think the learning curve for fighting with weapons is vastly, vastly underestimated in genre literature, games, computer games, movies and so on. Now obviously it depends on the weapon. Unarmed fighting is largely dependent on strength, though we have all seen how good grappling technique or jujitsu skills can even the odds there as well somewhat. But with a weapon like a sword, the ratio between skill or training and strength is much more skewed.

This is why in the fencing world, you can see quite old guys doing very well against young and strong guys. Technique trumps strength to a large extent, and it takes a long time to get good at using a weapon like a rapier or a longsword. The best way I can explain it, is the scenario I mentioned upthread where the big, strong unskilled guy makes a stupendous swing at the old frail, experienced guy; if the former telegraphs his strike as almost all inexperienced people will do - the latter has no reason to even try to parry the swing - he can just take a step back and cut him after his weapon goes by. If you are talking about a weapon like a sword, this cut (or jab) can easily be fatal or disabling (blinding, hamstrinnging, severing a limb) without much strength.

Similarly, the inexperienced guy may step into range, preparing to strike, and not realize he is already in distance - he gets a quick poke in the throat, and he's instantly choking on frothy blood coming out of his windpipe. Game over.

An experienced fencer won't just let you hit them, and doesn't need to parry your strikes. Some systems (like most of the Japanese systems) don't even emphasize parrying at all. Most others prefer a slight misdirection of an attack - just enough to guide it away from it's target- to a cliche forte vs. forte parry. Those kinds of parries multiply the strength of the defender, I can teach a 90 lb girl to effectively displace full force strikes from 200 lbs guys easily enough - in fact we've seen this done in tournaments.

Now of course if you combine super strong with 'invulnerable' like most comic book heroes of this type, then you are talking about a different situation. Makes it a lot harder to cope with. But without that 'adamantine' skin, your Hulk armed with a parking meter mace would be mincemeat against a Musashi armed with his sword.

G

Spiryt

2013-01-04, 11:19 AM

Yeah but how many of them are throwing solid iron javelins? The effective range of a soliferrum was apparently about the length of a horse.

That does sound very probable though. Horse lenght is like 10 feet at the very best, at such distance it doesn't usually make sense to throw stuff, opponent will be like one, two steps from olde stabbing range...

Depending on the weapon, I don't really agree, I think the learning curve for fighting with weapons is vastly, vastly underestimated in genre literature, games, computer games, movies and so on. Now obviously it depends on the weapon. Unarmed fighting is largely dependent on strength, though we have all seen how good grappling technique or jujitsu skills can even the odds there as well somewhat. But with a weapon like a sword, the ratio between skill or training and strength is much more skewed.

This is why in the fencing world, you can see quite old guys doing very well against young and strong guys. Technique trumps strength to a large extent, and it takes a long time to get good at using a weapon like a rapier or a longsword. The best way I can explain it, is the scenario I mentioned upthread where the big, strong unskilled guy makes a stupendous swing at the old frail, experienced guy; if the former telegraphs his strike as almost all inexperienced people will do - the latter has no reason to even try to parry the swing - he can just take a step back and cut him after his weapon goes by. If you are talking about a weapon like a sword, this cut (or jab) can easily be fatal or disabling (blinding, hamstrinnging, severing a limb) without much strength.

Similarly, the inexperienced guy may step into range, preparing to strike, and not realize he is already in distance - he gets a quick poke in the throat, and he's instantly choking on frothy blood coming out of his windpipe. Game over.

An experienced fencer won't just let you hit them, and doesn't need to parry your strikes. Some systems (like most of the Japanese systems) don't even emphasize parrying at all. Most others prefer a slight misdirection of an attack - just enough to guide it away from it's target- to a cliche forte vs. forte parry. Those kinds of parries multiply the strength of the defender, I can teach a 90 lb girl to effectively displace full force strikes from 200 lbs guys easily enough - in fact we've seen this done in tournaments.

Now of course if you combine super strong with 'invulnerable' like most comic book heroes of this type, then you are talking about a different situation. Makes it a lot harder to cope with. But without that 'adamantine' skin, your Hulk armed with a parking meter mace would be mincemeat against a Musashi armed with his sword.

G

But that's just pointing out that without any idea "What the hell am I doing", even greatest strength will be mostly useless, which is obvious.

But with actual skill and experience, more strength will be always very appreciated. If said big guy actually knows how to swing in the way that can't just get avoided with one step, he has asset on his side.

warty goblin

2013-01-04, 11:45 AM

That does sound very probable though. Horse lenght is like 10 feet at the very best, at such distance it doesn't usually make sense to throw stuff, opponent will be like one, two steps from olde stabbing range...

Stopping them two steps from stabbing range is very handy, because it means they never get to stab you. Even if you hit their shield, you'll quite probably penetrate and wound them through the thing. Should that fail, the big heavy iron bar sticking out of the shield will render it too awkward for use. You, still in possession of a shield, now have a substantial advantage.

Either that, or you throw the thing from horseback, in which case against somebody with a sword, two steps from stabbing distance is really quite safe.

awa

2013-01-04, 11:55 AM

Galloglaich

2013-01-04, 01:07 PM

in fencing strength is going to be less important but if your both wearing armor and you can only hurt him by striking at his vulnerable parts and he can kill you with even a glancing blow the odds are very much in his favor.

That assumes that you can cut through armor if you are just real strong, which isn't necessarily the case.

not to mention fencing has little to do with a battle there superhuman strength means hes not going to be fatigued by the constant combat which will give him a huge advantage.

That seems to mean stamina, not strength (not necessarily the same thing) although in comic books and so on I guess they often go together.

But even in battle, 'fencing' skill still matters very much. It's a myth that you just hit harder or the strongest guy wins. Maybe better for games or whatever genre context you want to stick to the fantasy though.

G

Galloglaich

2013-01-04, 01:09 PM

Stopping them two steps from stabbing range is very handy, because it means they never get to stab you. Even if you hit their shield, you'll quite probably penetrate and wound them through the thing. Should that fail, the big heavy iron bar sticking out of the shield will render it too awkward for use. You, still in possession of a shield, now have a substantial advantage.

Either that, or you throw the thing from horseback, in which case against somebody with a sword, two steps from stabbing distance is really quite safe.

The advantage was that it could penetrate the armor, which a sword or a spear typically could not do. The Catalan Grand company were using this weapon to kill Turkish Cataphracts / Sipahi.

G

GraaEminense

2013-01-04, 02:30 PM

Regarding super-strong fighters:

Apart from all the obvious stuff (endurance most of all), the advantage that springs to mind is reach.

(edit: I assume super-strength comes with at least the added endurance to not rip one's own body apart any more than mere mortals, otherwise there's not much point.)

Most two-handed weapons (including swords but more importantly polearms) are too heavy to use effectively in one hand. Enough strength (probably superhuman) in the wrist, grip and arm would alleviate that: sure, you would still fight better with both hands on the weapon but you would have the ability to strike or thrust with a pollaxe as lesser beings would with a sword.
Using a weapon in one hand rather than two easily adds 2-3 feet of reach, with a weapon that is still short enough to be useful up close.
You would also have the strength and endurance to recover too fast to be an easy target.

Combine this flexibility with raw stopping power and the leverage of a two-handed weapon and Superman should do nicely among the Vikings.

awa

2013-01-04, 02:52 PM

if you can run around in armor like its nothing you will have more endurance then the guy who is weaker and has to wear his armor like its you know armor the same with swinging a sword weapons are heavy swinging a sword non stop for half a hour would be incredible brutal swinging just your arm for half an hour would be much less difficult.

no one said anything about the strong guy being completely unskilled but if one guy is skilled and one guy is strong and skilled he has an advantage the heavier the armor the longer the fight the greater that advantage will be.

you seem to be the only one assuming someone cant be both strong and skilled

Galloglaich

2013-01-04, 04:02 PM

I'm just saying strength alone wouldn't cut it as a short cut.

If you are 1) stronger than normally possible for a human, 2) have more stamina than is normally possible for a human, and 3) a trained martial artist, then yes of course you would have and advantage!

G

Conners

2013-01-04, 06:54 PM

Honestly, I would prefer a "glass-cannon" kind of configuration, for this story, where they have incredible strength, but you can still split them into two neat pieces with an odachi, if they aren't wearing armour. Of course, they need to be at least somewhat tougher, so as to not rupture their own bone and sinew with their incredible strength. However, even if they're so tough that punches and kicks aren't a problem say, I think a large sword could still carve them up without too much difficulty (considering some medieval weapons are sufficient for killing crocodiles and elephants in hunting)?

As for more stamina, it's hard to say. If you reckon that their extreme power exerts them of energy, then it could actually give them less stamina. Of course, even then, walking in their armour, swinging their weapon, their own weight and equipment's would seem much lesser--meaning they expend less energy marching and fighting.
So, either it balances out, so they fight about as long as anyone else on the field, or they don't exert themselves using their strength and (despite not being built for endurance) their strength allows them to fight longer than most.

I agree wholeheartedly that Musashi could kill the Hulk, if not for his invincibility. Of course, in a battle you will get some of that... someone who is very strong can wear a lot of armour and still move around normally. That's what Goliath was, a huge guy guy with huge armour, aka: A tank.

fusilier

2013-01-04, 07:11 PM

In unarmed combat raw strength may confer a benefit (in some forms mass alone can confer an advantage, which is why there are weight categories). In such combat muscle can work kind of like armor, helping to absorb damage from punches and kicks. Still, some skill, or at least innate coordination, would be useful, but strength may help overcome a difference in skill. (I'm not saying that strength alone is a replacement for skill, however).

Could it be that people extrapolate from this to armed combat, erroneously?

Conners

2013-01-04, 07:22 PM

That's quite likely. People are used to the idea that if someone is bigger and bulkier than them, that guy will win if it comes to blows. People rarely consider how much a knife can change that equation.

fusilier

2013-01-04, 07:24 PM

Returning to the discussion of Roman style infantry in the Renaissance --

I just stumbled across an Italian blog, a magazine article apparently, about the battle of Piombino 1448. My Italian is no where near good enough but using google translate, the author describes the kind of infantry used during the battle, including "Lanciotti" who used a small shield and one or two throwing javelins, armed and using tactics reminiscent of Roman velites -- says the author.

Most interesting, he seems to be claiming that the infantry didn't fight in neat formations, instead they mixed all the infantry together! The front rank would be pikemen(!), and then all the other troop kinds would just be mixed in behind them: pavesieri (shield bearers), "lanciotti", more pikemen, crossbowmen, and schiopettieri (handgunners). They just kind of muddled in apparently, without forming neat ranks. My suspicion is that they may have had a rank structure initially but it fell apart on contact. What I'm most surprised by is that the shield-bearers were not at the front! At least not initially. Not sure if it's being interpreted correctly though.

Maybe someone who knows Italian can give a better understanding?
http://stemmieimprese.it/2012/09/17/la-battaglia-di-piombino-1448/#more-762

Some nice pictures on this guys blog. He appears to have published some books on specific Italian battles in the 15th and 16th centuries.

Galloglaich

2013-01-04, 07:30 PM

I think that is basically it. People really underestimate how counter-intuitive, tricky, and just different fighting with weapons really is, at least when one or more of the combatants has some real martial arts training.

Though as you say, even unarmed, a guy who spent a couple of years on the high school wrestling team, or a good boxer, can turn the tables on a bigger stronger guy who lacks that kind of skill. You saw this clearly enough in the early days of UFC. A big guy getting a broken nose can get slowed down quick, (or if he gets his knees clipped or whatever). I've seen that happen.

It isn't necessarily the big guy who has the most strength either, little guys can show extraordinary energy sometimes, testosterone, adrenaline or whatever. Morale is a critical factor which is also ignored in almost all genre lit and games, for whatever reason. I think that is actually the biggest challenge in a fight.

G

Galloglaich

2013-01-04, 07:32 PM

fusilier

2013-01-04, 09:44 PM

In the Italian militia armies, the 'shield bearers' used to typically stick with the crossbowmen or gunners, but I think more in an earlier era. The 'Velites' types of troops are also seen among the Almogavars in the 14th Century, I suspect in one form or another this remained something of a constant.

"aur aur! The Iron Awakes!"

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

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

G

I should have noted that there is a picture with the text that shows two infantry units coming into hand-to-hand contact -- so the context is of hand-to-hand and not ranged missile warfare. By mixing the different infantry together, it would probably allow missile weapons to still be used in the midst of a melee -- at least with a lesser chance of hitting friendly troops than being some distance off from the combat and firing en masse into it.

Certainly the "shield bearers" were to be used in conjunction with other forces. At the battle of Crecy the Genoese crossbowmen were apparently ordered to advance before the pavises had been brought forward. But, I've never been too clear on how the varied troop types operated together. Many modern depictions will show a crossbowmen standing behind a large pavise, implying that he carried it there himself, but then there are references to "pavisieri" or shield bearers.

It looks like, in melee, they just jammed them all together and let them aid each other with their various weapons. I'm wondering if this was typical of medieval infantry fighting?

I assume that crossbowmen and archers were massed together for ranged fighting (this is certainly supported by contemporary imagery), perhaps with other infantry behind them, ready to move in if required -- at which point I guess the archers could join in.

Spiryt

2013-01-05, 06:13 AM

Stopping them two steps from stabbing range is very handy, because it means they never get to stab you. Even if you hit their shield, you'll quite probably penetrate and wound them through the thing. Should that fail, the big heavy iron bar sticking out of the shield will render it too awkward for use. You, still in possession of a shield, now have a substantial advantage.

Either that, or you throw the thing from horseback, in which case against somebody with a sword, two steps from stabbing distance is really quite safe.

Well, unless they will cover said two steps quickly and you will get stabbed while you are taking a swing to toss a heavy javelin, which is pretty damn bad way to receive some stabbing.... Or grab/push away said javelin.

From the point of effectiveness, as close as possible is certainly best though. I would suspect that it would be thrown by some fighters in the line, while others are preparing to engage in melee.

Galloglaich

2013-01-10, 12:03 PM

I don't know how they were used, but they appear to have had a persistant role.

In addition to the Almogavars and the Catalan company who I already mentioned, I was just reading this book (http://www.amazon.com/Warfare-Western-Europe-Century-History/dp/0851155707) which mentions javelin armed troops in use in France and Flanders in the 14th C. There appear to have been French troop type called bidauts or coutereaux who were armed primarily with the javelin, who were part of the French army as late as Courtrai, in the 13th and probably all the way through the 14th Century. They are also mentioned here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=SLT8Oxcp9uUC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=bidaut+javelin&source=bl&ots=PRJFKltuOj&sig=2UmSdAxRbcMmxIhDbbG7rT_1FV8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GvPuUJvvEeTD2QWp14HABg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=bidaut%20javelin&f=false

Still later on you see a lot of documentation of javelin armed troops in Switzerland and Ireland, among other places. And they remained in the Baltic, notably in Samogitia.

G

Straybow

2013-01-10, 12:51 PM

in fencing strength is going to be less important but if your both wearing armor and you can only hurt him by striking at his vulnerable parts and he can kill you with even a glancing blow the odds are very much in his favor.

not to mention fencing has little to do with a battle there superhuman strength means hes not going to be fatigued by the constant combat which will give him a huge advantage.

[The first part] assumes that you can cut through armor if you are just real strong, which isn't necessarily the case.

[The second part] seems to mean stamina, not strength (not necessarily the same thing) although in comic books and so on I guess they often go together.

But even in battle, 'fencing' skill still matters very much. It's a myth that you just hit harder or the strongest guy wins. Maybe better for games or whatever genre context you want to stick to the fantasy though.

A foil is faster than an arming sword, and has an advantage in that aspect. If an extremely strong man can wield the arming sword as easily as you wield the rapier, that speed advantage is gone.

The stronger man doesn't swing the sword much faster, although his swing may reach a particular speed in a shorter time and motion (as the rapier example). The primary advantage of strength in battle is the ability to confer the body's momentum through the weapon. In some cases the mass of the muscled arm alone is much greater than that of the man of more modest proportion.

A polearm can injure a man through his armor without cutting through it. So can some well designed one-handed picks, maces, and flails, to a lesser extent. An extremely strong man could do the same with a balanced sword (though the edge would undoubtedly suffer much abuse).

Body momentum is the main reason why two-handed weapons have much greater power than the proportion of weight compared to single handed weapons would dictate. Driving with the body is almost automatic with a staff or polearm, given minimal training to familiarize the person with proper technique.

Galloglaich

2013-01-10, 03:06 PM

I hear what you are saying, but ... review what you said above and watch this carefully,

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

make especial note of 0:25 and 0:27

I think while it's true specialized armor-piercing weapons like picks and maces can hurt armor, you don't need to be super strong for that to work. Non armor-piercing weapons won't suddenly become armor-piercing simply because you are a lot stronger (unless you are say, as strong as a bulldozer or a locomotive)

As for a foil vs. an arming sword. A foil is a training weapon specifically designed so that it can't hurt you. It doesn't really matter how strong you are, a foil will just break if you swing 'extra super duper hard'.

Now a rapier, if that is what you were thinking of, actually weighs about the same as an arming sword, or a little more, depending on the specific rapier or the arming sword.

Arming swords are quick, in real life, and effective speed in a fight is much more a factor of skill and technique than it is brute strength. That is why a 80 year old Kendoka can fight like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcBf9XUrsJw

Super strong guy with no real martial arts training, will swing wildly and make openings to be attacked. If he does have martial arts training, super strength will no doubt be an advantage. If he has no real training but he does have say, a suit of armor, he could be dangerous by just grappling opponents (especially in a chaotic mixed battle situation)

But there is no changing the fact that steel weapons aren't very good at cutting through steel armor, and fighting with weapons requires skill (and courage) not just strength.

G

Spiryt

2013-01-10, 03:15 PM

Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see anything in particular at 0:25 and 0:27...

I do think that while "super strength" isn't required (and it's hard to define), a lot of energy/force behind the mace or hammer blow definitely help a lot. It's from definition forceful after all.

Although accuracy may indeed be more interesting approach - I keep hearing that with well made armor, finger/joints injuries are by far most prevalent in stuff like that. Bombarding torso/head is rarely all that dangerous.

Main 'armor piercing' thing that stuff like BoN is missing is obviously any sort of more serious thrusting - suddenly those god-damned grill visors wouldn't be so practical. :smallbiggrin:

Galloglaich

2013-01-10, 03:40 PM

Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see anything in particular at 0:25 and 0:27...

I'm referring to full strength, two-handed polearm strikes

I do think that while "super strength" isn't required (and it's hard to define), a lot of energy/force behind the mace or hammer blow definitely help a lot. It's from definition forceful after all.

My understanding of the physics is that it's more about the shape and the technique. The axe blade, even from a running start, doesn't seem to even badly dent the helmets in these re-enactor events. But if they had a proper back-spike on them, you could punch through some of those helmets without even that much force as we have seen in some tests.

Main 'armor piercing' thing that stuff like BoN is missing is obviously any sort of more serious thrusting - suddenly those god-damned grill visors wouldn't be so practical. :smallbiggrin:

And weapons like say, awl-pikes, and actual infantry formation tactics, a bit more martial arts trainnig, and a way to win a fight other than just knocking somebody over. But then of course it would be an actual war rather than a fun (if dangerous) sport, and that isn't really feasible.

G

Spiryt

2013-01-10, 03:53 PM

With spikes of all kind, proper aligment is probably the key indeed - not that much force required, it must not deflect of strike at angle though.

The goal is to make opponent unwilling/able to continue, so this is as realistic as one can go without casualties.

As far as tactics go, they are serious, and more elaborate year by year, but obviously they really anyhow similar to actual historical ones. Starting with the fact that sudden, open field battles of 10 fully, monstrously armored men probably weren't very usual occurrence. :smallbiggrin:

awa

2013-01-10, 08:20 PM

in that video i saw a lot of pushing and kicking if one of those guys had the raw strength of a grizzly bear every push or kick send his foe to the ground or worse knock over the guys behind him in they type of fighting i saw in that video super strength would be a massive advantage.

There were also people blocking blows with shields and weapons if your foe can break your limbs or drive you to the ground every time you try and stop him the fight wont last long.

also the argument was never binary strength vrs skill. But strength has value so a super strong moderately skilled warrior could beat a superior but normal strength opponent the only question is how much does strength tilt the scale with some indicating that strength has virtually no effect and others indicating that in certain types of battle it adds quite a bit of advantage.

Brother Oni

2013-01-11, 08:19 AM

The stronger man doesn't swing the sword much faster, although his swing may reach a particular speed in a shorter time and motion (as the rapier example).

Actually, I've been crunching some numbers and as far as I can tell the longer weapon is faster.

The main assumptions I've made is that the stronger person can complete the strike in the same time as the weaker person by virtue of their increased strength and that the weapon can withstand the greater forces involved.

Suppose we have a swordsman performing an overhead strike. Let's say the attack travels through 90 degrees and it takes him 1 second to complete (he's doing a slow demonstration cut).

Musashi with a 1m sword, the weapon tip has a speed of ~1.6m/s.
Gats with a 2m sword, the weapon tip has a speed of ~3.1m/s
The Hulk with a 9m telegraph pole, the tip has a speed of ~14.1m/s.
Augus from Asura's Wrath with his fully extended sword, has a weapon tip speed of ~20,000km/s.

So going from realistic to the incredibly silly, it would indicate that strength confers an advantage in simply hefting a weapon around.

An issue that I haven't addressed is weapon inertia - the larger and heavier the weapon, the slower it will be to initially move (thus potentially telegraphing their blows to their opponent), but it will be equally harder to deflect or block.
I doubt even Musashi could successfully deflect a 300kg telegraph pole being swung at his head, even if he saw it coming a mile off (he'd dodge it instead).

JustSomeGuy

2013-01-11, 09:20 AM

There are many different 'applications' of strength, and each allows for the production of force in a slightly different way (this is why the world record bench presser doesn't also hold the records for the squat, deadlift, highland games, various strongman events, clean & jerk, snatch, discus, shot put, hammer, javelin etc.)

So to say someone with crazy strength would be agile (a measure of power and reaction speed, intramuscular coordination, nueral drive and various adaptations throughout the skeleton and musculature vs. total bodyweight), hit hard (again, power and neural drive combined with the rehearsed motor patterns for efficiently generating force with the powerful muscles of the hips and transferring this power through the torso, shoulder and arm in a coordinated fashion), or anything else would not be totally accurate. That being said, as muscle is the only anatomical tissue that creates force and thus generates movement, you could summise that a more muscular or stronger individual will be 'better' at stuff that invloves moving (hitting, blocking, speed, force etc.). An analogy would be putting a more powerful engine in a vehicle - it won'te necessarily be faster at a particular motorsport event, nor will it automatically be quicker compared to a different car, but a more powerful engine will generally improve it's capability across the board of tasks and make it better than it was (and either close the gap or increase the advantage against the second car).

As far as 'what would a sudden increase in strength do?', i would say it would very quickly lead to avulsion fractures and tendon ruptures, as the muscles themselves (assuming they themselves are ok with the increased force production) create force which is greater than the injury threshold (or breaking strain, if you will) of the other structures in the kinetic chain (like a car with a suddenly more powerful engine tearing up the gearbox or snapping driveshafts).

Finally, with regards to adrenaline making us stronger, that isn't true. It allows us to perform closer to our true potential, similar to warmups, rehearsals, mental prep techniques, etc. (many of which work to increase our circulating adrenaline, even doing nothing ahead of an expected task will lead to an increase, called the anticipatory response) Without these, we are just performing under our potential.

This thread is pretty cool, by the way, and i love dropping in to read up on this stuff. I do have one question though - with regard to swordsmen (or spearmen, lets' not get caught up in that one!) dropping under pikemen and shredding through them in closer combat, why would they not just lower some of the pikes to deny the approach, either the rearward ranks as a more permanant formation strategy (their reach being compromised i doubt they do much at the front anyway but await being shot down on this!), or simply the front guys drop pikes lower when they see the other soldiers approaching?

Brother Oni

2013-01-11, 11:11 AM

I do have one question though - with regard to swordsmen (or spearmen, lets' not get caught up in that one!) dropping under pikemen and shredding through them in closer combat, why would they not just lower some of the pikes to deny the approach, either the rearward ranks as a more permanant formation strategy (their reach being compromised i doubt they do much at the front anyway but await being shot down on this!), or simply the front guys drop pikes lower when they see the other soldiers approaching?

The pikemen do drop their pikes lower, but there's a minimum number of ranks required to achieve an impassable (from the front anyway) barrier for swordsmen or other close melee equipped troops.

However it's not just a matter of 'dropping your pikes lower', it's keeping the sharp metal pointy bit inbetween them and you. If a swordsman can deflect it to the side or above and step within the reach of the pike's head, then the weapon's effectively useless. Additionally when you're in formation, it's very hard to shorten your grip on your pike, as there's people behind you stopping it.

Thus while a skirmish formation of swordsmen can get past a single rank of pikemen fairly easily, when there's several ranks of them, all staggered at different distances, it becomes a much harder task.

It's only after the pikemen start taking losses (either through missile fire or cannon) or suffer significant formation disruption that swordsmen start trying to get close.

endoperez

2013-01-11, 02:09 PM

I'm referring to full strength, two-handed polearm strikes

Here are some links that might offer something like that:

Pollaxe tournament in Phoenix, 2008. I don't think they actually hit each other with full strength, but it is quite physical.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsJz99KtJjg

However, like others, I don't think just being able to hit with more power would be a game-ender. Here's a choerographed fight where the combatants wear full plate and one's armed with a two-handed hammer. The video is not realistic by any means, but any way, I like the way the shield redirects the blow instead of blocking it force-against-force.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aqRkxTjV1c

edit:
Oh, and this is nice too: sword strike against the chest plate just bounces off. Not full strength, not the ideal tactic, but still cool.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q#t=0m35s

Galloglaich

2013-01-11, 10:17 PM

An analogy would be putting a more powerful engine in a vehicle - it won'te necessarily be faster at a particular motorsport event, nor will it automatically be quicker compared to a different car, but a more powerful engine will generally improve it's capability across the board of tasks and make it better than it was (and either close the gap or increase the advantage against the second car).

I think this is a good analogy, which I would extend as follows: I would suggest fencing (by which I mean any kind of armed hand-to-hand combat, particularly with weapons longer than a foot or two) is less like a Nascar race and more like a Grand Prix race. Putting a Monster Truck engine in a Grand Prix / Formula One car isn't necessarily going to help you win much, or even get through the course.

Especially if you have an inexperienced driver ;)

G

JustSomeGuy

2013-01-12, 02:21 PM

True. Although a development of the engine (or a more powerful or at least power-optimised engine of similar mass and dimensions) currently in the formula one car would enable a skilled driver the better chance of winning; similarly, a proficient fencer would be a better fencer with some strength training (i would focus on agility/reaction times and power, although i absolutely must come clean to know nothing of fencing beond the wearing of face masks and it relies upon point scoring).

EDIT: To put it more snappily, strength isn't a good substitution for skill, but it makes a damn fine addition to it.

Galloglaich

2013-01-13, 11:21 PM

Well... my point is that there is a 'sweet spot' when it comes to brute strength for fighting with weapons, and it's not power-lifter strength. Just like there is a 'sweet spot' for racing that requires agility as well as power; so to stick with our analogy, while a Monster Truck may have an engine in the 1400 - 2000 hp range, an F1 car has closer to 950 hp. Still powerful, but not quite in the same ballpark.

If Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime was sword fighting with that 80 year old guy from the Kendo video, the old guy would cut a tendon in his arm before he could land a blow, and it would be all over.

Just like if a Monster Truck was racing a (124 hp) Mazda Miata around an Formula 1 track, I suspect the Miata would win (assuming the Monster Truck couldn't just make shortcuts across the field ;) ).

Yes strength is beneficial, and there is no doubt the same Kendoka would be more dangerous at age 30 with equivalent (or close to equivalent) skill, and even more so if he was unusually strong. Just like a ferrari would do better than a miata in that contest I mentioned above. But freakish, ginormous strength would not necessarily be a shortcut to victory all on it's own I don't think and I'm not even sure it would help all that much.

Now two guys grappling, or two guys in armor fighting with maces, well maybe then yeah it would be helpful...

G

JustSomeGuy

2013-01-14, 04:30 AM

There is no sweet spot for strength, stronger is always better. The sweet spot is where the additional strength comes at the expense of agility, mobility, energy systems' efficiency, and the time needed to improve that strength. But the strength itself is not the problem, merely the cost of attaining it - which varies according to training advancement and individual factors.

I agree, the monster truck and bodybuilder would blow at the tasks, but equally a more powerful miata or a stronger 80 year old swordsman would have the advantage, which is my point.

Brother Oni

2013-01-14, 07:39 AM

But freakish, ginormous strength would not necessarily be a shortcut to victory all on it's own I don't think and I'm not even sure it would help all that much.

Unless it's of such an extreme to permit things not normally possible (your monster truck making its own shortcuts across the track for example).

The sweet spot is where the additional strength comes at the expense of agility, mobility, energy systems' efficiency, and the time needed to improve that strength.

Agreed. My old sifu advised against doing heavy weights training to improve muscle mass as the additional bulk may affect flexibility.

Yora

2013-01-14, 08:33 AM

In that case you should do muscle strength training instead of muscle volume training. You can get crazy strong without bulging much, and you can have huge muscles that are not very strong.

Matthew

2013-01-14, 08:54 AM

Here is an interesting question. In the series A Song of Ice and Fire some bowmen face off against some crossbowmen with "hard cover" about three feet tall or so. The crossbowmen rest their weapons on the cover and only expose their heads and enough of their bodies to shoot, gaining a huge advantage over the bowmen who have to expose all of their upper body to shoot back. How credible is this scenario?

It seems to me that whilst the crossbowmen might be at a slight advantage, the bowmen could use the cover in other ways. Let us assume bows around five feet in total length and crossbows loaded by belt hooks and manual strength to begin with. Anybody have any input as to what would be the likely difference in effectiveness?

At the moment, for purposes of game translation, the contention is that the crossbowmen could claim 90% cover and the bowmen something like 50% cover. That seems like a big disparity to me, though if the bowmen limited themselves to imitating the crossbowmen I could see it happening. However, I am no expert on shooting, so maybe it is true.

Spiryt

2013-01-14, 10:16 AM

Agreed. My old sifu advised against doing heavy weights training to improve muscle mass as the additional bulk may affect flexibility.

It may, if done very extensively, for sheer purpose of gaining a lot of muscle mass or lifting strength.

If done more 'ordinarily' it's very unlikely that gains may inhibit motoric functions very much.

In that case you should do muscle strength training instead of muscle volume training. You can get crazy strong without bulging much, and you can have huge muscles that are not very strong.

Huge lifting strength for given mass honestly get's harder and harder to gain, from obvious diminished returns reason, and it honestly doesn't have that much influence on actual combat 'effectiveness'.

Gaining more mass that you can still move around dynamically is much more sensible.

At the moment, for purposes of game translation, the contention is that the crossbowmen could claim 90% cover and the bowmen something like 50% cover. That seems like a big disparity to me, though if the bowmen limited themselves to imitating the crossbowmen I could see it happening. However, I am no expert on shooting, so maybe it is true.

This does sound about reasonable to me.

From obvious reasons crossbows will be easier to shot will having nice cover.

With some very light draw bows, that user could span with his arms, hands at weird angles to body, one could loose arrows from some funky positions, I guess. Still not quite the same.

randomhero00

2013-01-14, 10:54 AM

I think the main thing you guys are missing here with the super strength discussion, is that you no longer need to follow normal rules of fighting. Its the same reason why most super heroes/villains don't bother to use any kind of conventional weaponry, if at all. Why bother with a sword, if you can stand a 100 yards back and throw a 1 ton bolder at the enemy ranks? :D

Or in modern times, push a building on top of your enemy?

Or literally swing a wrecking ball around like a yo-yo?

Now as for normal human parameters it'd be strength vs skill vs speed.

Personally, I'd order them thus:
1. Skill
2. Speed
...
5. Strength

When I was in martial arts we were told not to overly jog for endurance (ends up decreasing speed) or muscle (well lifting) building and focus on bursts of speed instead.

Physics easily supports this claim.
kinetic energy = 1/2mass x velocity^2

The velocity is obviously a much bigger factor, being squared, than the 1/2mass. Otherwise, bullets, which are small and light, wouldn't kill us!

Mike_G

2013-01-14, 12:20 PM

Brother Oni

2013-01-14, 02:39 PM

It may, if done very extensively, for sheer purpose of gaining a lot of muscle mass or lifting strength.

If done more 'ordinarily' it's very unlikely that gains may inhibit motoric functions very much.

The example he gave was doing additional chest work on building up the pectorals, which may impede the ability to get your elbow across to cover your centre line.

For example, I cannot sit cross-legged as my legs are too thick (there's a gap of about 2 inches at my knees):
http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001869839/1947313531_cross_legs_answer_2_xlarge.jpeg

In fact, the archers could gain 100% cover of a fifteen foot high wall, and have one guy on top spot and call ranges while they shoot over it like a mortar section.

In addition to this, an archer can short draw his bow for both increased rate of fire and to change the distance when shooting indirectly.
With certain crossbows this is also possible, but not if they need belt hooks to draw.

warty goblin

2013-01-14, 03:09 PM

Spiryt

2013-01-14, 03:09 PM

The bowmen could take one step back and gain the same exact cover as a crossbowman from the same wall.

A bowman can't rest his weapon on a wall, but you don't need to hang your left over the wall like the old guy at Helms' deep in the movie.

In fact, the archers could gain 100% cover of a fifteen foot high wall, and have one guy on top spot and call ranges while they shoot over it like a mortar section.

By the same geometric principles though, by taking such step back, archer also limits his angles of shooting significantly, not to mention the vision of what's beyond the cover.

As far as "mortaring" with bows, it's certainly possible, but I don't think I've ever heard about even remotely accurate bow/whatever fire while someone tells you what he's seeing...

Mortar shells blow up, arrows won't do here.

The example he gave was doing additional chest work on building up the pectorals, which may impede the ability to get your elbow across to cover your centre line.

For example, I cannot sit cross-legged as my legs are too thick (there's a gap of about 2 inches at my knees):
http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001869839/1947313531_cross_legs_answer_2_xlarge.jpeg

If someone is body-building so heavily, that muscle growth impedes his range motion, it indeed will be a problem. But that's specific situation, and such person won't train martial arts anyway, body just wouldn't be able to do both, even with liberal application of steroids.

Brother Oni

2013-01-14, 03:25 PM

As far as "mortaring" with bows, it's certainly possible, but I don't think I've ever heard about even remotely accurate bow/whatever fire while someone tells you what he's seeing...

You've never heard of clout archery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clout_archery)?

I will concede that indirect fire of this sort is used more against formations, so accuracy is less of an issue.

If someone is body-building so heavily, that muscle growth impedes his range motion, it indeed will be a problem. But that's specific situation, and such person won't train martial arts anyway, body just wouldn't be able to do both, even with liberal application of steroids.

Bolo Yeung (http://cdn.asianmoviepulse.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/post/dracula-2013-bolo-yeung-cynthia-rothrock/d.jpg) did both, so I wouldn't say that martial arts and body building are mutually exclusive.

Spiryt

2013-01-14, 03:34 PM

You've never heard of clout archery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clout_archery)?

I will concede that indirect fire of this sort is used more against formations, so accuracy is less of an issue.

Uh, clout archery is done with your own eyes, at agles of 40, maybe 50 degrees at very most.

Formation would have to be something like 100x100 men to be hitable without looking...

Bolo Yeung (http://cdn.asianmoviepulse.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/post/dracula-2013-bolo-yeung-cynthia-rothrock/d.jpg) did both, so I wouldn't say that martial arts and body building are mutually exclusive.

He wasn't competitive in any MA from what I see, and his body anyway was nowhere near being very hypertrophied for BB standards, not enough to inhibit his motion or for his endurance/coordination to suffer.

So no problem here.

I'm talking about being "pro" in either of those.

Every single professional martial artist, boxer, wrestler, whoever will do mass/strength/conditioning programs with weights, it's pretty much required for success.

But human body has limits, and it cannot do martial arts training/conditionig and bulking/shredding itself enough for professional body-building competitions at the same time.

Brother Oni

2013-01-14, 04:05 PM

Uh, clout archery is done with your own eyes, at agles of 40, maybe 50 degrees at very most.

I've done clout. You can't look at your target at full draw because your arm and bow are in the way, plus doing so changes your reference points - you angle your whole body, not just your arm.

Normally when shooting clout, you get to shoot sighters first, so you figure out what angle to adjust your body to hit the target. In the case stated, if you have somebody shouting out where your arrows are landing, then you can adjust - sure it's not as good as going up and seeing where they're falling, but it's the next best thing.

Formation would have to be something like 100x100 men to be hitable without looking...

Without a spotter, I agree. Mike_G's post said that there is one available though.

He wasn't competitive in any MA from what I see, and his body anyway was nowhere near being very hypertrophied for BB standards, not enough to inhibit his motion or for his endurance/coordination to suffer.

While he wasn't in competitive MA, he did hold the Hong Kong bodybuilder title for 10 years.
That said, I disagree that only full contact competitive fighters can be valid martial artists.

I think we're in agreement on general terms, just differing in what we interpret as 'body building'.

Spiryt

2013-01-14, 04:23 PM

I've done clout. You can't look at your target at full draw because your arm and bow are in the way, plus doing so changes your reference points - you angle your whole body, not just your arm.

Normally when shooting clout, you get to shoot sighters first, so you figure out what angle to adjust your body to hit the target. In the case stated, if you have somebody shouting out where your arrows are landing, then you can adjust - sure it's not as good as going up and seeing where they're falling, but it's the next best thing.

One still had seen the target split of seconds before such shot, compare how's the wind going, how is the target moving... Completely incomparable to not seeing it at all.

Then come the angles on other axises (not only up/down) that obviously pretty instantly get lost if shooter can't actually see target...

In short, I can't really imagine shooting at anything smaller than a barn without looking.

While he wasn't in competitive MA, he did hold the Hong Kong bodybuilder title for 10 years.
That said, I disagree that only full contact competitive fighters can be valid martial artists.

I think we're in agreement on general terms, just differing in what we interpret as 'body building'.

Oh, they can be valid martial artists, the thing is that one can't be really 'pro' at both of those at the same time.

And without being such, those two really doesn't interfere much, said Bolo didn't even look swollen enough to be in any way "interfered".

That's why this all "lifting slows" etc. is pretty weird point.

Dorian Yates won't be able to do any MA very seriously, but it's extreme case of body building, not 'normal' lifting for some strength/bulk in muscle/joint system.

Brother Oni

2013-01-14, 05:08 PM

In short, I can't really imagine shooting at anything smaller than a barn without looking.

On a personal missile weapon level, I agree with you. Getting a shot in the target area of approximately a barn seems reasonable with only a separate spotter working with you.

With crew served weapons, particularly artillery, it's a different matter entirely.

fusilier

2013-01-14, 05:10 PM

The bowmen could take one step back and gain the same exact cover as a crossbowman from the same wall.

A bowman can't rest his weapon on a wall, but you don't need to hang your left over the wall like the old guy at Helms' deep in the movie.

In fact, the archers could gain 100% cover of a fifteen foot high wall, and have one guy on top spot and call ranges while they shoot over it like a mortar section.

During the Battle of the Little Bighorn, when Custer's command found itself under attack. They retreated to a ridge-line, dismounted and set up firing lines. Any native that poked his head over the ridgeline was met with a volley of carbine fire. So the natives resorted to indirect fire with their bows. This is well attested to in Native American accounts of the fight.

Because nobody from Custer's command survived, we don't know for certain how effective such fire was. I think the belief is that they got in trouble when they started to run out of ammo and decided to move. At which point the natives were able to come out of cover and attack them. I can't remember if there was any estimate as to how many casualties they took while in the defensive position, from indirect fire -- but it must have been low.

fusilier

2013-01-14, 05:20 PM

. . . That's why this all "lifting slows" etc. is pretty weird point.

Dorian Yates won't be able to do any MA very seriously, but it's extreme case of body building, not 'normal' lifting for some strength/bulk in muscle/joint system.

There's an old concept of "muscle binding" or "muscle-bound", the belief being that large muscles reduce flexibility. This is considered to have been debunked. My understanding is that putting on large muscles isn't necessarily going to reduce flexibility, as long as flexibility exercises are included in the routine. That implies that muscle "bulking" exercises alone might limit flexibility, but that's different from saying that big-muscles and flexibility are mutually exclusive.

It may be common in practice, as people focus on one or the other, rather than attempting both.

On the other hand, it is often claimed that muscle size and muscle strength aren't exactly correlated, and people with large "showy" muscles aren't, necessarily, stronger than people with smaller looking muscles. (Although I've heard conflicting anecdotes on this too)

Raum

2013-01-14, 06:51 PM

There's an old concept of "muscle binding" or "muscle-bound", the belief being that large muscles reduce flexibility. This is considered to have been debunked. My understanding is that putting on large muscles isn't necessarily going to reduce flexibility, as long as flexibility exercises are included in the routine. That implies that muscle "bulking" exercises alone might limit flexibility, but that's different from saying that big-muscles and flexibility are mutually exclusive.

It may be common in practice, as people focus on one or the other, rather than attempting both.

On the other hand, it is often claimed that muscle size and muscle strength aren't exactly correlated, and people with large "showy" muscles aren't, necessarily, stronger than people with smaller looking muscles. This!

Others touched on it and I'll state it explicitly: your training should be functional.

Bodybuilders train for mass because definition is what judges look for - most are relatively weak by competition time. Weight cutting and dehydration are additional methods of seeking definition. Neither helps strength, particularly when taken to extremes. Compare them to a wrestler who needs strength, speed, and flexibility while being able to hit a target weight. He has to train for explosive power and movement - he'll be strong. However it won't be the same strength as a Strongman competitor's. They'll seek pure sustained and repetitive strength without needing the speed or pure explosive power. And none of them will have the pure endurance of an iron man competitor.

Do note, my very brief descriptions can't cover all facets of the various sports. I've just pointed out a few differences.

Train for function! ;)

Mike_G

2013-01-14, 07:26 PM

Wow, as expected, the least important part of my post got the most attention.

My main point was that a wall that would give cover to a crossbowman, say a chest high wall, where he could rest his bow or the hand holding it would give the same cover to a longbowman who stood two feet back from the wall. You don't need to expose yourself to shoot a bow.

The only time a crossbow would be better at allowing you to shoot from cover would be that you could shoot it while prone, which isn't really practical with a longbow.

As far as using a bow to fire indirectly, I don't know any instance that it happened, but if you were trying to range a pike square on the other side of a ridge, I think it could be done quite easily with a spotter.

Machine guns can be fired indirectly with a spotter. This was practiced by (at least) the US Marines in between the World Wars as a way to use massed machine guns to lay down fire over an area. Using spotters, machine gun platoons competed against mortar platoons to hit targets on the other side of a ridgeline.

By the time WWII was fought, infantry formations had gotten dispersed enough that it wasn't really worth it, and nobody really used battalions of machine guns fining indirectly.

But a lot of nonexploding projectiles landing in the area of an enemy in close formation is a pretty real threat.

Galloglaich

2013-01-14, 08:58 PM

Clout archery and other forms of indirect shots with bows and arrows seem to have been very commonly used in Medieval Europe, it was one of the principle advantages of bows over crossbows, since crossbows tended to have a much better (anywhere from three to four times) direct shot range while the arrows shot from bows perform a bit better than the stout, much heavier crossbow bolts do at terminal velocity. But even crossbows were used this way:

http://images2.fotosik.pl/28/zh3w8ob0w9if9lcsgen.jpg

With crossbows it was common to use special bolts, sometimes made to whistle, called 'bremsen', for the longest range / area shots, similar to how the recurves were used at long range; the killing shots were usually short to medium range, just as with the recurve.

With the longbow though the clout shooting seemed to be done with rather heavy war arrows and could cause serious casualties.

Steadying a crossbow on any kind of cover also helps with accuracy, just as it did with firearms. Crossbows, like early firearms, were typically used with pavises, war-wagons, or some other kind of mobile or fixed fortification for maximum effect, due to their relatively low rate of shots, and also due to their heightened accuracy and the ability to wait until the right moment to shoot. But with experienced marksmen, that rate of shots was not nearly as inferior to bows as is usually bruted about on History Channel and so forth. Nor is it true that the crossbow was a weapon 'just anybody' could use. Simple crossbows were fairly .... simple, but most of your late Medieval military grade weapons were anything but.

Crossbows often held their own against both longbows and recurves especially in Central Europe, for nearly three hundred years. In fact Crossbows remained the most popular ranged weapon for dealing with Steppe nomad horse-archers into about the middle of the 15th Century, even though the hand-cannon, arquebus, longbow and recurve were also available. The crossbow only very gradually began to lose ground to guns, mainly due to cost of training and manufacture. Guns got a lot easier to deal with after the invention of corned powder circa 1450.

All four weapons, firearms longbows, recurves, crossbows had their various strengths and weaknesses, but remained in competition through the Medieval period. I suspect that as he so often does with his historical writing, George R. R. Martin was borrowing from history.

G

Brother Oni

2013-01-15, 03:17 AM

fusilier

2013-01-15, 04:27 AM

Machine guns can be fired indirectly with a spotter. This was practiced by (at least) the US Marines in between the World Wars as a way to use massed machine guns to lay down fire over an area. Using spotters, machine gun platoons competed against mortar platoons to hit targets on the other side of a ridgeline.

By the time WWII was fought, infantry formations had gotten dispersed enough that it wasn't really worth it, and nobody really used battalions of machine guns fining indirectly.

But a lot of nonexploding projectiles landing in the area of an enemy in close formation is a pretty real threat.

Actually, I've heard of indirect machine gun fire being used in WW2. I'm not sure if I'm remembering the details correctly but I think the Japanese had pre-planned zones for indirect machine gun fire as part of defensive arrangements. At long ranges machines guns create a "beaten zone", so they could defend a beach or choke point from a considerable distance. It uses a lot of ammo, but that's kind of the point. Machine guns were, initially, treated as artillery, so it made sense to use artillery tactics with them.

GraaEminense

2013-01-15, 04:58 AM

While we´re talking about crossbows and the like...

I´m in the process of tweaking the weapons for WFRP, and am wondering about missile weapon ranges. The system requires three range categories for each weapon: short (easy to hit), medium (where most missile exchanges take place) and long (the limit of the weapon´s effective range).

Weapon types are rather abstract, I´m looking to differentiate a bit more without complicating things too much.

I´d really like some realistic numbers to work from though. Despite the simplification of weapon types, I´d very much appreciate some advise on what would be the preferred range and extreme effective range of these medieval/renaissance missile weapons.

Gunpowder:
The setting is somewhere between Renaissance and 30 Years´ War. I´m guessing wheellock and snaphaunce are most common, with matchlocks being somewhat primitive. I´m guessing pistol, arquebus and caliver cover the necessary bases. Some thoughts on how much rifling would add to the ranges of these things would also be appreciated.

Crossbows:
I guess I´ll just make three simple categories: Hand-spanned light crossbows, stirrup or cranequin-spanned ´normal´crossbows, and the windlass-spanned heavy crossbows.

Bows:
This is the weapon I have most trouble dividing into easy subtypes. Despite recoiling at the thought I guess I´m going with just short bow (civilian hunting bows), bow (some kind of middle ground) and longbow (proper warbows). Recurves will just have to fit in here somewhere.

Throwing weapons:
Javelins, throwing knives and throwing axes.

Slings:
Sling and staff sling.

Yeah, I know that´s quite a few different ones. Some pointers on just a few would still be appreciated.

Matthew

2013-01-15, 05:31 AM

Interesting stuff. Any archers feel like throwing in their opinions as to the feasibility of using cover relative to crossbows.

Gunpowder:
The setting is somewhere between Renaissance and 30 Years´ War. I´m guessing wheellock and snaphaunce are most common, with matchlocks being somewhat primitive. I´m guessing pistol, arquebus and caliver cover the necessary bases. Some thoughts on how much rifling would add to the ranges of these things would also be appreciated.

Crossbows:
I guess I´ll just make three simple categories: Hand-spanned light crossbows, stirrup or cranequin-spanned ´normal´crossbows, and the windlass-spanned heavy crossbows.

Bows:
This is the weapon I have most trouble dividing into easy subtypes. Despite recoiling at the thought I guess I´m going with just short bow (civilian hunting bows), bow (some kind of middle ground) and longbow (proper warbows). Recurves will just have to fit in here somewhere.

Not sure about gunpowder, but with bows and crossbows I have found the "rule of three" helpful, and the nomenclature of D&D:

Short Bow, Long Bow, Great Bow
Light Crossbow, Heavy Crossbow, Great Crossbow

All four weapons, firearms longbows, recurves, crossbows had their various strengths and weaknesses, but remained in competition through the Medieval period. I suspect that as he so often does with his historical writing, George R. R. Martin was borrowing from history.

No doubt, but it is a question of how discriminating he is. After all, he is quite happy to tell us in the first book that long swords are designed for piercing heavy armour. :smallbiggrin:

Brother Oni

2013-01-15, 06:24 AM

Interesting stuff. Any archers feel like throwing in their opinions as to the feasibility of using cover relative to crossbows.

Mike_G covered most of it, but I'll add my tuppence:

Given that a crossbow is used effectively like a rifle with the added benefit of indirect fire, I would say that it would make better use of cover than a bow.

That said, if an archer were willing to compromise on drawing and stance, they could make almost as effective use by holding the bow almost horizontal rather than traditionally upright like normal.

The two feet back mentioned is a necessity for being able to draw the bow rather than something for cover (the arrow is still going to be loosed from virtually on top of the wall).

I'll have a play around with my recurve tonight to check the feasibility of drawing from a crouching position with a horizontal aligned bow, although my local range is somewhat waterlogged at the moment so I can't test any effects on accuracy.

Conners

2013-01-15, 06:36 AM

Thiel

2013-01-15, 06:56 AM

Storm Bringer

2013-01-15, 06:57 AM

Actually, I've heard of indirect machine gun fire being used in WW2. I'm not sure if I'm remembering the details correctly but I think the Japanese had pre-planned zones for indirect machine gun fire as part of defensive arrangements. At long ranges machines guns create a "beaten zone", so they could defend a beach or choke point from a considerable distance. It uses a lot of ammo, but that's kind of the point. Machine guns were, initially, treated as artillery, so it made sense to use artillery tactics with them.

the brits still teach indirect fire for L7 GPMG (The FN MAG, known in american service as the M240), when using them in a tripod mounted Substained Fire role.

i've not done the training for it, but i know it was still being taught to people a year or two ago, and i've no reason to think they've taken it out yet..

GraaEminense

2013-01-15, 07:06 AM

Immediate impressions: he does not know how to use either weapon, but the longsword seems to get the rawest end of that deal.

His blows are not very well done, and he does not strike with the optimal part of the blade but too close to the hilt. With the performance against the leather armour I´d guess the longsword is not properly sharpened either.

I guess he´s just a bit better with the katana and may have a better specimen to work with.

Not saying he´s biased, just that he doesn´t convince me he knows what he´s doing.

Matthew

2013-01-15, 07:10 AM

One of the worst shows on the History Channel.

Spiryt

2013-01-15, 08:01 AM

Anyone seen this video of Katana vs. Longsword? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo

I don't buy into it, that one outperforms the other so clearly... Problem is, I'm not skilled enough to tell what parts are wrong. The armour might be badly made, same for the longsword, his technique may've been awful on the cutting and thrusting.

Everything is wrong, from "leather armor" trough 'katana' and longsword and 'facts'....

It's like I build some kind of roughly working pressure-temperature device from old part, called it "DeLongi" and compared to the other one with "Zepter coffee" mark. Compared at making tea, for additional attraction.

Just no sense at all, there's nothing even resembling sense in that video, let alone scientific method.

The thing that one can learn here, is that while smashing some trash bins with roughly similar blades, stiffer and stouter one will generally make bigger dent... That's not exactly movie worthy. :smallbiggrin:

Spiryt

2013-01-15, 08:42 AM

Bodybuilders train for mass because definition is what judges look for - most are relatively weak by competition time. Weight cutting and dehydration are additional methods of seeking definition.

Ronnie Coleman or Jay Cutler can lift ridiculous weights. Seriously strong guys, but there's strength and strength. They will have obvious problems with application said strength in more practical manner, because body sacrifices a lot of it's capabilities to support such morbidly overgrown muscles.

Crossbows often held their own against both longbows and recurves especially in Central Europe, for nearly three hundred years. In fact Crossbows remained the most popular ranged weapon for dealing with Steppe nomad horse-archers into about the middle of the 15th Century, even though the hand-cannon, arquebus, longbow and recurve were also available.

In 15th century Poland, there were literally several mentions of bowmen in foot rotas or squads.

It was pretty normal situation for central Europe anyway, crossbows were very dominant ranged weapon, generally, before giving ground to guns.

Autolykos

2013-01-15, 11:16 AM

On that bow vs. crossbow indirect fire thing:
If your cover has the optimal height and you can choose your distance from it, both weapons can be used in a way that only exposes your head to shots incoming in the same angle you're shooting. Shots incoming at a flatter angle than you're shooting at will have a hard time hitting you, while steeper ones will easily get behind your cover. So the contest is actually in getting the steepest angles possible, which is somewhat counter-intuitive, and not what bows or crossbows are actually built for.

Crossbow might have a slight advantage when wall height and distance is fixed, since its angle doesn't vary that much with range, and it will allow you to look over the cover for longer ranges (because of the flatter angle). Also, rate of fire matters a lot less since you'll only expose yourself while shooting.

Bow has a huge advantage because of the ability to half-draw, allowing to adjust the angle in which the shots will be incoming (and reducing effective cover for the opponents). Arrows also have a higher sectional density at roughly the same drag coefficient, and thus a higher terminal velocity. I don't know if this was done (and it will certainly affect accuracy), but this might even allow the archers to use the "higher" of the two firing arcs.

Spiryt

2013-01-15, 11:30 AM

.
Bow has a huge advantage because of the ability to half-draw, allowing to adjust the angle in which the shots will be incoming (and reducing effective cover for the opponents). Arrows also have a higher sectional density at roughly the same drag coefficient, and thus a higher terminal velocity. I don't know if this was done (and it will certainly affect accuracy), but this might even allow the archers to use the "higher" of the two firing arcs.

Half draw will also adjust the energy of the arrow though, usually to some very insufficient quantities, probably.

Galloglaich

2013-01-15, 11:52 AM

Autolykos

2013-01-15, 12:05 PM

Half draw will also adjust the energy of the arrow though, usually to some very insufficient quantities, probably.True. But as long as you still have enough energy to cover the distance, they should remain at least somewhat dangerous. At least more dangerous than an arrow that doesn't hit at all because it's coming in too flat.

Galloglaich

2013-01-15, 12:16 PM

I´d really like some realistic numbers to work from though. Despite the simplification of weapon types, I´d very much appreciate some advise on what would be the preferred range and extreme effective range of these medieval/renaissance missile weapons.

Gunpowder:
The setting is somewhere between Renaissance and 30 Years´ War. I´m guessing wheellock and snaphaunce are most common, with matchlocks being somewhat primitive. I´m guessing pistol, arquebus and caliver cover the necessary bases. Some thoughts on how much rifling would add to the ranges of these things would also be appreciated.

Guns work two ways basically. First: individual shots, maximum realistic range for regular pistols, 5- 10 meters, horse pistols is about 10 - 20 meters, arquebus / calvier about 30-50 meters. Second, volley fire, this was usually used about 100 meters distance, but can be dangerous up to around 250-300 meters in ideal cases, maybe more though from that point the ball starts to lose power and become 'spent', it varies widely depending on the caliber and the amount of powder used, and the length of the barrel. Muskets which you left out have longer range and more 'punch'. Rifled barrels were rare but not unheard of and improve accuracy considerably.

The exception is a well maintained weapon shot by an expert, they could sometimes achieve astounding accuracy even with smoothbore weapons, up to 200 meters. This had to do with getting a good seal in the barrel when loading, using just the right powder,

Crossbows:
I guess I´ll just make three simple categories: Hand-spanned light crossbows, stirrup or cranequin-spanned ´normal´crossbows, and the windlass-spanned heavy crossbows.

The small Cranequin weapons could be, and often were just as powerful as the windlass weapons, and led to the phasing out of the latter by the mid 15th Century at least in Central Europe. Cranequin being easier to deal with on horseback in particular (also the goats foot). Medium crossbows are described as having a 'direct shot' range of 80 meters, and an effective 'area shot' range of about 250 meters. Powerful crossbows direct shot range maybe 150 -200 meters, max arcing shots / area shot range about 400 meters.

Bows:
This is the weapon I have most trouble dividing into easy subtypes. Despite recoiling at the thought I guess I´m going with just short bow (civilian hunting bows), bow (some kind of middle ground) and longbow (proper warbows). Recurves will just have to fit in here somewhere.

I think you basically have longbows and recurves, and various strengths of both. All bows direct shot range, about 50 meters. Longbow max range for area shots (people argue about this alot) probably around 300 meters, more for very powerful 'great bows / war bows', and add 50 - 100 meters for flight arrows. Recurves probably about the same with a normal arrow, but up to 450 meters or more with flight arrows.

Throwing weapons:
Javelins, throwing knives and throwing axes.

Javelins yes, also darts (see 'Swiss Arrow'), I don't know of throwing knives being used in armies. For throwing axes see 'hurlbat'. Javelins come in two versions, lighter weapons with the amentum and the vanes can be thrown effectively maybe 80- 100 meters, obviously more in ideal circumstances. Olympic javelin throwers manage a range of about 240 feet, which is 73 meters. But the amentum and the vanes can confer a bit more range for the same effort. The heavier armor-piercing javelins are probably more like 20 meters which is the direct shot (individual target) range regardless.

Slings:
Sling and staff sling.

Yeah, I know that´s quite a few different ones. Some pointers on just a few would still be appreciated.

Slings can be shot very long range, maybe 300 meters, but with very low accuracy in most cases (except perhaps by very very skilled shooters who grew up with the weapon, in Roman times they used to be recruited from the Baeleric Isles for example). Staff-slings were used to throw something like molatov cocktails (naptha etc.).

Keep in mind, regarding siege warfare, all missile weapons get better range when shot or thrown from on-high.

G

Straybow

2013-01-15, 12:35 PM

I hear what you are saying, but ... review what you said above and watch this carefully,

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

make especial note of 0:25 and 0:27 I can't tell what you want me to notice, except that a guy with a polearm is whacking a guy on the helmet, which obviously does not cut through the armor...

I think while it's true specialized armor-piercing weapons like picks and maces can hurt armor, you don't need to be super strong for that to work. Non armor-piercing weapons won't suddenly become armor-piercing simply because you are a lot stronger (unless you are say, as strong as a bulldozer or a locomotive) Yes, the first was my thesis. The second part has missed my point.

As for a foil vs. an arming sword. ... Now a rapier, if that is what you were thinking of... No, I was specifically talking about an exceptionally strong person, one who could wield an arming sword as easily as you or I would wield a foil. My writing was hurried, I meant to change both words to "foil."

Arming swords are quick, in real life, and effective speed in a fight is much more a factor of skill and technique than it is brute strength. That is why a 80 year old Kendoka can fight like this: That's a longsword technique, which depends on two handed use for its quickness and power. Nonetheless, if that 80yo dude were (magically?) vastly stronger his movements would be quicker and blows heavier. If those combatants were armored many of the blows would be ineffective, unless the wielder were far stronger.

Many Euro longsword techniques depend on binding and disarming, tripping, and otherwise making up for the inability to hurt the opponent through the armor. The remaining techniques involve driving the point of the sword through a gap to bypass the armor, or even bashing on the helmet with the hilt of the sword. Polearm techniques are not as dependent on those tricks because it can strike hard enough to hurt the armored opponent.

Super strong guy with no real martial arts training ...wasn't the point. You said that the idea of strength increasing damage "assumes that you can cut through armor if you are just real strong." I was countering that assumption.

But there is no changing the fact that steel weapons aren't very good at cutting through steel armor, and fighting with weapons requires skill (and courage) not just strength. Which is why I pointed out that a side sword, wielded with enough strength, can impart an impact as great as would require a polearm for a "normal" person, which doesn't need to cut through steel.

Straybow

2013-01-15, 12:39 PM

The axe blade, even from a running start, doesn't seem to even badly dent the helmets in these re-enactor events. But if they had a proper back-spike on them, you could punch through some of those helmets without even that much force as we have seen in some tests. But you don't have to punch through the steel to incapacitate. A heavy blow like that can stun the man and drop him to the ground. Another could knock him out cold.

Spiryt

2013-01-15, 12:39 PM

Longbow max range for area shots (people argue about this alot) probably around 300 meters, more for very powerful 'great bows / war bows',

Very powerful bow won't improve the velocity, in fact it will generally tend to get slower - thicker, more 'lazy' arms are not good here, so very powerful war bows will be able to shoot even heavier arrow at the same distance, not the same at greater one.

Range will be generally lower too, anything around 300 meters is already more of a flight range.

http://www.theenglishwarbowsociety.com/DonningtonFlightResults2012_EN.html

Those guys have very solid data compared to most, including precise construction of arrows those records are attained with.

Straybow

2013-01-15, 12:52 PM

The stronger man doesn't swing the sword much faster, although his swing may reach a particular speed in a shorter time and motion (as the rapier example). Actually, I've been crunching some numbers and as far as I can tell the longer weapon is faster. I wasn't talking about length of weapon.

In combat a person is very rarely going to swing a weapon to "terminal velocity" (the fastest his limbs can move). It requires too much wind-up, it's a horribly slow maneuver. The only time you see it is when your opponent can't react, dispatching a foe you've knocked to the ground, for example.

If I'm holding my sword in a guard and a throw a blow, my weapon will reach a particular velocity. The strong man doesn't necessarily have a higher weapon velocity, but he can reach that velocity with a much shorter swing. His quick chop from an extended position could be equivalent to my roundhouse swing.

An extremely strong man, using an ordinary one-handed sword, could develop momentum and kinetic energy equivalent to the polearm of an "average" guy.

Straybow

2013-01-15, 01:03 PM

Well... my point is that there is a 'sweet spot' when it comes to brute strength for fighting with weapons, and it's not power-lifter strength. Just like there is a 'sweet spot' for racing that requires agility as well as power; so to stick with our analogy, while a Monster Truck may have an engine in the 1400 - 2000 hp range, an F1 car has closer to 950 hp. Still powerful, but not quite in the same ballpark. Not a valid comparison. The limitation with horsepower is the ability to transmit the power effectively to the ground. If you put street car wheels on the F1 the tires would spin, unable to grip the pavement. If you put racing slicks on the monster truck, those tires would spin, unable to grip the dirt.

If Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime was sword fighting with that 80 year old guy from the Kendo video, the old guy would cut a tendon in his arm before he could land a blow, and it would be all over. Yes, if Arnold were swinging his sword cinematic-style as in the Conan movie. But if I had Arnold/Conan's physique with my training, I would be better able to take the kendo guy than with my lesser physique.

Brother Oni

2013-01-15, 02:25 PM

I wasn't talking about length of weapon.

I think you're missing the point of my post. Assuming unnatural strength permits them all to swing their weapon at the same speed, simple physics dictates that the tip of the longer weapon travels faster.

Even if a stronger man doesn't swing any faster, by virtue of having a longer weapon, the tip will travel faster assuming you're swinging it in an arc.

I fully understand the point you're trying to make - the stronger man has more explosive power, allowing him to achieve the same amount of energy as a weaker man in a shorter distance. The point I was trying to make was independent of that.

Galloglaich

2013-01-15, 02:40 PM

But you don't have to punch through the steel to incapacitate. A heavy blow like that can stun the man and drop him to the ground. Another could knock him out cold.

How do you know? It doesn't seem to be the case in that video I posted (or in most of the Bohurt footage I've seen). Armor protects pretty well including against blunt impact, at least from an ordinary polearm. I think in most cases this idea of 'stunning blows' delivered by swords (which has been debated to death, as it's a standard assumption of the SCA) or even axes or halberd-blades, is not borne out by the facts.

The most significant difference comes much more from using a weapon designed to defeat the armor (war-pick, flanged mace, awl-pike, poll hammer, flail) than from extra force (running start, big two handed swing).

Also the European fencing techniques you are talking about are for harnischefechten, i.e. armored fighting. The scenario that guy described was 'glass' which I assumed he meant to mean, unarmoured, strongmen. I am suggesting that the power is of far less significance than the technique when it comes to striking with a polearm or a sword. Now with ringen (grappling, which all the throws etc. are part of) yes greater strength would help. It would also help you move around in armor.

When using an arming sword vs. a foil, the main difference is really the air resistance, arming swords aren't very heavy.

Very powerful bow won't improve the velocity, in fact it will generally tend to get slower - thicker, more 'lazy' arms are not good here, so very powerful war bows will be able to shoot even heavier arrow at the same distance, not the same at greater one.

On the website you posted, unless I'm missing something, all the longest ranges were achieved using flight arrows with the heaviest bows (120, 130, 140 lbs). 308, 314, 326, 336 yards all with 120-140 lb bows. 282, 289 yards with standard arrows.

Range will be generally lower too, anything around 300 meters is already more of a flight range.

I'm assuming that soldiers who have been shooting their entire lives as part of their profession, using bows made by experts who were making them for military use, would achieve a little bit better range than even todays most skilled and enthusiastic amateurs using well made reconstructions, though not necessarily a whole lot more. But obviously 289 yards isn't too shy of 300 meters, my estimate was pretty close. I'm happy with it :)

Recurves, I'm told (including my English longbow enthusiasts active in that scene) are a little more efficient and shoot farther for the same draw weight.

http://www.theenglishwarbowsociety.com/DonningtonFlightResults2012_EN.html

Those guys have very solid data compared to most, including precise construction of arrows those records are attained with.

Agreed, it's a great resource. Bookmarked.

G

Spiryt

2013-01-15, 03:32 PM

How do you know? It doesn't seem to be the case in that video I posted (or in most of the Bohurt footage I've seen). Armor protects pretty well including against blunt impact, at least from an ordinary polearm. I think in most cases this idea of 'stunning blows' delivered by swords (which has been debated to death, as it's a standard assumption of the SCA) or even axes or halberd-blades, is not borne out by the facts.

Blunt impact usually tends to injure fingers/forearms/thighs there, from what I keep hearing. Stunning via head blow should happen from time to time as well, I guess.

On the website you posted, unless I'm missing something, all the longest ranges were achieved using flight arrows with the heaviest bows (120, 130, 140 lbs). 308, 314, 326, 336 yards all with 120-140 lb bows. 282, 289 yards with standard arrows.

Yeah, 170 monsters aren't actually used to send flights.

Even if there's no actual decrease in flight performance between, say 110 pounder, and 160 one, there's no gain either, that's the point.

I'm assuming that soldiers who have been shooting their entire lives as part of their profession, using bows made by experts who were making them for military use, would achieve a little bit better range than even todays most skilled and enthusiastic amateurs using well made reconstructions, though not necessarily a whole lot more.

Well, the thing is though, that best of those guys are also training long years in doing this, eat well and sleep well (probably), shoot in very comfortable conditions, and record the very best shots.

Their bows are also very good ones, generally made for performance, not abused much, changed for "new model" a lot and so on...

Therefore, I would not mythologize this much - at least not about as hard physics as range.

Stout yeomen from 15th century would very obviously made way better stand in actual battle than those guys, but I wouldn't expect much better sheer range from such bows.

Recurves, I'm told (including my English longbow enthusiasts active in that scene) are a little more efficient and shoot farther for the same draw weight.

Recurve simply means very tip being bent away from the shooter, and longbow can easily be recurved, in fact there's quite a lot of period depictions of recurved longbows.

What he probably meant that Steppe composite (retro)reflexes with siyah, selectively working parts of the arms, and so on - those were generally at least a bit more efficient than the best selfbows - which is generally true, some of those bows were simply on higher level of design.

Really impressive, considering that their creators had no actual idea of leverage, mechanical advantage, elasticity and so on.

Galloglaich

2013-01-15, 04:11 PM

Blunt impact usually tends to injure fingers/forearms/thighs there, from what I keep hearing. Stunning via head blow should happen from time to time as well, I guess.

Yes well, I've watched quite a few of these and it seems like people get hit over and over on the head and I have't seen to many get knocked out - any more than we do in HEMA events getting hit with steel swords with just fencing masks for protection (though I have seen people get their heads cut or abraded by the mesh of the mask)

Hand and thigh and forearm injuries I think are largely due to limitations to the gear, (especially hands which are hard to make sufficiently protected) and amount to broken bones and bad bruises.

Yeah, 170 monsters aren't actually used to send flights.

Even if there's no actual decrease in flight performance between, say 110 pounder, and 160 one, there's no gain either, that's the point.

Well, everyone seems to disagree as to what the actual range of draw strengths were historically, some people swear that every bow found on the Mary Rose was a 200 lb draw bow and so on, others say the typical was more like 80 lbs. I can only guess based on what I've read of primary sources, my own experiences and talking to friends involved in this activity but I think 'normal' for a longbow is 80-100 lbs and 'powerful' is 100 - 140 lbs. Same for recurves. Obviously there is some point of diminishing returns but the best range clearly comes from the more powerful weapons in the 110-140 lbs range. And not everybody can shoot a bow that powerful, I can't. You have to have training and serious strength in muscles most people don't normally use. I think 150+ lbs bows were a rarity.

Well, the thing is though, that best of those guys are also training long years in doing this, eat well and sleep well (probably), shoot in very comfortable conditions, and record the very best shots. ...

Their bows are also very good ones, generally made for performance, not abused much, changed for "new model" a lot and so on...

Therefore, I would not mythologize this much - at least not about as hard physics as range.

Well, this is another hot debate topic, internet fault line etc. I am of the school that people in period, and weapons in period, were / are better than equivalent re-enactors today. I believe the comments about malnourished people and so on are highly exxagerated, this does not seem to show up in forensic work so much when it comes to the warrior classes, quite to the contrary. As you probably know exhumed archers from this period have skeletal evidence of overdevelped arm muscles, and this even goes back to the Viking Age.

This guy from the 14th Century was fairly short at only 5' 7", but quite strongly built, with "with the physique of a professional rugby player"

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/47865000/jpg/_47865878_47865829.jpg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10138060

The assumption is that because people in the 18th and 19th Century were often very malnourished and therefore weaker and smaller than modern people in the 20th and 21st Century, this must in turn extend backward into Medieval times, but that is actually false. People in Medieval Europe were very close to the same average height as today.

Here are some figures from the "Long Friday Battle" of 1520 outside of Uppsala, Sweden. The three columns represent different methods for measurement:

<165cm ______________0______4_______4
165-170cm___________11_____13______15
170-175cm___________20_____18______21
175-180cm___________20_____16______11
180-185cm____________5______5_______7
>185cm______________2______2_______0

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

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/medimen.htm

http://historymedren.about.com/b/2004/09/15/tall-medieval-men.htm

Stout yeomen from 15th century would very obviously made way better stand in actual battle than those guys, but I wouldn't expect much better sheer range from such bows.

Again, I disagree, but I can't prove it. Since I've been actively interested in pre-industrial fighting and weapons over the last 12 years, I've seen period techniques and antiques win out over modern replicas and reconstructions time and time again. High end antique swords are in my opinion, still vastly superior in terms of balance and handling than anything I've seen produced by any modern replica maker, and I've seen some amazing ones.

There are only a tiny handful of people capable of making crossbows anything like the power of the period military grade weapons and they still haven't figured them out yet, - I know because I've been corresponding with these people for several years.

In the last 10 years groups like the Warbow society in the UK and folks like Grozer Csaba & Gruber Gyula in Hungary with recurves have made great strides in making much better performing and (not coincidentally, I think) historically accurate bows, but I suspect they will continue to improve both in terms of shooting technique and their weapons. I could be wrong of course.

Recurve simply means .

I think you know what I meant, recurve is commonly used to refer to 'steppe composite recurve or the Huns / Turks / Tartars / Ottomans' or whatever other longwinded technical designation you want to use.

G

Spiryt

2013-01-15, 04:25 PM

There's no denying that a lot of those Medieval guys would be quite impressively hardy and healthy compared modern car driving, refined sugars eating folk.

The very fact that they were able to spank French army while apparently suffering from nasty diarrhea is crazy...

But we still have to be realistic about this, not too idealize to much - nothing about them suggest that they would be particularly adapt at cheesing out the natural limitation of selfbows as far as range goes.

Galloglaich

2013-01-15, 04:28 PM

Yeah, 170 monsters aren't actually used to send flights.

Even if there's no actual decrease in flight performance between, say 110 pounder, and 160 one, there's no gain either, that's the point.

Actually, there is an interesting correlation here with crossbows. With the very heavy crossbows, they have found in unofficial testing that they didn't increase the velocity that much. It increased, but only incrementally. So whereas during a test last year a 250 lb and a 500 lbs-draw replica crossbow can shoot a bolt of 50 grams at the same velocity (50 meters per second), the same maker made an 850 lbs crossbow to shoot 80 gram bolts at 49 meters per second, and 125 grams at 48.5 meters per second, which means a much heavier missile striking the target at nearly the same velocity.

This seems to correspond with the historical evidence of the bolts as well, they tended to be much heavier. So it's possible that the way the crossbows did more damage was due to having the 'muscle' to shoot much heavier bolts, as a recurve arrow was usually in the 40 gram range, a longbow arrow in the 60-80 gram range. All shooting around the same velocity, but the crossbow would have more energy in the above example (147 joules).

I'm waiting for the results of testing with a 1200 lbs crossbow with much heavier bolts which should be coming out any day now. Of course there are many other factors, the type of string used, the power stroke of the prod (bow), the width, characteristics of the prod itself. But it is an interesting outcome so far.

G

Spiryt

2013-01-15, 04:37 PM

It's fairly 'normal', the same thing generally goes for selfbows. They cannot really speed arrows up above ~ 65 m/s at very best, and any gains here are very hard to achieve.

So to use energy further, more mass is required.

Huge amount of crossbows since ~ 1200 were composite, of course, so it probably changes performance quite a bit.

The thing with bow is that this velocity hugely depends on archer skills, perfect release will give such results, but just a bit worse one will bring the performance way down.

I have no real idea how it works for crossbows, with the way bow is bent, kept in bent state with string on the nut and so on.... Probably careful/symmetrical spanning would be crucial to high performance as well.

I wish someone would make some more detailed study about it.

Galloglaich

2013-01-15, 04:58 PM

The main problem is how few people can make these things, takes quite a variety of skills. Composite bows lag way behind but most of the most powerful late medieval crossbows were steel. But in addition to making the prod properly (no mean feat) the whole rest of the thing has to be put together and in such a way that it won't say, accidentally misfire or break under the pressure of 1000 - 1200 lbs. Then you have to have people who trust the design sufficiently and are themselves competent enough to test it.

I was reading about one crossbow maker who described getting his cranequin stuck while spanning a halb rustung (half ton) crossbow, he had to carefully take the thing apart while still spanned, a part flew off and punched through his microwave.

Having recently played with a much less powerful (300 lb draw) crossbow I can testify, these things are not at all easy to use and for a neophyte like me, pretty scary!

Lots of fun though. We shot all the way through a replica Viking shield I had just using a 150 lb modern hunting crossbow, I'm going to do it again next time I go over there and take some video of it. It was 'eye opening'.

G

Straybow

2013-01-15, 06:30 PM

I read somewhere that a study of market tax records in parts of Germany showed meat consumption rising dramatically in the medieval period, starting from a dark age 9th century low of 20kg/year to a peak 14th century 100kg/year, comparable to modern European consumption.

The end of Viking raids and advances in agriculture and husbandry lead to a much more prosperous Medieval life than our Victorian impressions gave us. The plague had economic effects that lasted for a couple generations after the event itself, and then agriculture and trade rebounded in the 15th century. During the Renaissance the trend reversed due to complex factors, to bottom out at about 20kg/yr.

Straybow

2013-01-15, 06:38 PM

I think you're missing the point of my post. Assuming unnatural strength permits them all to swing their weapon at the same speed, simple physics dictates that the tip of the longer weapon travels faster. Well, you quoted my post and your point is immaterial to mine... the question raised seemed to stem from game statistic Strength bonuses and do they make sense.

My point was that strength can enable the wielder to increase the momentum and energy of the attack without increasing the weapon size or speed, looking at the weapon-wielder system as a whole.

My arm strength only enables a certain fraction of my body momentum to count in the power of the blow, while a much stronger man could do better.

Galloglaich

2013-01-15, 06:54 PM

It sort of depends what you mean by the Renaissance, from what I've seen the decline of general living conditions began in the late 16th Century and really got going in the 17th, notably during the 30 Years War. By the 18th Century of course most of Europe was under the control of powerful States and more and more of the common people were relegated to serfdom and poverty in ever-increasing numbers... which in turn led to revolutions breaking out and so forth.

The relative wealth in the Medieval period had to do with a lot more than agricultural improvements, trade was of huge importance. A lot of their animal protein came from fish, which was one of the first mass produced commodities (salted and / or dried cod, herring, salmon especially). The free cities of the Hanseatic League rose to importance originally over the Scania herring market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scania_Market), then spread to dozens of other commodities: fur, salt, wool, linen, fustian, beer, iron, pickles, dye, lumber, silver, silk, grain, potash, alum, glass, gunpowder, paper, iron and brass machines, weapons and so on. European commodities and 'value added' products were highly sought after in the Middle East and Central Asia - trade extended all the way to India and China via the Silk Road by the 13th Century. It was the same in the Mediterranean with the Italian Maritime republics (especially Genoa and Venice), the Byzantines, and other quasi-city-states like Barcelona.

Then of course the Atlantic opened up and it broke trade wide open with fresh opportunities for conquest and a myriad of exotic new goods, but that also shifted the power centers sharply westward from the city-states and Free Cities to the Atlantic facing Monarchies, with only Holland among all the old republics being able to carve out a slice of the new global maritime trade routes

G

Brother Oni

2013-01-15, 07:19 PM

Well, you quoted my post and your point is immaterial to mine... the question raised seemed to stem from game statistic Strength bonuses and do they make sense.

The original question was regarding how would supernatural strength be beneficial in wielding oversized weaponry. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14468948&postcount=519)

For this question, physics regarding increased weapon length does actually matter.

---

Anyway, back to the archer versus crossbowman cover question.

Full draw from kneeling is possible, however you can only half draw at best when the bow is horizontal, since your own body gets in the way (you also better hope that the string doesn't snag on your sleeve).

However I adjust my opinion on archers not being able to get full cover from a 3ft wall - on testing, you just expose your head and the top half of your bow when you fire (potentially less, since you can possibly arc your shot over the wall after a brief glance out of cover, but I need to go down the range to test this).

What does appear to be a weakness in my opinion is that the top half of your bow sticks up above the wall like a wooden dorsal fin, which may give forewarning or a potential target to the crossbowmen

If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that the author is familiar with bows only being shot from the traditional upright stance and this carried through into the scene in the book.

For reference, I'm 5'7" using a 68" olympic recurve and have a 28" draw length.

Galloglaich

2013-01-15, 07:26 PM

I think he's just basing it on history. Outside of siege situations, longbow archers were often if not usually used in the open, whereas crossbows were usually if not always deployed behind pavises, war wagons, or other types of field fortifications.

George R.R. Martin pulled a lot of stuff from history, simplified it a bit and adjusted for his fantasy world. I mean, come on, Starks and Lannisters? York and Lancaster maybe?

G

fusilier

2013-01-15, 08:09 PM

I think he's just basing it on history. Outside of siege situations, longbow archers were often if not usually used in the open, whereas crossbows were usually if not always deployed behind pavises, war wagons, or other types of field fortifications.

G

Initially crossbows were fielded behind pavises, etc. However, as the 15th century progressed, they seemed to be out more in the open, and pavises start to be used less in open warfare. This is probably related to the increase in mobility of infantry in general.

fusilier

2013-01-15, 08:26 PM

Gunpowder:
The setting is somewhere between Renaissance and 30 Years´ War. I´m guessing wheellock and snaphaunce are most common, with matchlocks being somewhat primitive. I´m guessing pistol, arquebus and caliver cover the necessary bases. Some thoughts on how much rifling would add to the ranges of these things would also be appreciated.

Historically, matchlocks were very common for nearly two centuries after the introduction of the wheellock. The reason, was they were cheap and simple. Gradually, more and more wheellocks and snaphaunces began to be used in specialized contexts. "Firelocks" (general term for a lock which "makes it own fire", i.e. not a matchlock) made pistols practical, became popular with powder and artillery guards (so they didn't have to carry lit matches around the gunpowder), more and more special units, etc.

Not until nearly 1700 did matchlocks finally disappear from European militaries.

As for ranges -- Galloglaich's numbers are ok, but there are so many variables on such weapons that it's very difficult to state anything definitively. Even period reports can be wildly different. How much powder is used, is a patch being used, are loose balls being used to speed up loading, etc. All these factors will effect the performance of the weapon, both in terms of accuracy and armor penetration, and rate of fire.

For game purposes it's probably too complicated to try to model all that, but it does give you flexibility in picking different factors to try and balance the weapons. (Range, rate of fire, and damage).

Galloglaich

2013-01-15, 08:30 PM

Yeah, totally disagree about the pavises. The only exceptions were mounted crossbowmen and war wagons, the first capable of eluding return fire, the second, with a superior type of 'moving pavise'. But pavises were used with (placed in between) the war wagons as well, rather as you see in this modern depiction here.

http://getasword.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Hussite-Wagon.jpg

Other types of war wagons were basically mobile mantlets or pavises, like here from Bavaria in 1495

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IV7U9pF1A7c/TWqoVpz1GHI/AAAAAAAAAlU/Dpdt8C10Joo/s1600/camp1.jpg

This continued through the end of the 16th Century in Central and Northern Europe, and also down into the Balkans. I'll stay out of Italy ;)

G

EDIT: I do agree about the firearms, wild variability there, I tried to give average numbers, plus some of the outliers. On top of everything else up to about 1550 guns were being made as trade secrets to a large extent in various places, so some were much more sophisticated and well made than others (same with powder) by the second half of the 16th Century the quality of both became gradually more uniform, though the skill of the typical gunner still varied a lot.

Beleriphon

2013-01-15, 08:44 PM

I have a question regarding antique firearms. What order did primitive firearms occur?

I know there are wheel locks, flitlocks, match locks and even just touch arquebus but what came first, and how long did they get used for? Also, how did they work at least at a basic level.

Galloglaich

2013-01-15, 11:21 PM

I think it's a good question. It took me a long time to figure this out, so in the interest of all that we love about the internet, (hopefully) I'll share what I understand about it:

The first were a class of proto-firearms in the 'fire lance' family which were set off by putting a fuze or a piece of red hot iron directly into the barrel. These correlate with the first appearance of flammable powders based on potassium - nitrate (known in Europe as salt of st. peter or saltpeter) which were similar and related to gunpowder but were not exactly gunpowder.

1100 AD - Fire Lance

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Yuan_chinese_gun.jpg/220px-Yuan_chinese_gun.jpg
This would be mounted on a pole

These early weapons worked by a combination of pyrotechnic (i.e. flame) effects and projectiles, usually in the form of small rocks. They were used in siege warfare. Weapons of this sort appear in Chinese books in the 12th Century, the earliest documented use in war was from 1132 AD in China but they appear in some paintings from as far back as the 9th or 10th Century.

For example the demon in this painting is using what looks like a fire lance in the upper right

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/FireLanceAndGrenade10thCenturyDunhuang.jpg/748px-FireLanceAndGrenade10thCenturyDunhuang.jpg

You can get an idea what they were like from this video (long but worth watching, good bits at 5:18, 8:08, )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMzZ3CPgMrg

These proto-gunpowders were alchemical substances developed while attempting to create longevity potions.

By the 13th Century something more like a firearm, using an improved type of power with all three ingredients of gunpowder (carbon, potassium nitrate, and sulfur) while also placing more of an emphasis on the projectile, began to be documented in sieges in several Chinese towns.

1250 AD - Hand Gonne

In the 1230's during the Mongol invasion of the Middle East fire-lances and primitive hand cannon were used by the Mongols and quickly figured out by their enemies, the Egyptian Mamelukes. During fighting between the Mongols and the Mamelukes the hand gonne or hand-cannon seems to have first appeared, first documented use was in 1260.

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/hand_cannon.jpg

This website has a bunch of good replicas of hand gonnes or hand-cannons

http://www.redriverrenegades.com/BP%20Rifles%20&%20Canons.htm

At this same time the Mongols were also using firelances and / or hand gonnes in Eastern Europe as early as 1241, and they were reported as used by the Moors in Spain in the 1250's and 1260's. (Interestingly the Chinese continued to use the basic fire-lance well into the Ming Dynasty, for siege warfare)

The English Franciscan monk Roger Bacon probably got the gunpowder formula from Moors and Jews he was corresponding with in Spain and he first published it, in encrypted form as a 'recipe for a children's toy' (a firecracker) in 1267 in his Opus Majus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_Maius). By 1300 some improved gunpowder formulas appeared in various European alchemical books such as the Liber Ignium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liber_Ignium).

1300 AD Hook -Gun

By this time European guns were starting to be made with hooks to steady them on ramparts (where guns were being used most often, in siege warfare) and these are called hook guns. These are still touch-hole firearms but more strongly made, designed to handle higher pressure from faster burning powder.

http://www.redriverrenegades.com/XGA17.jpg
http://www.redriverrenegades.com/Hussite.jpg

The German word for Hook gun was something like hacken - buschen, which the English and the Frisians called something like 'hack-butt' or harque- busche which evolved into 'arquebus' very gradually. The Czechs also came up with some very interesting variations on the original hand-gonne around this time:

http://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/tg/image/1348/58/1348587850425.jpg

see also http://1-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/tg/image/1348/58/1348588197927.jpg

1430 AD - Early Arquebus
http://1-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/tg/image/1348/58/1348588290360.jpg

Another good one made in Nuremberg here:

http://1-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/tg/image/1348/58/1348587424553.jpg

So you have these very early, handgonne / arquebus, some touch-hole, some with simple matchlocks, which were increasingly effective, started appearing around the 1430's when guns were kind of revolutionized by the Czechs, and remained in use alongside more sophisticated guns well into the 1500's. These have a longer barrel now than the original hook-guns, which improves power and accuracy, and they are a little easier to handle, more reliable (in terms of the barrel not cracking) and better made, generally.

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~dispater/peterson_1499.JPG

The matchlock is basically just a little 'S' shaped piece of metal on a hinge, called a serpentine, which holds a slow match (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_match) (a sort of little rope or cord that has been soaked in a saltpetre solution so it burns slowly). The serpentine is held back by a spring, and when you pull it, touches the match to your touch hole for you (so you could keep both hands on the gun when firing). The lock part comes from a little cover for the tiny 'pan' you have your priming powder in, which was an elaboration of the touch hole.

These things seem primitive but they are already pretty hard core, about the equivalent of a single-shot 12 or 20 gauge shotgun. For an idea of what they were like, I recommend this impressive video:

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

1450 AD - Matchlock Arquebus

http://webspace.webring.com/people/lt/thorvin.geo/images/arquebus.JPG

By the 1440's early match locks had appeared in the field, we see something which looks like the serpentine in some military / alchemical manuals as early as 1380 and again in 1410, but they aren't widely used on the battlefields until the Czechs start accelerating gun development in the Hussite wars. By the 1450's the idea is spreading fast to the most efficient military powers (like Venice, Bruges and Ghent in Flanders, Milan, the Ottomans, the German Hanseatic towns, the big southern German cities like Augsburg, Strasbourg and Nuremberg). In 1475 the matchlock appears in a printed book and then it's everywhere. The basic design of the matchlock changed, some had a catch so a spring would snap the trigger down when you pulled it and released the catch, others had the spring set the opposite way so that it provided resistance

Another big invention at this time was corned powder. Up until the 1400's powder had to be mixed in the field because it would separate out into it's components. Corned powder had just been moistened with alcohol and pushed through a sieve to make uniform 'corn' sized pieces, then allowed to dry in grains. This was a huge step for gunpowder weapons since it was 'ready to go' and much more powerful.

By the late 15th Century you start to see more developed arquebus starting to appear, some quite beautiful, with fairly long barrels like a modern firearm

http://goodescompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/matchlock.jpg

1500 AD - Wheellock

The next big invention was the wheellock, this was a complicated device which at it's most fundamental simply created sparks similar to the way a modern zippo lighter does, except it uses iron pirate to make the sparks instead of flint (flint came later). I think some wheellocks also had some features which opened the priming pan, though fuslier can correct me on that.

http://www.nam.ac.uk/microsites/war-horse/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/103296-540x380.jpg
You can always tell a wheellock from a flintlock from the distinctive round wheel-shape in front of the trigger.

The wheellock was a huge improvement because you didn't have to keep a lit match - lit matches gave away your position due to smell and smoke, and were also vulnerable to rain or just humidity. But wheellocks were complicated, expensive, and initially not super reliable, so most infantry weapons (arquebus, musket etc.) remained matchlocks. So wheellocks were most commonly seen on expensive pistols used by cavalry or as personal weapons of nobility and wealthy burghers. They actually created a bit of a gun control crisis because they were so good for assassinations - it was a powerful and easily concealed weapon.

Later improved versions were called the snaplock, in the 1540's, the snaphaunce, came out in the 1560s used a flint instead of the iron pirate, and then the true flintlock came out around 1610.

1610- the Flintlock

This was the ultimate firing mechanism until the invention of the percussion cap. This was essentially a much simpler and more efficient version of the wheellock, which opened the priming pan right as it shot.

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/flintlock2.jpg

All these weapons are muzzle loaders, usually smooth bore though there were some rifled barrels as far back as medieval times, and they were also making small breach-loading cannon as early as the 14th Century.

G

GraaEminense

2013-01-16, 04:02 AM

Lots of good stuff to work with, thanks a bunch guys.

Galloglaich, very nice guide on blackpowder guns. Bookmarked.

fusilier

2013-01-16, 05:21 AM

Pavises

I would actually like to discuss more about this, as I've found very little explicit information on how much and when they were used. Often times we hear about how they were deployed during the 14th and early 15th centuries, but by the second-half of the 15th century, there are some events that are implying that they are beginning to decrease in use.

Two developments come to mind, both relating to warfare in Italy:
1. Starting around 1450 there was a gradual abandonment of the traditional three part infantry (foot lances, crossbowmen, and shield-bearers -- in roughly equal proportions), with a greater proportion of crossbowmen, and handgunners, being added. More "sword and buckler" men were also being introduced and the "shield-bearers" became less common.
2. Increasing use of mounted crossbowmen -- these troops could be used on horseback in light cavalry role, but more strategically (patrols, scouting, foraging, etc.), than tactically. In combat they functioned more like mounted infantry: i.e. they dismounted to fight.

At the same time there was an increase in the use of field fortifications and that may have also encouraged a tendency to dispense with the pavise. But the usual narrative states that there was a tendency to be use the infantry in a more offensive manner, and heavy pavises weren't well suited to such tactics.

Also the pavise was eventually abandoned; at least in open warfare (I'm pretty certain it carried on in siege warfare, and I think in fortified camps). An arquebus is no more mobile than a crossbow (and a musket, perhaps less so), but by the early 1500s there are fewer mentions of arquebusiers using pavises. The trend to discard them probably started in the 15th century, and completed sometime in the first quarter of the 16th.

Firearms
Wheellock -- the earliest wheellocks lacked automatic pan covers. The earliest I've seen date to about 1510, and are crossbow pistols. Automatic pan covers seem to have been introduced fairly quickly though.

Snaplock -- a snaplock, or snaphaunce (some authorities point out minor differences between the two), is the predecessor to the flintlock. The major functional difference being that the battery (part that the flint strikes to create sparks), is separate from the pan cover. In this way they are somewhat more complicated than a "true flintlock"; they typically had automatic pan covers like a wheellock.

The first lock to combine the battery and the pan cover is the miquelet lock -- traditionally known as the "Spanish Lock", invented around 1560, in Spain or Italy (a slight variation to this lock is called the "Italian" or "Roman" lock). While the fundamental operation is identical to a "true flintlock" it uses a different sear mechanism.

"Cannon-lock" -- the earliest of hand-guns are what are termed "cannon-lock", as they function like a small cannon.

At first, they seem to have been fired by thrusting a hot-wire through the vent-hole. This required fires to heat wire, and made the use of them outside of town and castle walls very difficult (although war wagons may have given them some mobility). Sometime in the 1300s matchcord was introduced, which provided hand-gunners with some mobility.

---EDIT---
Wheellocks use iron-pyrites because a flint will damage the wheel, on account of it's hardness. The operation of snaplock is more like a "true flintlock". Wheellocks remained popular in Germany for a very long time -- until the introduction of the percussion cap, the wheellock was technically the fastest form of ignition available.

All these "firelocks" (wheellocks, snaplocks, flintlocks), were expensive, and sometimes not too reliable. As a result they didn't really displace matchlocks, or each other. Rather they simple added another alternative ignition system. Typically a "better" one, but that came at more expense, and the greater likelihood of a break down. The flintlock, after a century or so of refinement, eventually won out and wheellocks and snaplocks were relegated to more of a niche market. Matchlocks were finally abandoned as too dangerous, but they lasted a surprisingly long time. (A matchlock would still be the standard arm during the Thirty Years War).

fusilier

2013-01-16, 07:05 AM

Some more information on firearms, intended as an addendum to Galloglaich's post:

In the early 16th century there was a profusion of terms, which were rarely applied consistently. Eventually there started to be some standardization of the names, but it was never complete.

Arquebus

This was the basic firearm circa 1500. At that stage it had all the familiar pieces: a shoulder stock, a lock of some sort. The barrels were longer than on the earlier "hand gonnes", but still relatively short. Over the course of the 16th century the barrels got longer, and by the middle of the century a barrel length of around three-feet seems to have been common. Caliber was often .62, although expect some variation.

Sometime around the middle of the 1400s, the "serpentine" lock started to be used with arquebuses -- this was basically a holder for the matchcord and it facilitated aiming. Gravity would keep the matchcord from falling into the pan, until the "trigger" was pulled. (They were not held back by springs).

The sear lock developed sometime later, but still in the 1400s. This had a spring that "lifted" the match away from the pan. The spring force was light, and pulling the trigger would overcome the force and allow the matchcord to be introduced gently. It allowed more control of the matchcord than a serpentine, and would make it easier to shoot upwards.

The "snapping matchlock" was developed in the late 15th century. It was surprisingly popular for a while, but started to fall out of favor in the 1530s or 40s. With the sear-lock becoming the dominate form until the end of the matchlock era, circa 1700. It was "spring loaded": the weapon was c*cked, the match cord put into the jaws, and pulling a trigger (or pushing a button on earlier ones) would release the spring which would drive the match into the pan. It was fairly delicate. If the spring was too strong it could extinguish the match or knock it to the ground. Some troops may have used an expendable sprig of tinder fungus, rather than the matchcord. In that case, the match cord would be used to light the tinder fungus. (The photograph in Galloglaich's post of a man holding an arquebus above his head is of a snapping lock arquebus).

In the early part of the century there was a kind of "wall gun" also referred to as an arquebus, sometimes called an arquebus a croc. It looked like an oversized arquebus, and was used more like a light artillery piece and seems to have been a crewed served weapon. It retained the "hook" of the older heavy hand gonnes. Often it is shown as mounted on a kind of stout tripod, and presumably it could be rested over a wall. These don't seem to be used much in the field after the early 1500s -- probably being replaced by cannon on wheeled carriages.

Musket
Exactly when and where the musket appeared is somewhat hazy, again due to lack of a standard terminology. Generally it is accepted as having shown up in the 1520s or 1530s in the wars in Italy, but there's some evidence that it may have been in use before then.

The musket was essentially a bigger arquebus with a longer barrel. The increase in weight (many sources say 20lbs, but recently I've heard some say no more than 15lbs), meant the weapon was used with a "rest": a pole forked at one end to take the weight of the barrel while aiming. One man could wield it.

I know that by the 1580s the caliber of such weapons was .85-.95 and sometimes larger. This was a response to improvements in armor. At this time, they rarely made up a majority of the firearms in use by a unit. Instead Arquebuses and Muskets would be found together. The arquebus was better suited for skirmishing.

Caliver
This weapon first appeared in the 1570s(?). At that time they were an intermediate weapon, of about .74 caliber. Initially, they seem to have been a standard bore size, and is where our word for "caliber" comes from. This seems to have caused confusion. With some claiming that the "caliver" was a term applied to a group of arms that were of the same size (not that all calivers were the same, but that a specific order for several thousand of them might have the same dimensions). Others seem to think that they were an intermediate weapon, between musket and arquebus.

Historically there seems to have been confusion too. The intermediate size didn't seem to last very long. Some contemporary authorities considered the Caliver to be identical to the arquebus (maybe with a different style stock). Indeed, some nations never adopted the term caliver, and called such weapons arquebuses. Whereas others abandoned the term arquebus.

During the 17th century muskets started to get smaller and lighter. Many of them by the time of the Thirty Years War, were .75-80 caliber, and most Calivers were .60-.70. Armor was becoming less common, and less effective by that time, so muskets didn't need to be as big. They also started to lose the stock. Finally, by the end of the 17th century, we see musket calibers of .69-70. Some nations start referring to muskets as "fusils" -- although the English retain the word "fusil" for a kind of lighter musket.

Other weapons
The Arquebus, Musket, and Caliver are, in general, the weapons of the 16th and 17th centuries. To them were added any number of weapons. A petronel, was essentially an arquebus for use on horseback. Pistols came in many varieties. Belt pistols for personal use on foot, horse pistols with longer barrels for use on horseback. Some horse pistols could have very long barrels. There was also a weapon that was basically a refined short barreled arqeubus -- when arquebus barrels had reached a length of about three feet, these weapons had two-foot barrels. Often times they were fancy weapons, perhaps for hunting on horseback. They might be wheellock, and many of the ones I've seen have telescoping butt-stocks!

There were also non-European weapons that aren't easily categorized. The Ottoman Tufenk of the mid to late 16th century, was like a long barreled arquebus (barrel length of a musket, but the smaller caliber of an arquebus).

GraaEminense

2013-01-16, 07:27 AM

Galloglaich

2013-01-16, 10:41 AM

Good summary on the guns. Disagree with you on one point though

Pavises

I would actually like to discuss more about this, as I've found very little explicit information on how much and when they were used. Often times we hear about how they were deployed during the 14th and early 15th centuries, but by the second-half of the 15th century, there are some events that are implying that they are beginning to decrease in use.

Two developments come to mind, both relating to warfare in Italy:
(snip)
2. Increasing use of mounted crossbowmen -- these troops could be used on horseback in light cavalry role, but more strategically (patrols, scouting, foraging, etc.), than tactically. In combat they functioned more like mounted infantry: i.e. they dismounted to fight.

I'm not going to say definitively about Italy, but in Central Europe the mounted crossbowmen were definitely shooting from horseback.

http://tnypic.net/ake7z.jpg

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?topic=25005.135

In Northern and Central Europe by the 15th Century the tactical unit of a knight, the 'lance' ('gleve', 'helm') was typically made up of one lancer or knight, two mounted crossbowmen, one or more demi-lancers, and one or more valets. Even the lancer often carried a crossbow on his saddle. All this was to deal with steppe nomads, i.e. horse archers.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys/Medieval%20European%20Armour/16th%20Century/Maximilian_I_Hunting.jpg

It was also common for people to hunt with crossbows from horseback (shooting from horseback) like in the above depiction of Emperor Maximillian I. This remained fashionable into the 18th Century... a lot of the really nice 'halb rustung' (half ton, i.e. 1,000 lbs draw or more) cranequin arbalests we have still around are hunting weapons from the 17th or 18th Century.

I think regarding pavises you are maybe confusing the decline of the position of pavisieri as a specific rank in Italian urban militias, which didn't even mean necessarily just a guy holding a pavise for a crossbowman, with someone who did the latter. In Central Europe sometimes this was a highly paid expert (who helped load the crossbows) sometimes it was done by people described as servants or valets (valetti). I know Venice was still using pavises in their armies in Dalmatia (the Balkans / Croatia) both for gunners and crossbowmen into the end of the 15th Century, but beyond that I don't know enough definititvely to say.

G

Galloglaich

2013-01-16, 12:53 PM

Re-enactors depicting crossbowmen from Matthias Corvinus 'Black Army', late 15th C

http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/42719/etlerl151.jpg

Hussite forces, 1504 (note the Chalice)

http://www.evocatio.de/ercms/images/stories/Pavesen/Wenzenbach1504.jpg

Good thread on the Bohemian use of Pavises here

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2711

G

Straybow

2013-01-16, 06:04 PM

The original question was regarding how would supernatural strength be beneficial in wielding oversized weaponry. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14468948&postcount=519)

For this question, physics regarding increased weapon length does actually matter. Didn't notice that post, I was addressing the follow-ups that didn't mention the uberweapons but real-ish weapons and armor... still not sure why you were quoting me...

Not that it matters. :smallsmile: Carry on.

Straybow

2013-01-16, 06:09 PM

Hmph. I would call those "large shields." I thought real pavises were more like door-sized.

Galloglaich

2013-01-16, 07:25 PM

Most people would...

G

fusilier

2013-01-16, 07:34 PM

I'm not going to say definitively about Italy, but in Central Europe the mounted crossbowmen were definitely shooting from horseback.

In Italy this is somewhat debated. Clearly the intent in mounting crossbowmen on horse back was originally to give them mobility, but some claim that they could use from horseback in battle. Given the Italian preference for belt-hooks for spanning crossbows, it sounds like it would be difficult to reload.

I think regarding pavises you are maybe confusing the decline of the position of pavisieri as a specific rank in Italian urban militias, which didn't even mean necessarily just a guy holding a pavise for a crossbowman, with someone who did the latter. In Central Europe sometimes this was a highly paid expert (who helped load the crossbows) sometimes it was done by people described as servants or valets (valetti). I know Venice was still using pavises in their armies in Dalmatia (the Balkans / Croatia) both for gunners and crossbowmen into the end of the 15th Century, but beyond that I don't know enough definititvely to say.

G

Actually a pavisieri didn't necessarily carry a pavise, and was usually a spearman with a shield of some sort. By the middle of the 15th century such shields were usually oval or round shaped. Still big but not a pavise (in the sense that it could not be planted on the ground).

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-kc-IEvD_gQg/ToEuk7FqwcI/AAAAAAAAAZg/MvVsJzoGleI/Italian%252520Reenactor%25252013.jpg

Found here miniaturespage (http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=243656)

In a painting from the 1460s (depicting a battle of the 1440s), you can see crossbowmen, but no pavises:
http://www.greatestbattles.iblogger.org/Italy/Battle_of_Anghiari-Florentine_Master.htm

And see here for a detail of an Italian crossbowmen and a description:
http://www.greatestbattles.iblogger.org/Italy/Middle_Ages_1-79.htm

Pavises may have continued in use Central Europe for a bit longer. Here you can find the Bohemian's boasting about their pavises as late as 1519.
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2711

But I get the feeling that they were rather behind the times tactically speaking (not technologically speaking, however). But where are the Spanish and French pavises from that time period? By the early 1500s the Spanish were starting to show themselves to be a leading military power, and while an early adopter of arquebuses, they still employed crossbowmen. The use of a crossbow in Italy was widespread, but by the middle of the 15th century it gets hard to find a depiction of crossbowman with a pavise.

Pavises limited the infantry's mobility, and as tactics evolved they were increasingly discarded. It's not like there's a switch thrown, and suddenly everybody threw their pavises into furnaces -- but over time their use diminished. That diminishment may have occurred at different times in different places. But it's pretty clear it began in the 15th century and was complete, at least by 1550.

fusilier

2013-01-16, 07:36 PM

Hmph. I would call those "large shields." I thought real pavises were more like door-sized.

One of my favorite pictures of pavises:
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/files/megapavise_251.jpg

fusilier

2013-01-16, 07:42 PM

Another question on guns:

As I understand it, by the early 19th Century it was common practise for line infantry to use ´buck & ball´with smoothbore weapons on shorter ranges, adding shot to the musket ball to do more damage to tight formations at the cost of accuracy/range (correct me if I´m wrong).

How early was this done?

How about dedicated ´shot´guns, like shotgun (:smallcool:) and blunderbuss? When did they come into use?

Buck and ball was probably standard by the late 18th century. Prior to that, there were examples of multiple loads (I think often two balls). Shot was probably used more for hunting -- especially in a time when your opponent had a good chance of being armored.

Historically buckshot was used by guards, but I'm not sure how far back that goes.

There really wasn't the need for a dedicated "shot weapon" and I'm not aware of any until the late 17th century. As most weapons were smoothbore just pick one that gives you the right spread and go with it. A blunderbuss was a kind of coach-gun. The bell end to the barrel doesn't do anything for the spread of the shot, instead it facilitates loading on the back of a moving carriage. :-) They don't show up until the 18th century (maybe very late 17th).

Beleriphon

2013-01-16, 07:52 PM

1610- the Flintlock

This was the ultimate firing mechanism until the invention of the percussion cap. This was essentially a much simpler and more efficient version of the wheellock, which opened the priming pan right as it shot.

All these weapons are muzzle loaders, usually smooth bore though there were some rifled barrels as far back as medieval times, and they were also making small breach-loading cannon as early as the 14th Century.

G

And the percussion cap was, or is I suppose, the rough equivalent of a modern round without the bullet in the casing (so its primer and powder in one unit) right? And these were used well into the 19th century yes?

Galloglaich

2013-01-16, 08:31 PM

And the percussion cap was, or is I suppose, the rough equivalent of a modern round without the bullet in the casing (so its primer and powder in one unit) right? And these were used well into the 19th century yes?

It's not really my area of knowledge let alone expertise when you get that late, but my understanding was that it was a rather gradual process where the primer and the load became increasingly standardized. The invention of corned powder led quickly to the pre-measuring of powder for each shot, and shortly after that you see depictions of guys with little bundles of powder (sometimes with a bullet tied up in a second part, and / or the pre-measured primer).

Like this guy from 1585

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/Arquebusier_%281585%29.jpg/428px-Arquebusier_%281585%29.jpg

See the little bandolier of pouches along his chest? The thing he has in his right hand is an aiming stake, which may also serve as a linstock. He would rest his gun on that when shooting.

The percussion cap came along in the early 19th Century, which was basically the primer with an explosive mixture (fulminate of mercury) that would detonate when struck by a hammer. Just like a cap if you ever had a cap gun. This is the basis of most bullets today. Gradually the brass cartridge evolved from the old cloth cartridge, through a paper stage (IIRC) and on to modern firearms.

Fusilier can probably fill in more details but I think that is the basics of it.

G

Galloglaich

2013-01-16, 08:43 PM

In Italy this is somewhat debated. Clearly the intent in mounting crossbowmen on horse back was originally to give them mobility, but some claim that they could use from horseback in battle. Given the Italian preference for belt-hooks for spanning crossbows, it sounds like it would be difficult to reload.

Goats feet and cranequin had become pretty widespread by the 15th Century but I'll defer to your familiarity with Italy on this one. I think generally though when people talk about crossbows, they tend to conflate or confuse different types, since they all look quite similar. In Central Europe there were several distinct types or grades of crossbows in use side by side, including the stirrup crossbow, all the way to the phasing out of all crossbows as military weapons by around the mid 16th Century.

I think this is the source of a lot of the confusion in the endless debates about English longbows vs. crossbows (and everything else). They tend to compare longbows to light crossbows when talking about range and penetration and then to windlass crossbows when talking about reloading.

It's kind of like with guns, a lot of people couldn't tell the difference between a carbine, an arquebus, a late or early musket, or a blunderbuss, but as we know they were very different weapons with different levels of performance.

Actually a pavisieri didn't necessarily carry a pavise, and was usually a spearman with a shield of some sort. By the middle of the 15th century such shields were usually oval or round shaped. Still big but not a pavise (in the sense that it could not be planted on the ground).

Yes this is what I alluded to upthread ;) 'Pavisieri' didn't necessarily refer to men carrying pavises, and vise versa.

Pavises may have continued in use Central Europe for a bit longer. Here you can find the Bohemian's boasting about their pavises as late as 1519.
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2711

That is the same discussion thread I linked to upthread...

But I get the feeling that they were rather behind the times tactically speaking (not technologically speaking, however).

Who, the Czechs? I don't think so.... The Czechs were one of the very few who could defeat the Ottomans in open field battles, which is why the Venetians and the Hungarians hired so many of them to fight in the Balkans.

But where are the Spanish and French pavises from that time period?

The Spanish did also still use pavises both for gunners and crossbowmen, but they moved fairly quickly to the steel rotella for the same role. The French concentrated their military development on heavy cavalry (anachronistically), and relied principally on the Swiss for infantry. The Swiss put most of their emphasis on pikemen but did also use pavises with their crossbowmen, as well as mounted crossbowmen.

By the early 1500s the Spanish were starting to show themselves to be a leading military power, and while an early adopter of arquebuses, they still employed crossbowmen.

Indeed, Cortez had as many crossbowmen as arquebusiers when he first arrived in Mexico.

Pavises limited the infantry's mobility, and as tactics evolved they were increasingly discarded. It's not like there's a switch thrown, and suddenly everybody threw their pavises into furnaces -- but over time their use diminished. That diminishment may have occurred at different times in different places. But it's pretty clear it began in the 15th century and was complete, at least by 1550.

I'm sorry my friend, but I don't think it was that simple. Pavises probably did largely disappear by the mid 16th Century, but I think it's quite inaccurate to suggest that they were on a steady decline through the 15th, to the contrary, their use obviously increased through the 15th Century and peaked near the dawn of the 16th.

I suspect their decline was due to muskets, and cannon.

G

Beleriphon

2013-01-16, 09:11 PM

The percussion cap came along in the early 19th Century, which was basically the primer with an explosive mixture (fulminate of mercury) that would detonate when struck by a hammer. Just like a cap if you ever had a cap gun. This is the basis of most bullets today. Gradually the brass cartridge evolved from the old cloth cartridge, through a paper stage (IIRC) and on to modern firearms.

Fusilier can probably fill in more details but I think that is the basics of it.

G

That matches my limited knowledge, so that seems reasonable. I know that percussion cap were still in use by the time of the US Civil War, and were basically standardized to the point that they could mass produced by the Union, or imported by the Confederacy. Of course by that point the common firearm was a rifle, rather than a smooth-bore firearm.

Galloglaich

2013-01-16, 09:54 PM

Regarding the blunderbuss / dragon / musketoon family of weapons, I gather they were used somewhat extensively in the 18th - 19th Centuries for naval warfare, notably by pirates, and also to some extent by cavalry (isn't 'dragoon' derived from 'dragon' as in the short blunderbus?).

That is interesting about the rifles in the US Civil War I thought it was mostly still smoothbore muskets at least in the early part. I know by the end the North had lever-action rifles which must have conferred a huge advantage I would guess?

G

fusilier

2013-01-17, 12:37 AM

I'm sorry my friend, but I don't think it was that simple. Pavises probably did largely disappear by the mid 16th Century, but I think it's quite inaccurate to suggest that they were on a steady decline through the 15th, to the contrary, their use obviously increased through the 15th Century and peaked near the dawn of the 16th.

Do you have any evidence to back up that claim? They may have peaked in use in different places at different times, but that hardly defines a trend.

Also, I'm not aware of crossbowmen using rotellas for defense?

fusilier

2013-01-17, 12:46 AM

That is interesting about the rifles in the US Civil War I thought it was mostly still smoothbore muskets at least in the early part. I know by the end the North had lever-action rifles which must have conferred a huge advantage I would guess?

G

Basically. Smoothbore muskets were around in large numbers at the start of the Civil War, whereas the newer rifle musket design (referred to as M1855, but not entering production until 1857), was only available in limited quantities. Some smoothbore muskets had been rifled as well, a conversion process that continued during the war. At the beginning there was so much need for muskets of any kind that they imported all sorts of weapons. Gradually as the war progressed you would see fewer and fewer smoothbores, but they never disappeared completely, even in the Union armies (especially in the western theater).

Rifle muskets were the "standard" design at the time. There were several forms of breechloader available, and even a few repeaters -- but they were rare. While it is true that a Union soldier would be more likely to have a repeater, they were never widespread among the Union army. At the end of the war, some of the cavalry regiments seem to have been well equipped with Spencer repeating carbines -- but the army abandoned these during the late 1860s for single shot breechloaders.

fusilier

2013-01-17, 01:02 AM

And the percussion cap was, or is I suppose, the rough equivalent of a modern round without the bullet in the casing (so its primer and powder in one unit) right? And these were used well into the 19th century yes?

No. The percussion cap was just the primer, it was an explosive designed to detonate on impact, usually a "fulminate" of some sort. The main charge of gunpowder still had to be loaded independently.

On some breechloader designs (Sharps carbine and rifle), a paper cartridge containing the powder and bullet could be loaded into the gun as a unit, but a percussion cap still had to be placed on the "nipple". For muzzle-loading weapons, if paper cartridges were being used they were opened, the powder poured down the barrel, then the bullet inserted (either with the remainder of the paper, or squeezed out of it -- depending upon drill manual used).

The percussion cap, is in my opinion, a huge revolution. Or at the very least the first step in a revolution. It allowed for the concept of a "self-contained cartridge", in which all the ammunition components are bundled together in a single unit.

The first designs were paper cartridges, with gunpowder and bullet sandwiching the percussion primer. Soon metallic cartridges were invented -- they solved the problem of gas-seal by being able to expand when fired, then contracting slightly allowing for extraction of the spent cartridge.

At this point magazines start to become feasible, as well as automatic weapons, etc.

fusilier

2013-01-17, 02:41 AM

Pavise

Osprey Men-at-Arm 94: The Swiss At War 1300-1500, pg 16:

By the time of the Burgundian Wars the pavise had ceased to be used by the Swiss as a protective shield for crossbowmen and handgunners, although it was probably used in siegework.

Burgundian Wars, 1474-77.

Matthew

2013-01-17, 04:38 AM

Anyway, back to the archer versus crossbowman cover question.

Full draw from kneeling is possible, however you can only half draw at best when the bow is horizontal, since your own body gets in the way (you also better hope that the string doesn't snag on your sleeve).

However I adjust my opinion on archers not being able to get full cover from a 3ft wall - on testing, you just expose your head and the top half of your bow when you fire (potentially less, since you can possibly arc your shot over the wall after a brief glance out of cover, but I need to go down the range to test this).

What does appear to be a weakness in my opinion is that the top half of your bow sticks up above the wall like a wooden dorsal fin, which may give forewarning or a potential target to the crossbowmen

If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that the author is familiar with bows only being shot from the traditional upright stance and this carried through into the scene in the book.

For reference, I'm 5'7" using a 68" olympic recurve and have a 28" draw length.

Nice practical information, thanks! Let us know how it goes on the range.

Brother Oni

2013-01-17, 07:32 AM

Nice practical information, thanks! Let us know how it goes on the range.

I will do, weather permitting. *Tries to keep a straight face*

Out of curiousity, do you have a book and page reference for the scene in question? Our range has moveable targets, so I can actually test the feasibility of hitting a target at that distance while using a 3ft wall as cover (within the limitations of my bow).

Matthew

2013-01-17, 08:44 AM

I will do, weather permitting. *Tries to keep a straight face*

Out of curiousity, do you have a book and page reference for the scene in question? Our range has moveable targets, so I can actually test the feasibility of hitting a target at that distance while using a 3ft wall as cover (within the limitations of my bow).

No, apparently it was an audio book. I can try and find out what book it was, I think. Pretty sure it is not the first one and likely not the second.

Spiryt

2013-01-17, 09:49 AM

Brother Oni

2013-01-17, 10:44 AM

It's quite possible that author was indeed thinking of some really heavy warbows there, which can pretty much only be shoot from upright position, with the whole use of back, legs etc. to draw it.

With lighter bow that one can more or less comfortably draw with motion of shoulder area only, one can obviously try to perform more 'tricky' shots.

While I won't dispute the first point as I have limited information on the scene in question, I will the second. Unless you're very strong, any full drawing is done using the back muscles, even with comparatively light bows.

With half drawing you can get away with arm only, but I had sufficient space to reach full draw using my back while kneeling (hence why I listed my bow length and my height). If you had a very long bow that you couldn't hold while kneeling, then I would agree that would be an issue, but most self bowmen I've seen tend to angle their bows anyway as they don't have an arrow rest.

Aside from giving the archer a steady base, I'm also not quite seeing how the legs are involved in drawing a bow, unless you've got really odd technique.

Spiryt

2013-01-17, 11:19 AM

Galloglaich

2013-01-17, 12:21 PM

Found a very good website on the history of early firerams, thought people here might be interested

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~dispater/handgonnes.htm

G

Brother Oni

2013-01-17, 01:40 PM

Steady base, as of point to push/pull off, while drawing really heavy bow, shifting your weight to be able to pull the bow...

English archers were even often depicted barefoot for maximum adhesion, AFAIR.

Here's fun little video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyEIk_INOaY&feature=player_embedded

Upright posture is pretty obviously universally required for human to perform "maximum strength" lifting, pushing, throwing, hacking and whatever, bows are not different.

Huh, interesting video. It's from the English Warbow Society so presumably it's a legitimate historical technique.

From the society entry requirements, that selfbow has a minimum draw of 70lbs at 32" full draw (my arms won't even reach that far :smallfrown:). I will question what sort of accuracy that technique has though, but if you're just firing into formations, I guess it doesn't matter that much.

That said, the Mongols are renowned for their horse archery and what research I can find suggests their bows had a similarly heavy draw weights, so I presume it's still possible to not need your legs to draw powerful bows (with some technique modification).

Some additional research suggests that English bows were also used mounted, although with some issues as the mounted archer could only really fire sideways effectively - firing forwards as horse archers often did usually resulted in the bow poking the horse, which affected your accuracy and reload times.

My turn for interesting videos: Battlefield kyudo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=m5VtVCQ7IpY).
While he's using a yumi (Japanese bow) which is designed to be off centre, he doesn't appear to have any trouble drawing or hitting his targets while kneeling.
I can't find any reference to the draw weight of his bow, although war yumi were recorded to have a draw weight of 90lb (I doubt that this bow is that heavy though).

Storm Bringer

2013-01-17, 02:14 PM

And the percussion cap was, or is I suppose, the rough equivalent of a modern round without the bullet in the casing (so its primer and powder in one unit) right? And these were used well into the 19th century yes?

to expand on others points:

the concept of a cartridge ( a bullet and powder in a contained case of some sort) appears to date back to the 1500s as shown. they contained a ball and a mesured amount of powder, to speed up loading (compared to mucking about witha powder horn). Here (http://www.davidkennardphotography.com/photos/21-English-Civil-War-Royalist-Musketeers-and-Pikemen.xhtml)is a a photo of some english civil war (~1640s) reenactors, whichs gives you a good idea of the size of the wooden cartridges. A dozen were carried, which led to the nickname "the 12 apostles" for the cartridges.

Paper cartridges were, according to the Wiki, used as far back as 1586, and, to my knowledge, replaced wooden cartridges sometime in the mid-to late 1600s, with paper being standard by 1700 or so. paper was better, because:
A. you can carry more
b. was easier to use than a wooden one,
C. the paper could be waxed or greased to add water proofing to the charge, making it work better in wet weather.
D. the paper acted as wadding (very important in a age where bullets were deliberatly made too small to easy loading).

Now matchlock weapons were standard in the 1600's and remained in use in europe in some roles until as late as 1720, if the Wiki is to be believed. I understand that in india and china the cheap and simple matchlock soldiered on to the early 19th century (i'm pretty sure that some indians in the 1810s and that most chinese in the 1840's faced off agianst british redcoats with matchlocks in hand).

one point i'd like to make about the different locks is that the wheel and flintlocks was that these were both more reliable than matchlocks (though even a napoleonic era flintlock had a field misfire rate of about 1 in 5 shots), and that the flintlock in particular was much faster and easier to load, as you didn't need to faff about with a piece of burning string in one hand while pouring gunpowder in the other, not to mention the fiddling about needed to keep the match burning properly (i'm pretty sure the frist dozen of so steps for loading a matchlock are dedicated solely to sorting out the match).

thus, a unit with flintlocks ws both faster firing and suffered fewer misfires than a matchlock unit, which led to thier quick adoption in europe.

next major innovation is the precussion cap, which replaced the small pan of powder (which was the major cause to misfires in flintlocks, as the powder here either failed to ignite or went off without setting off the main charge, a "flash in the pan") with a small 'cap' of precussion (shock) sensitive explosive (orginally, they tried to replace the whole powder charge, but the results were too unstable and shock sensitive for practical use, so they lowered the charge and created the cap). this, again, made the weapon quicker to load and more reliable, and was adotped around the 1840-1860 era, along with rifled barrels, leading to the change from flintlock mustkets to precussion rifles used in the Crimean and Amerian Civil wars.

Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK5GcG_QHJ0)is a video that shows both the loading of a precussion rifles and a civil war era cannon (which is basically the same as napoleonic era cannons, i believe).

Galloglaich

2013-01-17, 02:33 PM

Wow check this awesome gun out!

http://www.musketeer.ch/Bilder/SP_bild/DanzigerBuchse500.JPG

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

and this one

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt87/rocklockI/hgupplstbildmrk.jpg

both replicas of guns (or 'gonnes') from Danzig, I think 14th Century

G

fusilier

2013-01-17, 03:32 PM

next major innovation is the precussion cap, which replaced the small pan of powder (which was the major cause to misfires in flintlocks, as the powder here either failed to ignite or went off without setting off the main charge, a "flash in the pan") with a small 'cap' of precussion (shock) sensitive explosive (orginally, they tried to replace the whole powder charge, but the results were too unstable and shock sensitive for practical use, so they lowered the charge and created the cap). this, again, made the weapon quicker to load and more reliable, and was adotped around the 1840-1860 era, along with rifled barrels, leading to the change from flintlock mustkets to precussion rifles used in the Crimean and Amerian Civil wars.

Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK5GcG_QHJ0)is a video that shows both the loading of a precussion rifles and a civil war era cannon (which is basically the same as napoleonic era cannons, i believe).

Good post. A minor correction, use of the percussion cap did not make loading any faster (in fact some claim it may have made it slower). But it was so much more reliable, and made the gun much easier to load in the rain.

A major difference between a civil war cannon and a napoleonic era one would be the ignition system. During napoleonic times they would have used a linstock (a matchcord on the end of a stick), or port-fire (think of a truck flare). Usually port-fire was reserved for instances where speed was desired. By the American Civil War, friction primers were in use. These were inserted into the vent and attached to a lanyard, which was yanked by the gunner to fire the piece.

You are correct about matchlocks (I've fired one) -- a lot of the drill is keeping the hand holding the burning matchcord away from the hand holding the powder!

Storm Bringer

2013-01-17, 03:40 PM

Good post. A minor correction, use of the percussion cap did not make loading any faster (in fact some claim it may have made it slower). But it was so much more reliable, and made the gun much easier to load in the rain.

A major difference between a civil war cannon and a napoleonic era one would be the ignition system. During napoleonic times they would have used a serpentine (a matchcord on the end of a stick), or port-fire (think of a truck flare). Usually port-fire was reserved for instances where speed was desired. By the American Civil War, friction primers were in use. These were inserted into the vent and attached to a lanyard, which was yanked by the gunner to fire the piece.

You are correct about matchlocks (I've fired one) -- a lot of the drill is keeping the hand holding the burning matchcord away from the hand holding the powder!

that does remind me. I;m resonably certian that at least some cannon in the napoleonic wars were flintlocks. the only pictures i;ve seen are in a naval context, such as here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/50081377@N00/2171835742/). you can see them agian in the flim Master and commander, where, notably, a main character gets his hand trapped under a flint during the final fight

Galloglaich

2013-01-17, 04:39 PM

Surprising how fast they can shoot one of those handgonnes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD6SbAzdvc8

G

Galloglaich

2013-01-18, 01:47 PM

Pavise

Osprey Men-at-Arm 94: The Swiss At War 1300-1500, pg 16:

Burgundian Wars, 1474-77.

Osprey books are really useful and I particularly like that one, but it's wrong in that particular remark. They tend to be a useful 'starting point' for research but often miss details.

The Swiss were very conservative with weapons, Berne recently (5 years ago) liquidated some pikes they were still holding on to in the city arsenal which ended up on Ebay. I almost bought one.

The Swiss never emphasized guns or crossbows as much as a lot of other armies did, concentrating their strategy on their hard-hitting infantry columns of pikemen and halberdiers; but they did use gunners and crossbowmen as well, they were a very important part of the mix of forces, (typically outside of the main columns, in what were called 'forlorn' hopes') and these men did use pavises, as was common at the time of the Burgundian wars.

These photos are from Grandson Castle where a lot of the loot and weapons from the Burgundian Wars were collected and are now stored. Pavises were used on both sides and Charles the Bolds army during those wars was considered the most sophisticated and well equipped in Europe.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bbICRkd2kF8/UAWwJeB7MWI/AAAAAAAAAQ4/fxOqfG4AhTg/s1600/IMG_2193.jpg

This one is burgundian
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--wS6k5CODrs/UAWwNyh1bjI/AAAAAAAAARI/s3D-RcNxwzk/s1600/IMG_2212.jpg

Swiss, from the Burgundian Wars
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=65177&stc=1

This is a Swiss Pavise from 1445

http://pics.myarmoury.com/view.html?pavise04.jpg

This Pavise from 1485 is from a part of the Tyrol contest between the Swiss Confederation and Austria, it could be German or Swiss but I think it's Swiss due to the red cross on white background

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/files/hpim1376_210.jpg

G

fusilier

2013-01-18, 07:36 PM

Surprising how fast they can shoot one of those handgonnes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD6SbAzdvc8

G

Yeah, but he's loading from premeasured chargers, instead of a powder flask. Laying everything out in front of you does help. Also the shortness of the barrel on those old hand gonnes helps a lot, as it greatly reduces the time for ramming. Nevertheless, with a similar amount of preparedness in a static position, like defending a town or castle wall, that's probably pretty close to what could be done in actual fighting.

fusilier

2013-01-18, 07:39 PM

that does remind me. I;m resonably certian that at least some cannon in the napoleonic wars were flintlocks. the only pictures i;ve seen are in a naval context, such as here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/50081377@N00/2171835742/). you can see them agian in the flim Master and commander, where, notably, a main character gets his hand trapped under a flint during the final fight

I know the British did that with their naval cannons (at least by the Napoleonic wars -- I'm not sure when it started) -- it protected the priming powder from water spray. They probably abandoned it for friction primers, when those became available, but I'm not certain. I'm not aware of it being used on land.

fusilier

2013-01-18, 07:57 PM

The Swiss never emphasized guns or crossbows as much as a lot of other armies did, concentrating their strategy on their hard-hitting infantry columns of pikemen and halberdiers; but they did use gunners and crossbowmen as well, they were a very important part of the mix of forces, (typically outside of the main columns, in what were called 'forlorn' hopes') and these men did use pavises, as was common at the time of the Burgundian wars.

Galloglaich -- I agree with you on Osprey books, but it was the only book at hand that addressed the subject of pavises.

What are you basing your assertion on? The fact that there are some survival examples from roughly that time period? Some period drawings? Are those surviving examples statistically representational? Are the contemporary drawings even accepted to be accurate?

I see no reason to believe either -- period pictures could be based upon older works of art, and idealized reconstructions, and museums are often crammed full of ceremonial arms and armor that were never used in battle. That's often the reason the items have survived.

Finally, there's no claim that pavises weren't used at all during the conflict, just not in open warfare. If you want to refute that claim, I would like to see some reliable evidence.

Galloglaich

2013-01-19, 12:14 AM

Galloglaich -- I agree with you on Osprey books, but it was the only book at hand that addressed the subject of pavises.

Well, fair enough but it's rather thin soup. It's also (as much as I like that particular one) a fairly old Osprey book.

What are you basing your assertion on? The fact that there are some survival examples from roughly that time period? Some period drawings? Are those surviving examples statistically representational? Are the contemporary drawings even accepted to be accurate?

I'm basing it on a lot of research on the Swiss, detailed accounts of the battles, reading may books on Medieval warfare, many hours of discussions with other well informed people about Medieval warfare both in person and on HEMA forums and on websites like Myarmoury which specifically deal with kit, and from personally visiting places like Grandson castle, Bernisches Historisches Museum in Bern, the Landesmuseum in Zurich, and other smaller sites (little castles and Churches) where they have a lot of the weapons and battlefield loot from Switzerland's military heyday, which was all 14th-16th Century pretty much.

And the fact that there are 'some survival examples' from not only the same time period, but that they are from same specific series of (late 15th Century) battles you referred to (in the case of three of the images I posted) which I happened to know were at that museum because I'd been there a long time ago.

I see no reason to believe either -- period pictures could be based upon older works of art, and idealized reconstructions, and museums are often crammed full of ceremonial arms and armor that were never used in battle. That's often the reason the items have survived.

Well do a little reading on this particular museum. It is a collection of artifacts recovered from the battles with Charles the Bold in the Burgundian wars, mostly the battle of Grandson in 1476 and the battle of Nancy. They have all his banners, and the pointy shoes of hundreds of his knights, among other things. The museum in Bern had his gold or silver bathtub, which was also captured in the same war.

http://www.myswitzerland.com/en/le-chateau-de-grandson.html

Finally, there's no claim that pavises weren't used at all during the conflict, just not in open warfare. If you want to refute that claim, I would like to see some reliable evidence.

I don't suggest that I can definitely prove it to you here and now, the books I know of which discuss Swiss battlefield organization in that kind of detail aren't available online I don't think (I may check later) and it would take some time to go read through them, find and transcribe relevant passages sufficient to make an airtight case that could convince you.

But I am convinced myself of this and I think I've supplied sufficient counter evidence with some Swiss (and Burgundian) pavises from the period in question. Readers of the thread can make their own decisions, maybe I'm right, maybe you are, maybe we are both wrong. I think the main purpose of this thread is to provide information, which I've tried to do, not to win arguments.

And also on the larger picture - the issue of whether pavises were still widely in use in the 15th Century (and that their use peaked in the 15th). If you look at that excellent Myarmoury thread linked upthread here, you'll note most of the dozens of pavises they depict there are from the 15th or early 16th Century. The reason I believe they were still in use generally in Europe is that the Bohemians who we know used the hell out of 'em, were widely deployed as mercenaries from Northern Poland to southern Hungary. They were the basis of the Hungarian Black Army which I mentioned (and linked to) before, that was one of the biggest military players in Europe at that time.

The real question to me is, why, how did they work. The Bohemian ones used a special construction based on Lithuanian shields, with the central rib and so on, and they all seemed to be made of some kind of composite material of resin, sinew and linen over thick wood (soft fibrous wood, apparently willow in some cases) which may have acted like some kind of modern composite material or it may have just been like the older pavises, in which case you have to wonder how they protected against guns and recurves and heavy crossbows. But one thing I've learned from researching all this stuff, is that these people seem to have known what they were doing more often than not. The image of the ignoramus "Medieval Caveman" that we always see on TV doesn't hold up well in the historical record.

But to me, this is still something of a mystery.

G

Matthew

2013-01-19, 10:33 AM

English archers were even often depicted barefoot for maximum adhesion, AFAIR.

I am not sure that is true at all. Some French commentators mentioned that some of the English archers were so poor they went afoot, but I have never heard any evidence turning that around into a positive choice.

Huh, interesting video. It's from the English Warbow Society so presumably it's a legitimate historical technique.

From the society entry requirements, that selfbow has a minimum draw of 70lbs at 32" full draw (my arms won't even reach that far :smallfrown:). I will question what sort of accuracy that technique has though, but if you're just firing into formations, I guess it doesn't matter that much.

That said, the Mongols are renowned for their horse archery and what research I can find suggests their bows had a similarly heavy draw weights, so I presume it's still possible to not need your legs to draw powerful bows (with some technique modification).

Some additional research suggests that English bows were also used mounted, although with some issues as the mounted archer could only really fire sideways effectively - firing forwards as horse archers often did usually resulted in the bow poking the horse, which affected your accuracy and reload times.

My turn for interesting videos: Battlefield kyudo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=m5VtVCQ7IpY).
While he's using a yumi (Japanese bow) which is designed to be off centre, he doesn't appear to have any trouble drawing or hitting his targets while kneeling.
I can't find any reference to the draw weight of his bow, although war yumi were recorded to have a draw weight of 90lb (I doubt that this bow is that heavy though).

The really heavy bows used by the English War Bow Society are upwards of 120 lbs, which I suppose is why specialist techniques have appeared to deal with the difficulty. By the way, it was apparently early on in the third book that this occurred, when Lord Berrick's men are fighting the brave companions.

fusilier

2013-01-19, 06:24 PM

And also on the larger picture - the issue of whether pavises were still widely in use in the 15th Century (and that their use peaked in the 15th). If you look at that excellent Myarmoury thread linked upthread here, you'll note most of the dozens of pavises they depict there are from the 15th or early 16th Century. The reason I believe they were still in use generally in Europe is that the Bohemians who we know used the hell out of 'em, were widely deployed as mercenaries from Northern Poland to southern Hungary. They were the basis of the Hungarian Black Army which I mentioned (and linked to) before, that was one of the biggest military players in Europe at that time.

Well, my argument is that they declined in use in the second half of the 15th century.

Secondly, I've seen that forum before -- and I was disappointed by it. All the pavises were German or Bohemian, and all from about 1500. Not only that, how can we be certain that what is shown there is a representational sample of pavises? Furthermore, a collection of pavises from circa 1500, is precisely that -- it doesn't prove anything other than that pavises were still made at that time. It doesn't demonstrate that they were being used in more or less numbers than in previous decades.

Also, any study that looks at surviving historical arms has to address the issue of sample bias for it to be acceptable. I saw a study about firearm effectiveness (they actually performed destructive testing on 17th century breastplates), where they came to the erroneous conclusion that firearms became more powerful over the course of the 17th century. Why? Because they used data from a museum that had conducted tests on some surviving weapons that they owned. The owned no circa 1600 muskets, only pistols and light carbines and light hunting weapons from that time period. They did have some military muskets from circa 1700, however. So, without the heavy muskets from the late 16th / early 17th centuries, but with later, and actually weaker, muskets their results were skewed. (There are other reasons their results would be wrong as well).

G - I've got no problem if you want to quote sources at me! I'm interested in learning, and do have access to a half-way decent library, which has surprised me before. :-)

Brother Oni

2013-01-20, 06:59 AM

By the way, it was apparently early on in the third book that this occurred, when Lord Berrick's men are fighting the brave companions.

Cool, thanks. Haven't reached that far yet in the novels (still part way through the first book) or in the TV series (third season is out later this year).

Galloglaich

2013-01-20, 01:01 PM

Well, my argument is that they declined in use in the second half of the 15th century.

Right. And I think it actually peaked in the second half of the 15th Century.

Secondly, I've seen that forum before -- and I was disappointed by it. All the pavises were German or Bohemian, and all from about 1500. Not only that, how can we be certain that what is shown there is a representational sample of pavises? Furthermore, a collection of pavises from circa 1500, is precisely that -- it doesn't prove anything other than that pavises were still made at that time. It doesn't demonstrate that they were being used in more or less numbers than in previous decades.

Well, it represents all the pavises they could find, and it shows us that quite a few of them were still around in Europe, at least in the German and Slavic / Magyar speaking parts of Europe, which covers a pretty damn big chunk of it.

http://s7.postimage.org/9rofz2anf/Zeur.jpg

Something like this, not counting the German-speaking towns in Sweden, Norway and Finland; or Holland or Flanders which overlaps culturally with the German speaking world; or Mongol controlled parts of Russia.

Also, any study that looks at surviving historical arms has to address the issue of sample bias for it to be acceptable.

Yes, but this is not an academic study. And since your evidence apparently consists of one throwaway line in an Osprey book (and more on that in a second) I don't see why the 'burden of proof' in this case would be on me, (or on the Myarmoury thread).

It is very hard to prove anything about life 500-600 years ago, All we have is our best guess based on the available evidence. When it comes to things which are perishable and organic like a pavise (or clothes, textile armor, furniture of common people) all we have to go on are what we can find in the archeological record, what has been preserved by whatever historical accident in castles, churches, museums, and private collections, what we see in the artwork and what is mentioned or described in surviving documents. All of these can of course be subject to various types of bias. Somethings last long (bronze artifacts for example) than others. Some things (books for example) are more likely to be carefully preserved than others, like say, underwear.

http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Hhi57KdwebSTuuXyuDdlmw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9MjgxNDtjcj0xO2N3PTIzNTc7ZHg9MD tkeT0wO2ZpPXVsY3JvcDtoPTIyNztxPTg1O3c9MTkw/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/65cd012c20f0b614150f6a7067003dfe.jpg
Until they very recently found this 600 year old bra (http://news.yahoo.com/600-old-linen-bras-found-austrian-castle-192408678.html) in an Austrian Castle, they didn't think people wore them back then.

But we use Occam's razor - whatever the preponderance of evidence shows is what we assume to be the case... until more evidence turns that upside down. As for example Ewart Oakeshott did in the 60's when he did a really systematic survey of Medieval swords, and proved that they were not clumsy crow bars.

Getting back to our little debate, I know that the Swiss French term for missile armed skirmishers such as crossbowmen and gunners was "Gens de Trait", so I did a google search for the term, I found this interesting image, from the 19th or 20th Century I'd guess, of a pretty convincing (to me) portrayal of some Swiss infantry with a pavise. Note how the crossbowman carries it on his back.

http://media.tipsimages.it/MediaNews/Logo/RDA00099609.jpg

The cross on the back of the halberdier / billmans back is, I believe, Swiss. From his armor I think you will agree, it's 15th Century.

Regarding the Osprey books, here is another image from another one (I don't remember which one) depicting Swiss mercenaries in the 'mid 15th Century' hiding behind pavises.

http://gi96.photobucket.com/groups/l170/DL9KZUVV3H/swwiss.jpg

So I would say Osprey leans both ways on that issue.

If you think they went away in the late 15th Century, the question should be why? What changed specifically between 1450-1500? Either that or of course, feel free to provide a study in detail of the existing evidence from across Europe of the decline of the use of the Pavise.

G - I've got no problem if you want to quote sources at me! I'm interested in learning, and do have access to a half-way decent library, which has surprised me before. :-)

Ok. My best sources for this period are as follows:

Academic
The Annals of Jan Dlugosz: A History of Eastern Europe from A.D. 965 to A.D. 1480 [Abridged], Maurice Michael (Translator), Jan Dlugosz, IM Publications LLP, (1997) ISBN: 978-1901019001
Teutonic Knights: A Military History , William L. Urban, Greenhill Books (2003) ISBN: 1853675350
The Northern Crusades: Second Edition, Eric Christiansen, Penguin, (1998) ISBN: 0140266534
The Chronicle of Henry of Livonia, Henricus Lettus (Author), circa 1227 AD. James A. Brundage (Translator), Columbia
University Press (January 6, 2004), ISBN-10: 0231128894
Expeditions to Prussia and the Holy Land, Made by Henry Earl of Derby (afterwords King Henry IV) in the years 1390-1 and 1392-3 Being The Accounts kept by his Treasurer during two years Edited from the originals by Lucy Toulmin Smith, printed for the Royal Camden Society M.DCC.XCIV (1894) (English introduction and preface, the rest is Latin)
Arms and Armor in the Medieval Teutonic Order’s State in Prussia, Andrzej Nowakowski, Oficyna Naukowa MS, (Poland),
(1994), ISBN 83-85874-01-1
Cracow, the royal capital of ancient Poland: its history and antiquities, By Leonard Lepszy, 1912
A History of the Hussite Revolution by Howard Kaminsky Wipf & Stock Publishers (April 2004) ISBN: 1592446310
Saxo and the Baltic Region, a Symposium Edited by Tore Nyberg University Press of Southern Denmark; 1 edition (January 2004) ISBN: 8778389283
Lübecker Kolloquium zur Stadtarchaologie im Hanseraum, I: Stand, Aufgaben und Perspektiven Schmidt - Roemhild;
(1997) ISBN: 978-3-7950-1222-9
Lübecker Kolloquium zur Stadtarchaologie im Hanseraum, II: der Handel Schmidt - Roemhild; (1999) ISBN
103795012368
Lübecker Kolloquium zur Stadtarchaologie im Hanseraum IV: Die Infrastruktur Schmidt - Roemhild; (October 2004)
ISBN: 3795012651
Polish-Lithuanian State, 1386-1795 (History of East Central Europe), Daniel Stone, University of Washington Press (May 29, 2001) ISBN 978-0295980935
Medieval Warfare: History of the Art of War, Volume III (History of the Art of War, Vol 3) , Hans Delbruck, University of Nebraska Press (1990) ISBN: 0803265859
European Weapons and Armour: From the Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution Ewart Oakeshott, Boydell Press (November 16, 2000), ISBN: 0851157890
The Armourer and his Craft, Ffoulkes, Charles, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1988 (original printing 1912)
Ballistic Resistance of Personal Body Armor, National Institute of Justice, Law enforcement and Corrections Standards and Testing Program, #0101.04, June 2001
Stab Resistance of Personal Body Armor, National Institute of Justice. Law Enforcement and Corrections Standards and Testing program, #0115.00, September 2000
The Journal of the Mail Research Society Schmid, Eric, Armour from the Battle of Wisby, Thordeman, Bengt, Almquist & Wiksells, Boktryckeri, 1939
A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration, and Use of Arms and Armor in All Countries and in All Times, George Cameron Stone
The Complete Encyclopedia of Arms & Weapons, edited by Leonid Tarassuk and Claude Blair
Mary Rose, The Mary Rose Trust, Old Porstmouth 1985
Arms and Armor from Iran: The Bronze Age to the End of the Qajar Peroid Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani Legat Verlag (November 3, 2006) ISBN: 3932942221
The World of the Gallowglass: Kings, Warlords and Warriors in Ireland and Scotland, 1200-1600 Sean Duffy (Editor) Four Courts press, (October 10, 2007) ISBN: 1851829466
The Knight and the Blast Furnace, Alan Williams, Brill Academic Publishers, ISBN: 978-9004124981
The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, Joseph Burkhardt
The Book of the Sword, Sir Richard Burton, Dover Publications (July 1, 1987) ISBN: 0486254348

Primary Sources
An Arab-Syrian Gentleman and Warrior in the Period of the Crusades: Memoirs of Usamah Ibn-Munqidh, Usamah Ibn-Munqidh, ISBN:
0691022690
Il-Principe (“The Prince”) Niccolò Machiavelli, Create Space (2010), ISBN: 978-1441412898
The Anglo Saxon Chronicle, Various authors, Red and Black Publishers, ISBN: 978-1-934941-50-8
The Story of the Mongols Whom We Call the Tartars, Friar Giovanni DiPlano Carpini, Brandon Publishing Company (1996), ISBN: 0-8283-2017-9
Chronicles of the Crusades, Jean de Joinville, Digireads.com publishing (2010), ISBN: 978-1-4209-3487-8
Medieval Russias Epics, Chronicles, and Tales (includes numerous excerpts from the Russian Primary Chronicle), Meridian Books, (1974) ISBN: 0-452-01086-1
Chinese Military Texts: The Art of War, Thirty-Six Stratagems, Huolongjing, Wujing Zongyao, Seven Military Classics, Ji Xiao Xin
Shu (Paperback), Books LLC (2010), ISBN: 978-1155663012
The Conquest of New Spain Bernal Diaz
The 1001 Nights, aka The Book of A Thousand Nights and a Night aka The Arabian Nights Sir Richard Burton (translator /
compiler)
Book of Five Rings, Miyamoto Musashi, Shambhala (1994) ISBN: 0877739986
Elbinger Rechtsbuch (13th Century)
Balthazar Behem Codex Picturatus (15th Century)
Elbing-Preusisches Worterbuch (14th Century)
The Chronicles of Novgorod BiblioBazaar (November 18, 2009) ISBN: 1117019462
Gesta Danorum Saxo Grammaticus
Mittelalterliches Hausbuch von_Schloss Wolfegg, 1480 AD (reprinted 1887)
Meester van het Hausbuch, 1485 AD
Chronicle of Henry of Livonia 1228 AD
Livonian Rhymed Chronicle 1340 AD
Chronicon Terrae Prussiae Peter of Dusburg, 1326 AD
Hypatian Codex (contains excerpts from the Galician-Volhynian Chronicle)
Saxonspiegel (various versions) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachsenspiegel
Annales seu cronici in****i regni Poloniae (The Annals of Jan D.ugosz), 1480 AD (first printed 1701), by Jan D.ugosz (the
definitive Medieval history of the Baltic region)
Banderia Prutenorum, Jan D.ugosz, 1448 AD
Chronica Slavorum, Helmold, 1171 AD,
Deeds of bishops of the Hamburg Church, Adam von Bremen, 1080 AD
Chronica der Provinz Lyfflandt, Balthasar Russow, 1578 AD
A Journey Beyond the Three Seas, Afanasy Nikitin, 1475 AD
Tirant Lo Blanc, Joanot Martorell, 1490 AD
The Nuremberg Chronicle, 1493 AD
Descriptio civitatum et regionum ad septentrionalem plagam Danubii ("Description of Cities and Lands North of the
Danube") the Bavarian Geographer, 850 AD
Book of Roads and Kingdoms, Abu Abdullah al-Bakri, 1068 AD, Cordoba, Al Andalus (contains excerpts from the
commentaries of Abraham ben Jacob aka Ibrahim ibn Ya`qub aka al-Tartushi from the 10th Century, including his
travels in Scandinavia, Poland and Bohemia.)
Gesta Principum Polonorum: The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles, Gallus Anonymous, Central European University Press (March 2003) ISBN-10: 9639241407

Popular Military History
Arms and Armour of the Medieval Knight by David Edge and John Miles Paddock, ISBN: 978-0517103197
Medieval Warfare Source Book: Warfare in Western Christendom David Nicolle
Warfare in the Classical World, John Gibson Wary, University of Oklahoma Press, (October 1995) ISBN: 0806127945
Longbow- A Social and Military History Hardy, Robert, Patrick Stephens Limited, Great Britain, originally printed 1976
The Crooked Stick: A History of the Longbow* Hugh D. H. Soar, Westholme Publshing LLC, (2004) ISBN: 978-1-59416-090-5
The Great Warbow Matthew Strickland, The History Press (2005), ISBN: 978-0750931670

Osprey Military Books
The Swiss at War 1300-1500 (Men-At-Arms Series, 94) Douglas Miller, Osprey Press, (November 1979) ISBN: 0850453348
Landsknechts (Men-At-Arms Series, 58), Douglas Miller, Osprey Press, (March 31, 1994) ISBN: 0850452589
Viking Hersir 793-1066 AD, Mike Harrison, Osprey Press, (July 29, 1993), ISBN: 1855323184
The Hussite Wars 1419-36, Stephen Turnbull, Osprey Press, 2004, ISBN: 1 84176 665 8
Samurai 1550-1600*, Anthony J Byrant, Osprey Press 1994, ISBN: 978 1 85532 345 2
English Longbowman 1330-1515, Clive Bartlett, Osprey Press 1995, ISBN: 978 1 85532 491 6

Web resources:
Overview of Japanese Armor: http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_jpn_armour.html
World Atlatl organization: http://www.worldatlatl.org/
The English Warbow society: http://www.englishwarbowsociety.com/
The Knight and the Blast Furnace on google books:
http://books.google.com/books?id=GpVbnsqAzxIC&dq=the+knight+and+the+blast+furnace&printsec=frontcover&source=bn
&hl=en&ei=KBCMS8nuB42VtgexmZDDDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q
=&f=false
Charles Ffoulkes The Armorer and His Craft in online scan:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19025405/Ffoulkes-C-The-Armourer-and-His-Craft-Read-in-Fullscreen

Academic Articles
Sciences, Bratislava, Slovakia, (1996)
Jennifer Mills “The Hanseatic League in the Eastern Baltic”, (May 1998)
Christopher Nicholson, “Between Menace and Utility: Handguns in Early Sixteenth-Century Bohemia”, University College
London (Skepsi Vol 1, Kent University 2010)
Sven Ekdahl, “Horses and Crossbows: Two Important Warfare Advantages of the Teutonic Order in Prussia”, published
in The Military Orders, Volume 2: Welfare and Warfare (1998)
Riskin, Jessica, “Machines in the Garden.” Republics of Letters: A Journal for the Study of Knowledge, Politics, and the
Arts 1, no. 2 (April 3, 2010), http://rofl.stanford.edu/node/59
David Eltis “Towns and Defense in Later Medieval Germany”, Nottingham Medieval Studies v. 33. (1989)
Cliff Hubby “Violence and Local Society in Late Medieval Bavaria, a look at the evidence”
T.A. Brady, 'Patricians, nobles, merchants: internal tensions and solidarities in South German urban ruling classes at
the close of the Middle Ages', in Social Groups and Religious Ideas in the Sixteenth Century. Ed. M.U. Chrisman and O.
Gründler (1978)
Thomas A. Brady, “Ruling Class, Regime and Reformation in Strasbourg” 1520-1555 (Leiden: Brill, 1978)
F.L. Carsten, 'Medieval democracy in the Brandenburg towns and its defeat in the fifteenth century', Transactions of the
Royal Historical Society, 4th ser. 25 (1943), 73-91
F.R.H. Du Boulay, 'The German town chroniclers', in R.H.C. Davis and J.M. Wallace-Hadrill ed., The Writing of History in
the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to R.W. Southern (1981)
Christopher R. Friedrichs, 'The Swiss and German city-states', in The City-State in Five Cultures, ed. Robert Griffeth and
Carol G. Thomas (Santa Barbara, CA, London, 1981), 109-42
M. Groten, 'Civic record keeping in Cologne, 1250-1330', in R.H. Britnell ed., Pragmatic Literacy East and West, 1200-
1330 (1997)
Hans R. Guggisberg, Basel in the Sixteenth Century: Aspects of the City Republic before, during and after the
Reformation (St Louis, MO, 1982)
Peter Johanek, 'Imperial and free towns of the Holy Roman Empire – city states in pre-modern Germany?', in A
Comparative Study of Thirty City-State Cultures, ed. Mogens Herman Hansen (Copenhagen, 2000), 295-319
D. Nicholas, The Later Medieval City 1300-1500 (1997)
M. North, 'The records of Lübeck and Hamburg, c. 1250-1330', in R.H. Britnell ed., Pragmatic Literacy East and West,
1200-1330 (1997)
F. Rörig, “The Medieval Town” (Eng. trans. from 1964 edn)
H.-C. Rublack, 'Political and social norms in urban communities in the Holy Roman Empire', in K. von Greyertz ed.,
Religion, Politics, and Social Protest (London, 1984), 24-60
J.C. Smith ed., Nuremberg: a Renaissance City, 1500-1618 (Huntington Art Gallery, Austin, Texas, 1983)
H. Stoob, ‘The role of the civic community in central European urban development during the twelfth to the fifteenth
centuries’, Transactions of the Ancient Monuments Society, 23 (1978-9)
G. Strauss, “Nuremberg in the Sixteenth Century” (1966)
Dr. William Urban “The Sense of Humor Among the Teutonic Knights of the Thirteenth-Century”, illinois Quarterly
Michael Toch “Hauling Away in Late Medieval Bavaria: The Economics of Inland Transport in an Agrarian Market” The
Agricultural History Review Vol. 41, No. 2 (1993), pp. 111-123
John U. Nef ‘Mining and Metallurgy in Medieval Civilisation’, The Cambridge Economic History of Europe
Volume 2, Trade and Industry in the Middle Ages (1987)
Giles Constable, "Forgery and Plagiarism in the Middle Ages," Archiv für Diplomatik 29 (1983), pp. 1-41.
J. N. H. LAWRANCE “The Spread of Lay Literacy in Late Medieval Castile”, Bulletin of Hispanic Studies, (Liverpool
University Press, 1985)
Roberto S. Lopez, “The Culture of the Medieval Merchant” Proceedings of the Southeastern Institute of Medieval and
Renaissance Studies, Vol. 8 (1979)
“Imperial and Free Towns of the Holy Roman Empire, City States in Pre-modern Germany?” Peter Johanek, A
comparative study of thirty city-state cultures: an investigation The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters,
(2000), ISBN 8778761778
“Women in Genoese commenda contracts”, 1155–1216, Mark Angelos, Journal of Medieval History, Volume 20, Issue
4, (December 1994), Pages 299-312, Epstein Stephan.

Specifically on the issue of Switzerland, your best bet would be to go to the Chronicles of Diebold Schilling (who did the Chronicles of Bern and Zurich in the 1480's, among others) and the other Swiss Chronicles.

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

Also this book gets into some useful detail about the Burgundian Wars

http://www.amazon.com/Charles-Bold-Valois-Burgundy-History/dp/0851159184

fusilier

2013-01-20, 11:49 PM

I don't see why the 'burden of proof' in this case would be on me, (or on the Myarmoury thread).

Because you've made a counter claim, and I'm interested in the subject. I'm not asking you to conduct a detailed academic survey yourself, just to point me in the direction of some. With all due respect, most of your arguments seem to be "here's a picture". Which would be fine, if we were arguing over the shape of crossbow stocks or something like that, but hardly settles a question of tactical doctrine. A picture might demonstrate that a piece of equipment was used, but not the extent to which it was in use.

If you think they went away in the late 15th Century, the question should be why? What changed specifically between 1450-1500? Either that or of course, feel free to provide a study in detail of the existing evidence from across Europe of the decline of the use of the Pavise.

There are a couple of factors. 1. At least somebody writing an Osprey book developed the impression that the Swiss stopped using them in field battles. Unfortunately, there's no reference. 2. The use of shield-bearers in Italian armies declined during the second-half of the century. Perhaps this is related to something that seems to be going on in western European infantry -- and that is the division of infantry companies. Earlier, at least in Italy, it was common to have a single infantry company with multiple troop types in it, and apparently they just mixed everybody together on the battlefield. In the second half of the century, increasingly you see companies separating into "fire" companies, of crossbowmen and/or handgunners, and other types of infantry -- which would imply that a similar division was taking place on the battlefield. This is actually a development that I'm trying to find out more about.

In itself, that's no particular reason to abandon pavises, as crossbowmen could carry them themselves, although I'm not sure if that practice was universal, or even common. . However, these changes seem to be related to a common reference to the increase in the effectiveness and [I]mobility of the infantry. Increasing mobility of infantry and the abandonment of a big, bulky piece of equipment seem a logical correlation.

--EDIT-- There was also a rise in the use of field fortifications, I need more time to explore that angle, but if a crossbowman found himself behind ditches and breastworks more often, then a pavise looks less useful as well. --EDIT--

When it comes to things which are perishable and organic like a pavise (or clothes, textile armor, furniture of common people) all we have to go on are what we can find in the archeological record, what has been preserved by whatever historical accident in castles, churches, museums, and private collections, what we see in the artwork and what is mentioned or described in surviving documents. All of these can of course be subject to various types of bias.

Agreed.

Well, it represents all the pavises they could find, and it shows us that quite a few of them were still around in Europe, at least in the German and Slavic / Magyar speaking parts of Europe, which covers a pretty damn big chunk of it.

Which, unfortunately, only reinforces my view that they lagged behind Western Europe in tactical innovation. *I* don't think that implies a lack of effectiveness, but that's because I don't subscribe to such views. --EDIT-- In this aspect, at this time. I do not claim that Eastern Europeans were always lagging behind Western Europe. To the contrary they were early adopters of handguns, and many mercenary handgunners in the west were from Bohemia and Germany. --EDIT--

Ok. My best sources for this period are as follows:

Heh. Did somebody just copy and paste a bibliography they had lying around? ;-) I'll take a look through and see what's likely to discuss the equipment in question.

Arms and Armor from Iran: The Bronze Age to the End of the Qajar Peroid Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani Legat Verlag (November 3, 2006) ISBN: 3932942221
This one looks promising. I'm sure the use of pavises in Europe will be well covered. ;-)

fusilier

2013-01-21, 12:34 AM

I know Gush is definitely a bit dated, and rather simplistic, but a little more fuel for the fire:

http://warfare.uphero.com/Renaissance/02_Infantry_Weapons.htm

Large oblong 'pavises' propped up or held to shelter crossbowmen, especially in sieges, were probably still in use at the beginning of the period. Otherwise, shields were beginning to disappear from the infantry, probably because both pike and firearm required the use of both hands, and because a shield offered little protection against a bullet. They were officially abolished in Germany by the Emperor Maximilian when he carried out his reorganisation of German forces at the end of the 15th Century, and German shields of the type illustrated would probably be rare after this.
[Note: there's no illustration on the webpage ---CORRECTION--- the illustration of a pavise is on the webpage]

However, when talking about the polish army in the late 15th century:
http://greatestbattles.iblogger.org/Renaissance/13_Polish.htm

Infantry were similar to medieval Western types, with many crossbow and pavise-men

So, if your focus has been on Eastern European warfare, it may very well be the case that the use of pavises lasted longer, and use peaked later than it did in Western Europe.

Galloglaich

2013-01-21, 01:01 AM

Because you've made a counter claim,

Ok, "no more pictures for you" fusilier! All kidding aside, I think I've countered the one line from the Osprey book. We both recognize that pavises remained in use by the Bohemians and the Germans through the end of the 15th Century. "here's a picture" demonstrated that there were plenty of surviving pavises from that period. If that doesn't impress you, I am ok with that. My evidence may not meet academic muster, but neither, frankly, does anything you have posted on this subject, and I've posted at least as much relevant content as you have. No offense, but I really don't care if you agree. I said already, I post here to provide information, and to learn myself, but not to argue into infinity. I don't think that is the purpose of the thread - I would like to try to keep the signal to noise ratio up. I think this is devolving into 'noise'.

If you have evidence about the pavise, post it. We both already know each others opinions.

The use of shield-bearers in Italian armies declined during the second-half of the century. Perhaps this is related to something that seems to be going on in western European infantry -- and that is the division of infantry companies.

As usual, this debate stems from my research on warfare in Central / Northern Europe vs. your research on Italian warfare - which you perceive as more modern or relevant to "Western" history or culture. I already demonstrated why I think the German / Slavic world is representative of a good chunk of Europe (see the map I posted upthread). I pointed out that the Hungarian Black army, which is considered by many military scholars to be the first really modern combined-arms army in post-Classical Europe, (i.e. at the very pinnacle of European tactical doctrine) was made up largely of Bohemian mercenaries who we both know were still using pavises very late, and King Matthias Corvinus of Hungary intentionally adopted the Bohemian (Czech) style of warfare because he found it more effective. (So, incidentally, did the Ruthenian Cossacks, the Muscovites, the Austrians, the Germans of the HRE, the Poles, and even the Turks, to varying degrees, mainly different types of war-wagon systems). The black army also included Swiss mercenaries, incidentally.

Note the Wiki shows a pavise shield in the images (I didn't put it there!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Army_of_Hungary#Weaponry_3

But this is all repetition at this point, signs of a stalemate in the discussion.

Earlier, at least in Italy,

See above.

Which, unfortunately, only reinforces my view that they lagged behind Western Europe in tactical innovation. *I* don't think that implies a lack of effectiveness, but that's because I don't subscribe to such views.

Considering that they basically invented the effective tactical use of guns, I think that is a ridiculous statement.

Heh. Did somebody just copy and paste a bibliography they had lying around? ;-) I'll take a look through and see what's likely to discuss the equipment in question.

Yep, it's the bibliography from my book and my last lecture, both of which deal with warfare in Central Europe.

This one looks promising. I'm sure the use of pavises in Europe will be well covered. ;-)

You might be surprised if you paused to think about it for a minute, maybe you could find the link. The Czechs, Germans, and Venetians had one thing in common: their most dangerous enemies were the Ottoman Empire and the other Steppe Nomads. The Ottomans adapted a lot of their military technology from the Persians. Including the steel shields they started using in the 15th Century which ended up in turn being adopted by the Spanish and the Italians as (one type of) rotella, and contributed to a major tactical breakthrough for the Spanish in particular toward the end of the 15th Century.

G

fusilier

2013-01-21, 01:56 AM

If you have evidence about the pavise, post it. We both already know each others opinions.

This is actually what I'm asking you to do.

A "throw-away line" from an Osprey book, still trumps nothing from no book. (--EDIT-- I am seriously interested in finding out more about this, because the statements that I've found are mostly these simply throw away lines from respected works, but ones that are also recognized for not being terribly accurate. Or they tend to be narrow in scope, like referring only to the Swiss or the Italians. However, so far I've not been able to find anything else. --EDIT--)

Considering that they basically invented the effective tactical use of guns, I think that is a ridiculous statement.

Apparently, you missed my edit. That's not your fault, but I repeat it:
--EDIT-- In this aspect, at this time. I do not claim that Eastern Europeans were always lagging behind Western Europe. To the contrary they were early adopters of handguns, and many mercenary handgunners in the west were from Bohemia and Germany. --EDIT--

It is ridiculous and silly to claim that any one group of people were always on the cutting edge of military technology and tactical thinking. But, after having submitted my statement, I realized that if it's taken out of the context of late 15th century pavise use, that it might be misinterpreted -- so I clarified it.

fusilier

2013-01-21, 05:38 AM

Ian Heath, in Armies of the Middle Ages, Volume 1: The Hundred years' War, the War of the Roses and the Burgundian Wars, 1300-1487 -- England, Burgundy, France, the Free Companies, Granada, Ireland, Italy, the Low Countries, Navarre, Scotland, Spain and Switzerland, has a couple of entries on the use of Pavises.

He states that the Swiss had abandoned pavises by the Burgundian Wars, but that the Burgundian crossbowmen still used them. Later in a description of a French crossbowman he states:

. . . the pavise described earlier having largely fallen out of use nearly everywhere by the late 15th-century (although it did not disappear entirely until the 16th century). pg. 146.

Now I'm still looking through Volume 2 (which includes the Hungarians), but his comments about the Black Army are basically in agreement with the wikipedia article linked above -- in which pavises were standard in that army at least down to the end of the 15th century. The description of how they operated is very static -- basically forming a fortress on the battlefield, that the light infantry would sally out from to attack the enemy, then fall back to for cover.

At any rate, the quote above may have a distinctive Western European slant to it -- which is hardly surprising, given the sub-title. :-)

kennyboyraven

2013-01-21, 06:37 AM

Brother Oni

2013-01-21, 07:45 AM

I'd like to ask how effective a crossbow (or any weapon based on the principle) was if the crossbow was actually pressed against the target? Would this would mean the bolt/string wouldn't have traveled far enough to impart all its force into the bolt, or does the bolt have full force immediately?

I would have thought the string would have to at least travel a minimum distance to impart enough force/momentum to the bolt?

I believe studies have indicated that bolts and arrows take a short distance to accelerate to top speed, but that's of limited importance at the range in question.

You have the bolt pressed against the target, but the power of the crossbow is still restrained by its internal mechanism. When you pull the trigger, instead of the crossbow mechanism restraining the energy, you have the target doing it instead.
This is where the draw power of the crossbow is important - if the target can stop the crossbow's pressure being transmitted through a sharp pointy metal tip, then they're safe. In all likelihood, you're going to end up with the bolt being pushed into the target.

There are number of pictures available on the internet of similar things happening with bows, where arrows have been of the wrong draw length or damaged arrows splintering on release, with the end effect of the arrow going through the archer's hand (I suspect board rules prohibit me from linking to them).

I've seen images of this happening with bows from 30 to 75lb draws - you can imagine what would happen with a more powerful crossbow (late medieval military crossbows start at about 350lbs, all the way up to 1200lbs for a siege crossbow).

Spiryt

2013-01-21, 08:17 AM

I believe studies have indicated that bolts and arrows take a short distance to accelerate to top speed, but that's of limited importance at the range in question.

That's not really possible, I think. Once string stops to provide energy to the arrow, it cannot gain any more energy, obviously save gravity.

So while most arrows would take quite some time to stabilize in flight, from initial vibrations, it would mostly mean rapid reduction of deceleration, not actual acceleration.

I'd like to ask how effective a crossbow (or any weapon based on the principle) was if the crossbow was actually pressed against the target? Would this would mean the bolt/string wouldn't have traveled far enough to impart all its force into the bolt, or does the bolt have full force immediately?

It depends on the target, arrow, bow in the question, obviously, I agree with Brother Oni.

With shortish arrow, I've managed to overdraw my bow, and press arrow against bow, or even my hand quite few times. Wasn't exactly pleasant, but since bow is ~ 30 it wasn't really that harmful, neither to hand nor bow.

Mind you, I wasn't stupid enough to fully release the string, so while whole system was somehow static, my body was still providing significant force holding bow in tension, before I draw arrow back. :smalltongue:

In case of actual release, bow would obviously start working against target, trough arrow and string. Something would probably got to give, in case of more significant energies, but it's impossible to tell.

In case of more massive bolts, with iron/similar string rest, bolt could probably avoid being snapped, so if target wouldn't give up either, bow itself would probably slowly lose it's tension.

And no, bolt obviously doesn't have full force imminently, just as energy is stored in bow during whole draw, it is released trough bow snapping back.

Galloglaich

2013-01-21, 10:24 AM

Ian Heath,

Another Osprey book writer..

Now I'm still looking through Volume 2 (which includes the Hungarians), but his comments about the Black Army are basically in agreement with the wikipedia article linked above -- in which pavises were standard in that army at least down to the end of the 15th century.

So in other words, he's contradicting himself.

There are apparently some letters from Matthias Corvinus in which he describes in detail how his army worked in which he mentions the pavises, most of the English language summarized commentary on the Black Army derives from these.

The description of how they operated is very static -- basically forming a fortress on the battlefield, that the light infantry would sally out from to attack the enemy, then fall back to for cover.

And this would be completely innacurate. It would be almost excactly like saying that the Roman Legions only fought by forming testuodo. The Czech style infantry armies had the ability to turtle-up, if necessary, which was very important when fighting on the Steppe as a turn of fate on the battlefield could see the enemy cavalry suddenly gain an enormous advantage in local numerical superiority and / or morale which would (and did) lead to catastrophe for traditional 'Western' style Feudal armies (such as at Nicopolis); but they won at least as many battles by moving out in columns aggressively, and taking the enemy in the flank while they were pre-occupied with the cavalry or the cannons.

This was true of the original Bohemian Hussite armies, of the Czechs fighting for the Hungarians against the Turks (both under Matthias Corvinus and other warlords like Jan Jiskra) among the Poles and Prussians, the cossacks, and even the Russians. And it's something Anglo-American historians seem to have never been able to wrap their heads around, when they do discuss these events they tend to treat them as a one-off. But this technique was so successful against Steppe cavalry that it was widely adopted throughout the region of Central and Eastern Europe and into Central Asia.

At any rate, the quote above may have a distinctive Western European slant to it -- which is hardly surprising, given the sub-title. :-)

This is a fairly typical of Engligh language books on Medieval history, the point of view is basically English, plus some French through an English filter, Spanish through an English filter, and Italian through an English filter, with very little else. To get around that you need to get into hard core military history specialists, who tend to be a little better, and translations of foreign analysis (I like Hans Delbruck even though he is a little dated and his numbers are sometimes off - he has a vastly greater familiarity with all the Contintental European forces and how they fought in detail than any Anglo-American author I know) or better yet, primary sources from the period in question. I learned far more from reading Jan Dlugosz than from all the Opsrey books I have put together, even though he to has his biases which you have to remain aware of.

G

fusilier

2013-01-21, 01:58 PM

Another Osprey book writer.

Irrelevant. Provide some evidence to the contrary!

And this would be completely innacurate.

It agrees with what Matthias himself states:
"We regard the heavy infantry as an immovable wall . . . " and "When the opportunity presents itself the light infantry make forays, but if their attack loses impetus of if they are hard pressed they fall back behind the heavy infantry."

Did you read the wikipedia article that you linked to? It also claims that crossbowmen had the disadvantage of being slow moving.

This is a fairly typical of Engligh language books on Medieval history,
So everything written in English, is suspect by default? *Sigh*

Yet you still haven't referenced a single passage from any work . . . in any language.

Galloglaich

2013-01-21, 02:10 PM

So everything written in English, is suspect by default? *Sigh*

Not at all, just popular history stuff, history channel and so on. Osprey, quite often though they at least get in the ballpark.

Yet you still haven't referenced a single passage from any work . . . in any language.

On what issue exactly? Use of pavises in Central Europe in the 15th Cenut? I thought you already admitted you were wrong about that. I'm not sure what we are arguing about now. Mobile war-wagon columns in Central Europe?

G

Spiryt

2013-01-21, 02:23 PM

Some pavises from mentioned Baltazar Behem's Codex, of very early 16th century, for those interested:

http://literat.ug.edu.pl/grafika/kodex.jpg

http://www.muzeumwp.pl/dictionary/paweze,110,duzy.jpg

Galloglaich

2013-01-21, 06:28 PM

fusilier

2013-01-22, 02:13 AM

I hadn't seen the second version of that... does that come from the Balthasar Behem Codex too?

I have a few of the images, there are some here (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Balthasar_Behem_Codex) and I also have a few more (though only in black and white) but I wish I could get an English translation (or even a Polish transcription) of the text.

I'm not going to say I would kill for it but I might beat someone severely with a belt a few times...

G

Have you seen this?

DRW-Quellen Faksimile (http://drw-www.adw.uni-heidelberg.de/drw-cgi/zeige?db=dig&darstellung=v&index=buecher&term=krakauzfto.&seite=o01titu)

I think this is a print copy of it from 1889, in German, but I'm not sure if it is complete (I think it is). The pictures (Tafel) are in black and white, interspersed with pages of printed text, that looks like it could be directly from the original. You won't be able to cut and paste it into a machine translator, and I'm not sure it would translate too well anyway, but if you are patient and can puzzle out the blackletter font you might be able to do it. At some point it goes into Latin, then Polish, I think (at S.69).

Brother Oni

2013-01-22, 03:00 AM

So while most arrows would take quite some time to stabilize in flight, from initial vibrations, it would mostly mean rapid reduction of deceleration, not actual acceleration.

Possibly. I'll have to look up the studies again to be sure, but after the initial arrow flex clearing the bow I was under the impression it sped up as it could now fly straight.

Mind you, I wasn't stupid enough to fully release the string, so while whole system was somehow static, my body was still providing significant force holding bow in tension, before I draw arrow back. :smalltongue:

Obviously there's a difference between easing it off gently and letting it go all at once. I've seen what happens when you do the latter. :smalltongue:

Hazzardevil

2013-01-22, 07:34 AM

In the 1700's and early 1800's rifles were rarely used due to the costs of adding rifling, so almsot everyone used smoothbore firearms.
What made rifling cheaper and easier to produce to the point that it was quite common by the 1860's?

As for the discussion of point blank crossbows, I think that it would probably work if you had a small gap between the tip and the intended target, but not if it was touching the target before the trigger was pulled. I think it's because the bolt would have needed a small amount of time to stabilize in the air so it didn't stick into the target at an odd angle where it would have to penetrate more armour and skin to get to the vitals.
Just to be clear I haven't studied any of the physics of projectile weaponry and this is just going on instinct.

Brother Oni

2013-01-22, 12:00 PM

As for the discussion of point blank crossbows, I think that it would probably work if you had a small gap between the tip and the intended target, but not if it was touching the target before the trigger was pulled. I think it's because the bolt would have needed a small amount of time to stabilize in the air so it didn't stick into the target at an odd angle where it would have to penetrate more armour and skin to get to the vitals.

So what exactly is stopping the bow from snapping forwards when the trigger is pulled? To re-iterate, the bolt isn't flying anywhere, it's being pushed into the target.

Edit: As an example of the potential injury a bow can cause by pushing an arrow into a target, do a search for 'Texas Archery overdraw warnings' and look half way down the page.
Note that the bow in question looks like a compound bow, so the pressure is less at full draw than the bow's actual poundage (which I would estimate to be about 25-30lbs for a beginner as that poor bugger was).

Putting it another way, if you put your hand over the barrel of a pistol, could you stop the round from coming out? :smalltongue:

Spiryt

2013-01-22, 12:42 PM

Well, difference is that round hitting hand will already travel, it will have very noticeable momentum.

In case of arrow actually pressed against target, bow arms would have to work in probably significantly more static way - won't speed up anything much, just push the arrow trough object.

Pushing trough something with pretty much "0" velocity and KE, will be very different than impacting with it, with some KE, but no more force being applied by the string between you. It will have natural tendency to push more, certainly.

Against human flesh, effects with most bows and sharp arrows would be probably very harmful in any case.

Quick test with my bow and piece of pine board suggests that I would most certainly destroy arrow, for example. Even if let go in very controlled manner, it bends a lot, and string still pushes...

Hazzardevil

2013-01-22, 04:45 PM

Putting it another way, if you put your hand over the barrel of a pistol, could you stop the round from coming out? :smalltongue:

That's different because the pistols wounds come mostly from the force of the pistol, the crossbows wounds come from a pretty big chunk of wood and metal whacking you pretty hard in the chest. So there is a larger area to spread the force across so in my mind holding a crossbow bolt back seems feasible to me.

Galloglaich

2013-01-22, 05:14 PM

Have you seen this?

DRW-Quellen Faksimile (http://drw-www.adw.uni-heidelberg.de/drw-cgi/zeige?db=dig&darstellung=v&index=buecher&term=krakauzfto.&seite=o01titu)

I think this is a print copy of it from 1889, in German, but I'm not sure if it is complete (I think it is). The pictures (Tafel) are in black and white, interspersed with pages of printed text, that looks like it could be directly from the original. You won't be able to cut and paste it into a machine translator, and I'm not sure it would translate too well anyway, but if you are patient and can puzzle out the blackletter font you might be able to do it. At some point it goes into Latin, then Polish, I think (at S.69).

No I have not seen that, this is great, thanks! Now if only I can find a transcription. This gets me much closer though. And 1889 puts it firmly in the public domain so I can use all these images.

Really delighted with this thanks fusilier! I owe you one.

G

Thiel

2013-01-22, 05:59 PM

fusilier

2013-01-23, 12:43 AM

The industrial revolution and the Minié ball.

I agree. The minie ball allowed a rifled musket to be loaded about as fast as a smoothbore -- that made rifles acceptable for general issue. Prior that they were reserved for specialist units.

Storm Bringer

2013-01-23, 01:58 AM

In the 1700's and early 1800's rifles were rarely used due to the costs of adding rifling, so almsot everyone used smoothbore firearms.
What made rifling cheaper and easier to produce to the point that it was quite common by the 1860's?

as others have pointed out, it was not the cost that prevented general issue, but the slow speed of loading.

most rilfes, like the english Baker Rifle, took around a minute to load, mainly becuase of the very tight fit for the bullet into the barrel, which often needed the firer to use a hammer on the ramrod to get it down the barrel. for hunting, this was a massive drawback (you only got one shot at a target anyway, and then it didn't matter how long it took to reload, as it was still longer than the time it took to find some more prey). However, agianst a normal flintlock musket, which took about 20-30 seconds to load in skilled hands, it was a big problem.

A rifleman facing mustkets may be able to shoot more accruatly, but not to the point where he could afford to take 3 incoming rounds for every round he shot. So, it;s use was limited to skirmishers, who could harass line infantry and fall back behind musket armed troops if they needed to.

then some bright spark invented the Minié ball, which was a rifle bullet designed so it would slide down a barrel just as easily as a normal smoothbore ball. this ment a rifleman could match the rate of fire of a musketman*, and so armies started arming all thier troops with rifles.

also, as others again point out, the industrial revolution led to manufacturing tolerances being tightened (which meant a increase in effective power of a gun, as less power was lost to "windage" around the ball), and a reduction in the need to skilled ladour to make rifles, which eased production costs.

so, in short, a 1860s rifle was faster firing, somewhat more powerful and accurate, and cheaper to make than a 1700s rifle was.

* i should say "roughly" match the rate of fire. I believe that the RoF did drop slightly. I am remember being told that 2 Rounds a minute was considered the stardard for troops in the American Civil War, whereas in napoleonic times the standard rate was 3 rounds a minute. however, the increased accuracy of the rifles made up for the loss of volume (or could with a 2:3 ratio, whereas it couldn't with a 1:3 ratio).

Brother Oni

2013-01-23, 03:24 AM

Quick test with my bow and piece of pine board suggests that I would most certainly destroy arrow, for example. Even if let go in very controlled manner, it bends a lot, and string still pushes...

What type of arrows do you have? Carbon fibre, aluminium or wood?

That's different because the pistols wounds come mostly from the force of the pistol, the crossbows wounds come from a pretty big chunk of wood and metal whacking you pretty hard in the chest. So there is a larger area to spread the force across so in my mind holding a crossbow bolt back seems feasible to me.

I'll admit my pistol example is incorrect, but I think you're still under the misconception that a bolt has to fly for it to cause an injury. I would have thought the misdraw fault I suggested you look at would disabuse you of that notion.

I would ask whether you've actually seen a crossbow bolt - they're not as large as you seem to think. A typical one for a 740lb draw crossbow only weighs 1.25oz and a fairly small cross section - I suspect the massive ones you're thinking of are for siege crossbows.

Finally there's the weight - are you seriously suggesting that you can stop 300+lbs worth of pressure being transmitted through a sharp pointy bit of wood and metal? Suppose I had a knife* against your chest and I pushed forwards - how much pressure do you think I need to exert to cause a serious injury?

*Or other suitably pointy object designed to cause harm

Spiryt

2013-01-23, 09:05 AM

What type of arrows do you have? Carbon fibre, aluminium or wood?

Carbon, which are obviously suspectible to bending.

But I don't think effect would be much different in case of other materials, save some really solid 'battle-grade' arrow.

Even with very soft and giving wood, arrow is definitely not designed to meat opposing force while it's still being pushed by the string.

That's different because the pistols wounds come mostly from the force of the pistol, the crossbows wounds come from a pretty big chunk of wood and metal whacking you pretty hard in the chest. So there is a larger area to spread the force across so in my mind holding a crossbow bolt back seems feasible to me.

Well, I'm not sure I get your point.

Pistol wounds come only from the "force of pistol", while arrow wounds come only from the "force of bow". There's nothing else, that gives energy to those projectiles, obviously.

And most arrows, being more sectionally dense, and pointy, actually concentrate energy way better than most bullets.

Beleriphon

2013-01-23, 10:40 AM

Well, I'm not sure I get your point.

Pistol wounds come only from the "force of pistol", while arrow wounds come only from the "force of bow". There's nothing else, that gives energy to those projectiles, obviously.

And most arrows, being more sectionally dense, and pointy, actually concentrate energy way better than most bullets.

I think the point is that a bow, or even a crossbow, needs to fully release the energy of the bend limbs which releases the arrow at the end of their path. There is a mechanical process that takes a certain amount of physical space to complete. A bullet on the other hand is functionally at the height of its energy as it exits the barrel of a gun, its also traveling at a much higher velocity at that point.

So, if you leveled a crossbow at somebody's chest tip of the bolt to the skin Brother Oni seems to be under the impression that it would be survivable (I don't think it would be at all), versus planting a pistol barrel to the chest. In either case the victim is going to be dead, its just a matter of how much of a mess it will make.

I think part of the confusion comes from the amount of potential energy in the limbs of a bow/crossbow and the potential energy of chemical propellants (gunpowder, cordite, whatever).

Brother Oni

2013-01-23, 11:16 AM

Carbon, which are obviously suspectible to bending.

But I don't think effect would be much different in case of other materials, save some really solid 'battle-grade' arrow.

Even with very soft and giving wood, arrow is definitely not designed to meat opposing force while it's still being pushed by the string.

True. The effectiveness of using an arrow as a stabbing implement (which is what's happening here) is probably heavily related to its spine.

So, if you leveled a crossbow at somebody's chest tip of the bolt to the skin Brother Oni seems to be under the impression that it would be survivable (I don't think it would be at all), versus planting a pistol barrel to the chest. In either case the victim is going to be dead, its just a matter of how much of a mess it will make.

Wrong person - Hazzardevil thinks it won't cause any injury, while I'm of the firm opinion that it will definitely cause injury, if not death.

eulmanis12

2013-01-23, 02:25 PM

it would definitly not cause the same type of wound as a bolt from a distance but a point blank hit from a crossbow or bod could definitly be lethal depending on placement.

think of it as just a physics equation. If I take a 40 lb bow (which is a much lower draw weight than what would be used by a medeval bow) knock an arrow, place the tip against an unarmored target, then release the string while holding the bow in place, the arrow will enter the target. Arrows are sharp I like to keep mine at about the same sharpness as my knife. If I balance the knife on its point on top of my hand (I do not recomend doing this, nor am I dumb enough to do so) and do not apply any force, the weight of the knife will be more than enough to break the skin. If I put 40 pounds behind it, it will go through my hand, If I do the same with an arrow I will get the same result. If I were to take a crossbow or a bow of combat draw weight the arrow/bolt will go further. The wound itself in this situation would be different, more similar to a stab wound than an arrow wound. But no less lethal.

against an armored target the results could be different, but this depends on the type and quality of the armor

Hazzardevil

2013-01-23, 02:54 PM

I'll admit my pistol example is incorrect, but I think you're still under the misconception that a bolt has to fly for it to cause an injury. I would have thought the misdraw fault I suggested you look at would disabuse you of that notion.

I would ask whether you've actually seen a crossbow bolt - they're not as large as you seem to think. A typical one for a 740lb draw crossbow only weighs 1.25oz and a fairly small cross section - I suspect the massive ones you're thinking of are for siege crossbows.

Finally there's the weight - are you seriously suggesting that you can stop 300+lbs worth of pressure being transmitted through a sharp pointy bit of wood and metal? Suppose I had a knife* against your chest and I pushed forwards - how much pressure do you think I need to exert to cause a serious injury?

*Or other suitably pointy object designed to cause harm
I have used a crossbow, it was a rather heavy thing and it was a very nice piece of engineering, I was terrible at shooting it though. And you give examples with knives and guns, these both have a very small area to apply the force to. Less area allows more force to be applied to the area. I believe that the crossbow bolt is big enough that if I have my hand on it when someone pulls the trigger I can hold it because of the larger area for the force to spread across.

Well, I'm not sure I get your point.

Pistol wounds come only from the "force of pistol", while arrow wounds come only from the "force of bow". There's nothing else, that gives energy to those projectiles, obviously.

And most arrows, being more sectionally dense, and pointy, actually concentrate energy way better than most bullets.

With "force of the pistol or bow" there is a small amount of force that could come in gravity, not a huge amount and most likely only if you aim the weapon at a downward angle, but I hate the spread of misinformation.

I wasn't aware of the sectionally dense idea about the concentration of energy.
Force = Mass*Acceleration. I don't know where the size of area applying force comes into it.

When I talk about smaller areas having a greater concentration of force, the best example is having an elephant or an elephant in high heels treading on your foot. The high heel would have a force of 200 tons* acceleration pressing into an area of about 1 cm squared, the elephants foot would have 200 tons*acceleration pressing into about 50 cm squared.

Wrong person - Hazzardevil thinks it won't cause any injury, while I'm of the firm opinion that it will definitely cause injury, if not death.

I believe the tip of the crossbow is big enough to hold, you don't. Does anyone know of any tests where this was tried?

Spiryt

2013-01-23, 03:37 PM

Mike_G

2013-01-23, 03:48 PM

AMX

2013-01-23, 04:17 PM

Bullets are totally different, since they don't accelerate through the length of the barrel. They get all the push they're ever gonna get from the burning of the propellant.

Sorry, what?
With very few exceptions, a bullet accelerates through the entire lenght of the barrel.
(Actually even longer - the gas escaping from the muzzle is still pushing against the base of the bullet for a moment.)

Spiryt

2013-01-23, 04:22 PM

Sorry, what?
With very few exceptions, a bullet accelerates through the entire lenght of the barrel.
(Actually even longer - the gas escaping from the muzzle is still pushing against the base of the bullet for a moment.)

Yeah, pretty much.

So more accurate comparison would be shooting guy who had stuck a finger in your barrel. :smallbiggrin:

That might still do some damage, but not as much as if the arms had transferred all their energy into accelerating the arrow/bolt.

Hard to tell, about "not as much".

It will most probably be different damage, beacuase as everyone agrees, it's the matter of impact vs actually pushing the arrow into target by bow arms.

Brother Oni

2013-01-24, 04:54 AM

I have used a crossbow, it was a rather heavy thing and it was a very nice piece of engineering, I was terrible at shooting it though. And you give examples with knives and guns, these both have a very small area to apply the force to. Less area allows more force to be applied to the area. I believe that the crossbow bolt is big enough that if I have my hand on it when someone pulls the trigger I can hold it because of the larger area for the force to spread across.

A couple of things here that have now become clear:

You're changing the scenario as outlined by the OP. He postulated using the crossbow in a holdup situation where the only defence is your own body; you're assuming you're in a position to grab the bolt (in which case, just grab the bolt out of the crossbow instead and the whole point is moot).

I'm assuming you've used a modern crossbow? These have substantially less draw weight (they tend to cap out at ~225lbs) than late medieval military crossbows, so less potential for damage. I'll defer that they are more efficient than medieval crossbows, however that tends to manifest itself in a higher bolt velocity (one comparison I saw shows a 185lb modern crossbow discharging a bolt at approximately 295fps, while a 740lb medieval one only managed 138fps), which is of limited use here.
Edit: Actually, what was the draw weight of the crossbow you used?

Since you think the point of a bolt is big enough to grab, I'm also assuming that the bolts you've used had modern broadheads (http://www.thecrossbowstore.com/3-Blade-Arrow-Broadheads-Tips-Pack-of-3-p/cf-142d.htm), which I agree are big enough to grab. The bolts I was thinking of are intended for armour piercing (http://thespecialistsltd.com/files/crossbow_bolt2.jpg) which have a head barely thicker than the shaft thus also have a very small area to apply the force through.

I believe the tip of the crossbow is big enough to hold, you don't. Does anyone know of any tests where this was tried?

That sounds like the perfect setup for 'stupid things to do for Youtube', or possibly the Darwin Awards. From the bolt snapping and being hit by the string and/or bolt fragments, to being unable to restrain the bolt, to any possible mechanical fault, this sounds extremely inadvisable to attempt.

In any case:

Do I think the tip of a bolt is big enough to hold? Yes, regardless of head type.

Do I think it's possible to stop a crossbow from loosing if I have my hand on the bolt? Depends on the bolt integrity, the crossbow draw weight and my grip on the bolt (stopping via the tip versus pinning the bolt shaft against the body of the crossbow).

Do I think I can stop a bolt causing injury using just my back/chest and intestinal fortitude? Definitely not.

Since I'm fed up of dancing around the issue and nobody seems willing to look for themselves (warning: blood):

http://www.texasarchery.org/images/Overdraw/OverdrawWithFollowThrough.jpg

As mentioned earlier, this was with a compound bow, probably somewhere in the region of 25-30lb draw weight. The arrow was probably less than an inch from his hand when released and as can be easily seen, about 10-12 inches of arrow got pushed through ~2 inches of flesh (those white things near the entry to the wound are the arrow fletchings, which probably stopped the arrow being pushed through further).

Edit: Added links

fusilier

2013-01-24, 06:53 AM

The arrow or bolt accelerates over the time and distance that the strong/arms of the bow act on it. When it leaves the bow, it's done accelerating, and has it's maximum momentum. Before that, it has some force acting on it, but not all the momentum it's going to get.

So, an arrow hitting a target a yard from the bow will hit with all the velocity imparted, an arrow pressed against a target and released will just have the force of the bow pressing the tip into it. That might still do some damage, but not as much as if the arms had transferred all their energy into accelerating the arrow/bolt.

Bullets are totally different, since they don't accelerate through the length of the barrel. They get all the push they're ever gonna get from the burning of the propellant.

If you push a sword into a target, or thrust rapidly into a target, you use the same arm strength. Accelerating the weapon gives it more momentum (That why velocity is squared, and mass is only multiplied when figuring how hard a projectile hits.)

I think I get what you are saying --

When an arrow is launched the force to accelerate it is applied over a distance (which is technically Work). So more "energy" has been imparted into the arrow. By pressing the arrow against some target, and holding the crossbow immobile, only the instantaneous force will be applied to the target -- the arrow hasn't collected any kinetic energy, by having the force applied over a distance.

A gun works differently, because covering the end of the barrel, doesn't stop the bullet from moving. So the bullet can accelerate down the length of the barrel, and build up more energy.

I remember in an earlier version of this thread, I was trying to explain why the amount of force a person firing a gun felt, and the amount of force the target hit by the bullet felt could be different, and it had to do with the distance in which that force was applied. (For example, firing a bullet at a brick wall: the collision with the wall is going to be more forceful, and flatten the bullet).

fusilier

2013-01-24, 07:02 AM

Accelerating the weapon gives it more momentum (That why velocity is squared, and mass is only multiplied when figuring how hard a projectile hits.)

Momentum is actually mass * velocity. Energy is 1/2*mass*velocity^2. It's still not entirely clear to me what matters in determining how "hard" a projectile hits. I know that energy is commonly given, but there are clearly a lot of other factors.

Brother Oni

2013-01-24, 07:11 AM

Momentum is actually mass * velocity. Energy is 1/2*mass*velocity^2. It's still not entirely clear to me what matters in determining how "hard" a projectile hits. I know that energy is commonly given, but their are clearly a lot of other factors.

Material compressibility (or lack thereof) is probably a major one. Being hit by a marshmellow travelling at 390m/s is significantly different to being hit by a 9mm Glock round at the same speed.

I also suspect some form of energy transfer from the projectile into the target is also significant - hollowpoints and other dumdum rounds tend to cause more damage to soft targets than their equivalent ball type.

fusilier

2013-01-24, 07:22 AM

Material compressibility (or lack thereof) is probably a major one. Being hit by a marshmellow travelling at 390m/s is significantly different to being hit by a 9mm Glock round at the same speed.

I also suspect some form of energy transfer from the projectile into the target is also significant - hollowpoints and other dumdum rounds tend to cause more damage to soft targets than their equivalent ball type.

I know material matters for armor penetration, some armor piercing rounds have the same Energy (and momentum for that matter), as their normal "ball" equivalents.

Ah ha-

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=72973

Basically, momentum is always conserved in a collision. Energy is only conserved in an elastic collision, but not a plastic collision. Damage is defined as force, and more momentum means more momentum transfer. Force is momentum transfer in unit time. So, in theory, a bullet with more momentum will do more damage than one with more energy/less momentum. See post #3 for more explanation, there are some caveats.

Brother Oni

2013-01-24, 07:29 AM

So, in theory, a bullet with more momentum will do more damage than one with more energy/less momentum. See post #3 for more explanation, there are some caveats.

Ah, so that's why there's significant debate on the viability of using energy as method of determining firearm lethality.

I suppose when lasers or other directed energy weapons become more commonplace, using energy will swing back into vogue again. :smalltongue:

Beleriphon

2013-01-24, 11:23 AM

TWrong person - Hazzardevil thinks it won't cause any injury, while I'm of the firm opinion that it will definitely cause injury, if not death.

Whoops, sorry wrong person indeed.

Yeah, pretty much.

So more accurate comparison would be shooting guy who had stuck a finger in your barrel. :smallbiggrin:

Mythbusters did that, it doesn't end well for fingers regardless of what Bug Bunny does.

Hazzardevil

2013-01-24, 04:13 PM

A couple of things here that have now become clear:

You're changing the scenario as outlined by the OP. He postulated using the crossbow in a holdup situation where the only defence is your own body; you're assuming you're in a position to grab the bolt (in which case, just grab the bolt out of the crossbow instead and the whole point is moot).

I'm assuming you've used a modern crossbow? These have substantially less draw weight (they tend to cap out at ~225lbs) than late medieval military crossbows, so less potential for damage. I'll defer that they are more efficient than medieval crossbows, however that tends to manifest itself in a higher bolt velocity (one comparison I saw shows a 185lb modern crossbow discharging a bolt at approximately 295fps, while a 740lb medieval one only managed 138fps), which is of limited use here.
Edit: Actually, what was the draw weight of the crossbow you used?

http://www.texasarchery.org/images/Overdraw/OverdrawWithFollowThrough.jpg

As mentioned earlier, this was with a compound bow, probably somewhere in the region of 25-30lb draw weight. The arrow was probably less than an inch from his hand when released and as can be easily seen, about 10-12 inches of arrow got pushed through ~2 inches of flesh (those white things near the entry to the wound are the arrow fletchings, which probably stopped the arrow being pushed through further).

Edit: Added links

I didn't realize I was changing the scenario, I do reckon that with a small gap and holding someone at weapon-point, like you see people holding human shields with pistols in films is something to be worried about.
Sorry, I don't know what the draw weight of the crossbow is.
As for the picure, that doesn't look very bloody. No blood at all in fact, it's what I imagine someone photoshopping an arrow through someones hand would look like.

razark

2013-01-24, 04:39 PM

As for the picure, that doesn't look very bloody. No blood at all in fact, it's what I imagine someone photoshopping an arrow through someones hand would look like.
Try this page: http://www.texasarchery.org/images/Overdraw/dangers.htm

Warning, it is rather more graphic than that one picture. These injuries do occur, and with bows of considerably less power than a medieval crossbow. These bows are drawn by hand, those crossbows required mechanical advantage to draw.

Brother Oni

2013-01-24, 05:02 PM

I didn't realize I was changing the scenario, I do reckon that with a small gap and holding someone at weapon-point, like you see people holding human shields with pistols in films is something to be worried about.

We've been trying to tell you that a small gap is not required to cause injury with a powerful enough crossbow, but it increasingly looks to me that you won't be convinced until somebody actually replicates the scenario in front of you. :smallconfused:

As for the picure, that doesn't look very bloody. No blood at all in fact, it's what I imagine someone photoshopping an arrow through someones hand would look like.

That's because the arrow is effectively plugging the puncture wound, preventing the blood coming out. If you look at his middle finger, there's some blood where it's torn the skin.

Any good first aider or medic will tell you that you shouldn't remove a foreign body in a puncture wound unless its presence will cause further injury, for the very simple reason that it's currently stopping the blood from coming out.

Out of curiosity, why would you think I would present a doctored photograph to support my argument?

Warning, it is rather more graphic than that one picture. These injuries do occur, and with bows of considerably less power than a medieval crossbow. These bows are drawn by hand, those crossbows required mechanical advantage to draw.

I'm looking at the last picture and thinking 'Ow, they had to saw a disc in his skull to get that broadhead out'...

Yora

2013-01-25, 06:51 PM

warty goblin

2013-01-25, 07:01 PM

What did the original Gatling gun had multiple barrels for? At 200 rounds per minute its several times slower firing than single barrel machine guns. Or did the materials and gunpowder of the time make overheating a much greater problem?

Because nobody had figured out how to harness recoil or a gas tap to extract, load and fire cartridges yet. The whole deal with the crank was to cycle each barrel as it went around.

That came about in last two decades of the nineteenth with the Maxim gun, which used the recoil of a shot to extract the casing, load the next round, and ready the weapon to be fired again.

Storm Bringer

2013-01-26, 04:34 AM

What did the original Gatling gun had multiple barrels for? At 200 rounds per minute its several times slower firing than single barrel machine guns. Or did the materials and gunpowder of the time make overheating a much greater problem?

as the goblin says, the gatling gun was manually powered, and the multiple barrels were so that you could reload one as the next one fired.

their were a whole series of manually operated "machine guns" alongisde the gatling,with the french mitrailleuse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitrailleuse),which had 25 barrels and a "plate" of cartidges inserted onto the rear, or the nordenfelt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordenfelt_gun)and gardner guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardner_gun), which were both crank operated.

these were used in the period ~1860-1900, by which time the maxim gun and it's licensed copies had overtaken them. the majority all the machine guns used in the early part of the 1st World War were based on the maxim (with the expection of the french, who used the gas powered st etienne and hotchkiss machine guns, and the Austro-hungian's delayed blowback "Schwarzlose MG M.07/12", neither of which which were mechanically related to the recoil driven maxim)

fusilier

2013-01-26, 06:03 AM

What did the original Gatling gun had multiple barrels for? At 200 rounds per minute its several times slower firing than single barrel machine guns. Or did the materials and gunpowder of the time make overheating a much greater problem?

It was indeed cooling. The Agar "coffee mill" machine gun was a predecessor of the Gatling. It had a single barrel that did get very hot in action, and spare barrels were part of its standard equipment. The rate of fire was also reduced to help with overheating problems. Overheating problems could be quite serious on early mechanical machine guns.

See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agar_gun

I've read descriptions of the use of the gun in battle, but I can't find them at the moment.

We need to be careful about confusing these machine guns with mitrailleuses -- it obvious to do so because mitrailleuses general operation was similar, their role was similar, and in many languages "mitrailleuse" is the root of the word for machine gun. However, most early mitrailleuses are *technically* volley guns. The difference can be described roughly: a multi-barrel machine gun, loads one barrel then fires it, loads the next then fires it, and so on. In a "volley gun" all barrels are loaded, then they are all fired -- either all at once, or sequentially. The French mitrailleuses used during the Franco-Prussian War (and there were several types) mostly used a crank to fire the barrels sequentially. Unlike earlier volley gun designs, they could be quickly reloaded with cartridges -- from the breech and often with a "magazine" that held all the cartridges. Their outward function was similar and the use/effectiveness was also pretty similar, so the word "mitrailleuse" became synonymous with "machine gun", but, originally, there was a different design philosophy distinguishing the two weapon types.

Galloglaich

2013-01-26, 12:56 PM

The czechs had multi-barrel weapons which fired either volleys or in series as far back as the 1420's

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3I0Voa4QLKM/TqYDKi_4cYI/AAAAAAAAYcw/3RaIkBR_rY4/s1600/DSC_0669.JPG

Da Vinci of course also had a famous multi-barrel design.

http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/thumbnail/68055/1/Multi-Barrel-Gun.jpg

G

Galloglaich

2013-01-26, 06:07 PM

Regarding the pavises thing, I asked a fencer friend of mine from Hungary to translate a short passage from the Hungarian Wiki on the Black Army, the source of which is a book of letters by the Hungarian King / Warlord Matthias Corvinus (in this case from a letter to his cousin the King of Sicily in the 1480's), who commanded the famous 'Black Army' of Hungary. Copies of the book in German and Latin are here

http://mek.oszk.hu/07100/07105/pdf/matyaslev1.pdf

http://mek.oszk.hu/07100/07105/pdf/matyaslev2.pdf

„ …we regard the armored heavy infantry as a wall, who never give up their place, even if they are slaughtered to the last one of them, on the very spot they are standing. Light soldiers perform breakouts depending on the occasion, and when they are already tired or sense severe danger, they return back behind the armoured soldiers, organizing their lines and collecting power, and stay there until, on occasion, they may break forth again. In the end, all of the infantry and shooters are surrounded by armoured and shielded soldiers, just as those were standing behind a rampart. Since, the greater pavieses, put next to each other in a circle, show the picture of a fortress, and are similar to a wall, in the protection whereof the infantry and all the ones standing in the middle, fight like from behind tower-walls or rampart, and they occasionally break out of there."

Lets we assume war wagons only fought as a static defense, fighting on the move. During the Hussite wars the Hussites attacked in mobile columns of war wagons at Kutna Hora (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kutn%C3%A1_Hora), at Malesov (http://zizkapedia.wikispaces.com/Battle+of+Malesov), and at Domazlice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Doma%C5%BElice), then several more times during their 'beautiful rides'.

Nor did this end when the Hussite Wars ended. During the battles of Szendro in 1437 and again at Jalomita River the same year Hussite War-wagons fighting as mercenaries in Hungary for the warlord Jan Jiskra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Jiskra) defeated Ottoman cavalry at Szendro in 1437 (source (http://www.humanaffairs.sk/full/hum196c.pdf)) and again at Jalomita River by making flanking actions. This technique remained in use through the 16th Century, the Russians did the same thing to the Turks at the Battle of Molodi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Molodi) in 1572 using war-wagon techniques.

G

fusilier

2013-01-26, 06:37 PM

The czechs had multi-barrel weapons which fired either volleys or in series as far back as the 1420's

Such weapons are, usually, referred to as ribauldequins, they are believed to first have been used by the English in the 14th century.

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

They are basically the predecessor to the "volley gun", and volley gun is an acceptable translation for the word. The main distinction, if there is any, is that a ribauldequin was a series of very light cannon, where as a volley gun typically used a hand-firearm caliber. A distinction that's easily blurred in the 14th and 15th century . . .

--EDIT-- Organ Gun is another term used for this weapon. --EDIT--

TuggyNE

2013-01-28, 02:21 AM

Brother Oni

2013-01-28, 03:32 AM

In my naive and vanished (ha!) youth, I supposed that it would be useful to (early) medieval armies to bypass shieldwalls by means of enlarged picks, used as polearms or similar. How much resemblance does this bear to reality, and what would some examples be?

In your youth, you've appear to have forgotten that the shield wall also has sharp pointy implements that can fend off things like polearms.

The shield wall relied on discipline and strength of numbers - if there insufficient bodies holding up overlapped shields, then the attackers can get round and flank the wall or exploit the weaknesses left by the holes.

Traditionally, the only ways to defeat a good shieldwall were trickery (the Normans feigning retreat during the Battle of Hastings, drawing enough of the less disciplined Saxons off the shield wall to leave it vulnerable), artillery (including gunpowder weapons) or sufficiently massed missile fire (and even then the defending archers can fire back as well).
Above all else, the shield wall is a defensive tactic - you can't win battles if you stay purely defensive.

Shield walls became obsolete with the advent of faster paced infantry combat among other things, although shields still lingered for a little while longer (pavises, discussed at length above).

Matthew

2013-01-28, 05:39 AM

A "shield wall" is a strange construct in the imagination. Chiefly what it is good for is keeping off enemy missiles, but compact masses of spear armed troops are also good for fending off cavalry. Cracking it basically requires superior missile power, as noted above, or men willing to get in amongst the enemy and break them up (difficult). In the latter case, your best bet is usually to bring your own shield wall up, which seems to have been the regular early medieval response.

GraaEminense

2013-01-28, 06:41 AM

HUGE DISCLAIMER: I read the below some time ago, concerning Hastings in particular, and it always seemed plausible to me. However, I do not remember the source and so it should be taken with a shovel of salt.

From what I recall, one of the tools used by the Normans (and others) against shieldwalls were in fact not too dissimilar to the "long pick" you mention: men armed with long, two-handed axes would find weak spots (few spears) in the enemy line and exploit the weakness to open the wall by splitting shields or heads. The axes were considered disposable, kind of like pila, so if they stuck in a shield or an enemy the axeman would just get another.

Matthew

2013-01-28, 07:48 AM

Whilst I do not think there is any evidence that the Normans used that tactic at Hastings, the Huscarl and his famed two-handed axe, as well as its continued use post Hastings, strongly suggests that there were "shock" troops amongst the spear armed troops (similar to halberds mixed in with pikes).

Brother Oni

2013-01-28, 08:06 AM

In the latter case, your best bet is usually to bring your own shield wall up, which seems to have been the regular early medieval response.

Generally yes, then you end up with a situation much like a pike push in that the two sides are generally standing off at around spear length, with all the interesting dynamic combat happening at the edges.

In the case of Hastings, the Saxons picked their terrain well and stood at the top of a hill, so the Norman shield wall would be at a disadvantage when locked at this impasse.

From what I recall, one of the tools used by the Normans (and others) against shieldwalls were in fact not too dissimilar to the "long pick" you mention: men armed with long, two-handed axes would find weak spots (few spears) in the enemy line and exploit the weakness to open the wall by splitting shields or heads. The axes were considered disposable, kind of like pila, so if they stuck in a shield or an enemy the axeman would just get another.

It's a perfectly viable tactic, the only issue is getting close enough to crack some heads/shields without getting shish-kebabed on the spearmen. With a 9ft spear, there's potentially 4-5 people within effective range when you try and close (and that's not including the back ranks).

Aside from holes from casualties, the only place I can think of where a large axeman could get close enough without too many spears getting in the way, would be on the edges of the shield wall. However the edges of the shield wall are often occupied by other swords/axe/mace men as they need the additional space to fight (and have it on the edges), so they can skirmish more effectively against the wall breaker axes.

Matthew

2013-01-28, 08:52 AM

In the case of Hastings, the Saxons picked their terrain well and stood at the top of a hill, so the Norman shield wall would be at a disadvantage when locked at this impasse.

The only evidence I can think of that there were any Norman heavy foot at Hastings comes from William of Poitiers, and it is not exactly reliable. Probably there was, but it seems what the Normans chiefly did was shoot at range with arrows and ride up to throw javelins into the wall, attempting to exploit gaps with the same cavalry (or maybe a reserve).

Yora

2013-01-28, 10:14 AM

Spiryt

2013-01-28, 10:24 AM

Galloglaich

2013-01-28, 10:36 AM

Such weapons are, usually, referred to as ribauldequins, they are believed to first have been used by the English in the 14th century.

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

They are basically the predecessor to the "volley gun", and volley gun is an acceptable translation for the word. The main distinction, if there is any, is that a ribauldequin was a series of very light cannon, where as a volley gun typically used a hand-firearm caliber. A distinction that's easily blurred in the 14th and 15th century . . .

--EDIT-- Organ Gun is another term used for this weapon. --EDIT--

Like so many technologies (war wagons, handguns, flails, the Czechs didn't invent them, they just made them better and more effective by integrating them into a real combined - arms force. This is one from Kutna Hora, Bohemia, circa 1430. Used in the Hussite Wars.

http://www.codexmartialis.com/download/file.php?id=68

G

eulmanis12

2013-01-28, 10:54 AM

How common was it, in different locations and time periods, to actually have one weapon with which one sticks throughout ones whole warrior/soldier career?

Could a sword endure 30 years of "active duty", or was it neccessary to regularly scrap bladed weapons and make new ones from the material?

I can't say its very likely to happen, especialy in pre industrial times, though weapons such as maces and hammers can last quite a while, they dont go dull, and for the most part dont degrade, though the handle would need replacement every so often

in more modern times it has been known to happen. The majority of the Abrams tanks used by the US army are quite old, as are aircraft such as the B52.

My neighbor served in the marines korea and saw action, he still has his colt 45 in working order and still goes out to shoot it every once in a while.

firearms such as the AK47 almost never break and many who use the AK 47 carry weapons manufactured before they were born.

during the expansion west in the 1800s it was not uncommon for indian braves to be equipped with very old firearms as they could not manufacture their own and had to rely on what they could trade for. As such the weapons were well maintained and tended to be used by multiple generations.

kennyboyraven

2013-01-28, 11:23 AM

Wow! Can I just thank everyone for their input on the Crossbow scenario. I am happy I have a good grasp of the physics of the situation now. :) Once again thankyou all who have imparted their knowledge and theories. :)

Brother Oni

2013-01-28, 12:08 PM

The only evidence I can think of that there were any Norman heavy foot at Hastings comes from William of Poitiers, and it is not exactly reliable. Probably there was, but it seems what the Normans chiefly did was shoot at range with arrows and ride up to throw javelins into the wall, attempting to exploit gaps with the same cavalry (or maybe a reserve).

Well that was just a general answer to 'what if two shield walls met each other'. I believe you're right in that Norman heavy foot was in limited numbers (if at all) at Hastings.

Judging by pictures and descriptions, Huscarls with axes tended to be well armored. Very skilled fighters too, elite forces from definition.

I agree with this assessment, however it's somewhat difficult to swing a two handed axe around when you have a friendly rank of spearmen in formation in front of you.
In formation (using it one handed), you tend to spend a lot of time deflecting spear thrusts since the opposing side is out of reach for you.

9ft for one handed is a bit large as well, though we don't have that much preserved hafts.

Largest of more than 50 spear found in Lednica Lake was exactly 10.5 feet, and most certainly two handed.

I didn't say anything about the spearmen in the shield wall using one handed spears (one handed spears tend to be rather short, typically around 4ft, 6ft at most).
It's perfectly possible to use a shield and a two handed spear (I've done it), but it requires the shield to have a looped strap:

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_yRO7ljt1rlk/Rn8NZng-TfI/AAAAAAAAAPM/wnS2UcKNuik/P6240004.JPG
It's considerably easier to fight effectively like this with a kite shield than a round one, since your legs are left exposed.

Your grip also changes in that the spear slides in and out of your front hand much like a snooker cue (the strap where it attaches to the shield is hooked by your thumb). Alternately, you can just have a fixed grip and stab with it, but it makes staying in formation tricky.

Wow! Can I just thank everyone for their input on the Crossbow scenario. I am happy I have a good grasp of the physics of the situation now. :) Once again thankyou all who have imparted their knowledge and theories. :)

A lot of these questions can be boiled down to the simple maxim of "Being on the business end of death dealing implement = bad to varying degrees".

It's the 'varying degrees' part we tend to argue on. :smalltongue:

Spiryt

2013-01-28, 12:41 PM

AMX

2013-01-28, 02:06 PM

Brother Oni

2013-01-28, 02:19 PM

It's certainly possible, I wonder how much use it saw though.

Sources like Bayeux Tapestry, and other illustrations show quite a few infantrymen (or just dismounted riders) using kite shields strapped over their shoulders, couldn't find any example of two handed spear use in such configuration.

True. I just found this quote from the organisation where my experience of re-enactment and western spear fighting comes from:

Spears were generally used in an over arm technique, (this can be seen in period manuscripts), which meant the prime targets were the face (particularly the eyes, the weakest part of the skull, the throat and upper chest; there being little sense in embedding the blade too permanently in your opponents shield. One big advantage of this method of using a spear is that there was no need to change the grip in order to throw it. Regia does not employ this technique during our own re-enactments for reasons of pure safety.

It also indicates that spears tended to be from 5-9ft, with 7 being the average, so I stand corrected.

Edit: That said, phalanxes used the 13-21 ft sarissa with a shield, but that's a bit out of this time period.

Galloglaich

2013-01-28, 04:09 PM

Looking at how shield walls were beaten historically...

So going back to Roman times, armies would march up to within a certain distance of one another, and begin to shower each other with darts, rocks and javelins. Roman armor-piercing javelins (pila) were also very famously used to disable enemies shields by getting tangled up in them. Once one side had lost some cohesion, the other side would charge in and destroy them with spears, axes and swords. This same basic pattern continued from Roman times (and before) all the way up to the Battle of Hastings and for a generation or two afterword, depending on the specific place.

But going pretty far back, we do see examples where the shield wall was defeated.

The Huns beat the Romans by using very powerful recurve bows and shooting first high, then strait at them, (alternating) this was mainly because the Romans at that time didn't have any ranged weapons which could reach out as far.

The Sassanids and Parthians successfully used a combination of horse archers shooting (I think less powerful than the Huns) recurve bows with heavy cavalry charges by cataphracts in several battles. Carrhae is a particularly staggering example of the success of this tactic, comparable to some of the unequal victories by the Christian Crusaders in the 1st Crusade.

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

But conversely heavy Frankish infantry under Charles Martel successfuly resisted attacks by a huge army of cavalry at Poitiers / Tours

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

The Franks themselves successfully used light infantry with thrown axes (Francisca) to defeat shield walls. The axes would skip and bounce along the ground and slam into the shield, disabling or impeding it much like the pilum (the Franks also used pilum they called 'angon', though they used them both for thrusting and throwing)

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

The Visigoths famously used heavy cavalry to break Roman infantry shield walls at Adrianople, after frustrating them with a Wagon Circle. This may or may not have indicated a change in cavalry tactics from the Parthian / Sassanid Cataphract type (also used by the Romans as 'Clibinari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clibanarii)') which, from what I've read, was a little slower and didn't use the same kind of saddle or stirrups as what we see later in Central or Western Europe.

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

In the Carolingian era, heavy cavalry was beginning to be used effectively against infantry shield walls, but not always... it depended on how aggressive the cavalry was and tough and well disciplined the infantry was.

During the Viking era the Huscarls did seem to use their axes against shield walls sometimes, but around the edges of the formation. They mostly served as bodyguards to powerful men, but in Dark Ages / Medieval combat the armies were small and the Royal or Princely bodyguard was often committed to the battle. Hastings as others mentioned upthread, could have gone either way and there seemed to be a rough parity at that point between the cavalry and the infantry. It's worth noting that a lot of the Viking successes in France and elsehwere on the Continent hinged upon doing fast raids that avoided pitched battles with the Carolingian / Frankish heavy cavalry.

I think the success rate of heavy cavalry against infantry had to do with the effectiveness of the armor of the cavalry and if the horses were armored (as well as how tough the respective cavalry and infantry were). Bows, crossbows, and later guns made the lighter plywood shields of the dark ages obsolete. Heavy Cavalry became pretty dominant for a while in Europe during the period roughly 1100 - 1300, but shields never really went away though and as we discussed upthread, seemed to come back in the later Middle Ages in the form of the pavise, and 'mini-pavise' which looks suspiciously similar to a Roman scutum, only perhaps strengthened by some composite construction to be more resistant to high-energy arrows, crossbow bolts and bullets. We also started to see the metal shields, first small iron bucklers, then larger steel ones like the rotella, though never so far as I know anything pavise-sized in iron or steel, probably because they would have been too heavy.

G

Yora

2013-01-28, 05:08 PM

Does anyone here know something about military "ranks" and hierarchy in Brittain/France/Germany/Scandinavia during the 6th to 10th century?

How was military leadership structured and what special positions where there?

Spiryt

2013-01-28, 06:43 PM

If anybody still cares about pavises in 16th century, I've been reading about Jan Tarnowski (http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Amor_Tarnowski), and apparently he writes about use of pavises in his military works quite a lot.

http://www.digitalsilesia.eu/dlibra/docmetadata?id=4093&from=pubindex&dirids=1

not much here, sadly, but about infantry guarding camp entrance with pavises.

Dunno if there are any English translations anywhere.

Bows, crossbows, and later guns made the lighter plywood shields of the dark ages obsolete.

Well, not all Dark Age shields were really light though. Some were more than 2cm thick...

Anyway, I'm still not sure how 'obsolete' bows could make any shield. Bows, even rather heavy ones, are obviously ancient and ubiquitous weapon, shields that wouldn't protect against them decently probably wouldn't be very practical on large scale battlefield.

Galloglaich

2013-01-28, 07:57 PM

If anybody still cares about pavises in 16th century, (snip) not much here, sadly, but about infantry guarding camp entrance with pavises.

Dunno if there are any English translations anywhere.

I'm interested, but do not speak Polish...

Well, not all Dark Age shields were really light though. Some were more than 2cm thick...

I spent a lot of time at one point in my life a few years ago trying to figure out how thick shields were from the Viking era and then again later, Roman shields. The conclusion I came to was that all the extant Viking shields they knew about then (this was about 10 years ago) were in the range of 3/8 " to 1/2" thick (9.5-12mm). I think there was one scutum which was found in Egypt which was quite a bit heavier, but there was a debate at the time as to how representative that was of European Roman kit. I don't really know.

Also the shields (both Roman and Viking) were often made of light, relatively fibrous wood such as limewood, rather than heavy wood like oak. The explanation I read at the time (based on some experiments done by re-enactors) was that the light, fibrous limewood was actually better at catching and stopping or slowing arrowheads and javelin points, whereas the oak while stronger would split much easier.

As far as I know most of the shields found since then have fallen into this same range but I'd be interested to catch up on the latest sources, could you share where you heard of the 2cm one? Where was that found?

The other thing to point out regarding shields is that the 10mm thick shields I'm referring to, with their iron bosses and rawhide rims, were actually the heavier shields out there. Most of the others in use through the Classical period and "Dark Ages" (Migration Era) were very light, made of wicker or animal hide around a wooden frame. Like the Pelta or a Zulu shield.

Anyway, I'm still not sure how 'obsolete' bows could make any shield. Bows, even rather heavy ones, are obviously ancient and ubiquitous weapon, shields that wouldn't protect against them decently probably wouldn't be very practical on large scale battlefield.

Well I guess the issue there is there are bows, and then there are bows. The assumption I'm working from is that the bows first introduced by the Huns during the invasions of Attila were more powerful than anything that the Romans had seen up to that point, and caused more severe damage including pointing up severe limitations with the scutum. After the Huns were decisively defeated in the mid-5th Century as far as I know in Europe, bows of that power were not common or used systematically by any army until the Welsh longbow began to be adapted by the English in the 12th Century (and gradually made more powerful over the course of 3 centuries, or at least that is the theory proposed by The Great Warbow (http://www.amazon.com/Great-Warbow-Hastings-Mary-Rose/dp/085733090X)) and then the Mongols re-introduced very powerful steppe bows to Europe in the 13th Century.

Whether or not the Parthian and later Sassanian bows were as powerful as those of the Huns has been a subject of a lot of debate, I'm not sure where the preponderance of evidence lies.

I know the 'warbow' thesis is also controversial, some authors argue that bows were more or less the same all over Europe and the English longbow as such wasn't really unique, others make the longbow out to be the ultimate English uber-weapon. I fall somewhere between these two positions. I know very powerful, quite long bows which we would probably consider longbows were being made in neolithic times both in the British Isles and in Scandinavia, and later in the Medieval period we see them also showing up in Burgundy, Italy and other places. But I think the English use of them was rather unique and that they were making unusually (by European standards) effective weapons by the 13th -14th Century. Weapons which a 'dark ages' type shield could not cope with.

Same for the crossbows we saw in the 11th-15th Centuries.

Certainly the Mongol recurve was also a major shock in the 13th, just as the Huns bow was to the Romans in the 5th-6th. And also in both cases apparently too much for most shields.

If you have different theories on these basic concepts I'd be glad to hear it.

G

fusilier

2013-01-28, 08:01 PM

Check out the weapon on the cover of the first book:
http://www.waffenbuecher.com/HiMaSch/schuy.htm

That's an Austrian flintlock grenade pistol, caliber 78mm, dated 1761.

Does anybody have an idea what sort of performance could be expected from that?
I'm primarily interested in range, compared with typical throwing ranges.

Wow, that's cool. I have no clue as to the range -- similar weapons are sometimes referred to as "hand mortars". I don't think I've ever seen a pistol sized one before -- usually they're more like a blunderbuss in size. Sometimes they even had adaptors that fit onto the bayonet lug of a normal musket.

Galloglaich

2013-01-28, 08:42 PM

Wow, that's cool. I have no clue as to the range -- similar weapons are sometimes referred to as "hand mortars". I don't think I've ever seen a pistol sized one before -- usually they're more like a blunderbuss in size. Sometimes they even had adaptors that fit onto the bayonet lug of a normal musket.

Love those things, the "Renaissance Grenade Launcher". Awesome for any RPG...

They date back to the 16th Century... apparently it took a lot of expertise and trust in whoever made the projectile since, being fuse based, it could be a little dicey if it misfired (as early firearms so often did)

They were used at least a little though, apparently one was even used in action in (what would later become ) the US, I remember some comment about 30 rounds being fired 'in earnest' in some battle against some Native Americans.

I think the main limitation was the high level of expertise required for whoever used the weapon and whoever made and prepared the ammunition.

EDIT: the Wiki says they could be shot about 80 yards, or at least one version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_mortar

G

warty goblin

2013-01-28, 08:53 PM

Also the shields (both Roman and Viking) were often made of light, relatively fibrous wood such as limewood, rather than heavy wood like oak. The explanation I read at the time (based on some experiments done by re-enactors) was that the light, fibrous limewood was actually better at catching and stopping or slowing arrowheads and javelin points, whereas the oak while stronger would split much easier.

I've done a fair amount of woodworking in both oak and American basswood - which is apparently very similar European lime. Some things I've noticed:

Oak is strong across the grain - it takes a lot of force to break a length of oak. When it does break, it almost always tears apart along a grain line, the actual fibers themselves seldom break to a significant degree. Often in fact you'll have two pieces split apart, with a couple long fibers still holding them together. It can be surprisingly difficult to tear these apart, even though there's hardly wood still connecting the two pieces. If you dry it for many years , it becomes harder than you'd think possible. It's still heavy stuff though, even well dried. Even eighth inch planking is still hefty stuff, and would be pretty easy to split.

Basswood is really quite soft. It's not as soft as balsa, but it's pretty easy to cut. I've put a foot long kitchen knife through a quarter inch of the stuff cutting cross grain easily - for comparison I'd bet the same cut would bounce off of decade-dried oak without leaving more than a shallow groove. Basswood's main advantage for carving, and I assume for shield-making as well, is that it's about the most grainless wood you'll ever meet. Most of the time when carving you don't even have to pay attention to which direction the grain runs in, because it simply does not split except under quite significant torque. Even then the split won't travel far, and needs to be pretty close to the ends of the fibers.

It's worth noting that basswood logs tend to be fairly easy to split because they're so light and soft. It's easy to get a deep enough penetration the wedge shaped blade of a splitting maul pulls the log apart. Since you can't really deliver the kind of swing it takes to split logs in the middle of a fight, and no reasonably heftable shield could survive it anyways, this isn't really a downside.

(Want something hard to split? Elm, and some cottonwood. Stuff's got grain running every which way. I've hit them hard as I can with a nine pound splitting maul, and the damn thing literally bounces off. You can do this repeatedly without doing any significant damage to the wood.)

Galloglaich

2013-01-28, 10:53 PM

rrgg

2013-01-28, 11:09 PM

So, this is two unrelated questions.

In my naive and vanished (ha!) youth, I supposed that it would be useful to (early) medieval armies to bypass shieldwalls by means of enlarged picks, used as polearms or similar. How much resemblance does this bear to reality, and what would some examples be?

I don't think you'd want to use picks necessarily, or any weapon likely to get stuck in the shield. The goal doesn't have to be penetration, especially if your target is covered in thick rawhide, rather what you want to do is deliver a heavy blow capable of splintering the wood regardless and reducing the shield into a floppy mess.

Other than that it certainly seems like a valid tactic. A long, two-handed poleaxe shouldn't have too much trouble outreaching a one-handed spear held at the midpoint, and if held near the butt spearthrusts won't have much power anyways. But like any other, using weapons of weight against a shiedwall probably has its own advantages and disadvantages.

I'm interested, but do not speak Polish...

I spent a lot of time at one point in my life a few years ago trying to figure out how thick shields were from the Viking era and then again later, Roman shields. The conclusion I came to was that all the extant Viking shields they knew about then (this was about 10 years ago) were in the range of 3/8 " to 1/2" thick (9.5-12mm). I think there was one scutum which was found in Egypt which was quite a bit heavier, but there was a debate at the time as to how representative that was of European Roman kit. I don't really know.

Also the shields (both Roman and Viking) were often made of light, relatively fibrous wood such as limewood, rather than heavy wood like oak. The explanation I read at the time (based on some experiments done by re-enactors) was that the light, fibrous limewood was actually better at catching and stopping or slowing arrowheads and javelin points, whereas the oak while stronger would split much easier.

As far as I know most of the shields found since then have fallen into this same range but I'd be interested to catch up on the latest sources, could you share where you heard of the 2cm one? Where was that found?

The other thing to point out regarding shields is that the 10mm thick shields I'm referring to, with their iron bosses and rawhide rims, were actually the heavier shields out there. Most of the others in use through the Classical period and "Dark Ages" (Migration Era) were very light, made of wicker or animal hide around a wooden frame. Like the Pelta or a Zulu shield.

Well I guess the issue there is there are bows, and then there are bows. The assumption I'm working from is that the bows first introduced by the Huns during the invasions of Attila were more powerful than anything that the Romans had seen up to that point, and caused more severe damage including pointing up severe limitations with the scutum. After the Huns were decisively defeated in the mid-5th Century as far as I know in Europe, bows of that power were not common or used systematically by any army until the Welsh longbow began to be adapted by the English in the 12th Century (and gradually made more powerful over the course of 3 centuries, or at least that is the theory proposed by The Great Warbow (http://www.amazon.com/Great-Warbow-Hastings-Mary-Rose/dp/085733090X)) and then the Mongols re-introduced very powerful steppe bows to Europe in the 13th Century.

Whether or not the Parthian and later Sassanian bows were as powerful as those of the Huns has been a subject of a lot of debate, I'm not sure where the preponderance of evidence lies.

I know the 'warbow' thesis is also controversial, some authors argue that bows were more or less the same all over Europe and the English longbow as such wasn't really unique, others make the longbow out to be the ultimate English uber-weapon. I fall somewhere between these two positions. I know very powerful, quite long bows which we would probably consider longbows were being made in neolithic times both in the British Isles and in Scandinavia, and later in the Medieval period we see them also showing up in Burgundy, Italy and other places. But I think the English use of them was rather unique and that they were making unusually (by European standards) effective weapons by the 13th -14th Century. Weapons which a 'dark ages' type shield could not cope with.

Same for the crossbows we saw in the 11th-15th Centuries.

Certainly the Mongol recurve was also a major shock in the 13th, just as the Huns bow was to the Romans in the 5th-6th. And also in both cases apparently too much for most shields.

If you have different theories on these basic concepts I'd be glad to hear it.

G
The argument I keep coming back to is that it's not just bows, shields and armor of any era also had to go up against all sorts of melee weapons and throwing spears that could be capable of a whole lot of damage in the right hands.

TuggyNE

2013-01-29, 12:15 AM

Lots of interesting answers to my first question, thanks guys. :smallsmile:

I don't think you'd want to use picks necessarily, or any weapon likely to get stuck in the shield. The goal doesn't have to be penetration, especially if your target is covered in thick rawhide, rather what you want to do is deliver a heavy blow capable of splintering the wood regardless and reducing the shield into a floppy mess.

Other than that it certainly seems like a valid tactic. A long, two-handed poleaxe shouldn't have too much trouble outreaching a one-handed spear held at the midpoint, and if held near the butt spearthrusts won't have much power anyways. But like any other, using weapons of weight against a shiedwall probably has its own advantages and disadvantages.

I think I may have expressed that poorly; the idea wasn't to hit the shields at all, but to go up and over and attack helmets or shoulders or whatever, literally bypassing the shields entirely as much as possible.

Edit: this would probably have to be paired with spears held fairly low in case the shieldwall was raised in unison.

Galloglaich

2013-01-29, 12:49 AM

The argument I keep coming back to is that it's not just bows, shields and armor of any era also had to go up against all sorts of melee weapons and throwing spears that could be capable of a whole lot of damage in the right hands.

I think the main purpose of most shields historically was to protect against missiles. Use in hand to hand fighting was also important but secondary.

And when you use a shield in a hand to hand fight, you don't just let it sit there and somebody hack at it. You have to use the shield like a weapon itself, you meet the attack the way you would parry with a sword, you guide the strike or thrust away from you, with what the Germans call fuhlen, 'feeling'. Otherwise it's quickly going to get sliced to pieces.

Which did clearly happen to early shields. There are numerous depictions in the Viking sagas of shields being sliced to pieces, in the laws for duels (Holmgang etc.) usually the participant was allowed at least 3 shields (in some cases, another man would hold the shield for them, which is something I have trouble visualizing).

One example of a kind of 'hooked' weapon which was used effectively against shields, though I think more to just slice them up than anything else, was the Dacian Falx. The Romans had to equip their Legionaires with better arm protection (adapted from Gladiator armor) to cope with them, as so many Legionaires were getting their arms lopped off.

http://ranistorum.midhedava.net/site_eng/Images/falx_02.jpg

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

G

Saph

2013-01-29, 07:53 AM

Okay, so I was scrolling through pictures of Fire Emblem characters (as a result of this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=269275) question) and had a random question about the practicality of video-game armour. So naturally I thought of this thread.

How useful would the cavalry armour in the Fire Emblem series be in reality? Pictures below:

http://images.ados.fr/bd-manga/photo/hd/8355304835/fire-emblem/oscar-1307072e4b.jpg
http://cubemedia.ign.com/cube/image/article/614/614561/fire-emblem-gcn-20050516023242949.jpg
Mostly I was curious about the hip plates. The idea behind the design seems to be that they're armouring only some parts to save on weight. (Well, okay, the real reason for the design is because it looks cool, but I was wondering if there's any historical basis for that kind of limited use of plates.)

Obviously full plate armour would give better protection if you could get it, but let's assume that option's off the table for weight/cost reasons.

Thiel

2013-01-29, 08:49 AM

Well, from the looks of it, the guy won't actually be able to sit on a horse since the hip plate will bite into his torso when he spreads his legs.

Traab

2013-01-29, 08:54 AM

It appears to be better designed to stop hacking weapons than stabbing weapons. There are too many gaps to protect from someone going for a thrust, but I bet you could do a solid job making sure to take any swung weapons on a plate. Also, the breastplate looks like it protects the heart and lungs, but then it leaves your entire midsection fully exposed. So great, you can avoid getting cleanly killed, you get to enjoy hours of agony with your intestines and other gut organs being pierced and stabbed instead.

Spiryt

2013-01-29, 09:02 AM

Well, all good points, I just wanted to point out that there most certainly was great variety in shields, designs, weight, resistance to different kind of threats.

Here about some really thick shields finds (http://members.ozemail.com.au/~chrisandpeter/shield/shield.html)

Shields from lime, and other soft, 'catching' woods were definitely one idea, but we had hard shields from maple (one of Birka shields) oaks, alders, or even very soft conifers like fir.

Here (http://znaleziska.org/wiki/index.php/Tarcza_z_Tirskom_1) we have 9th century baltic shield that apparently had grass stuffed between leather and wood for additional protection.

So there were a lot of designs, not only agile, light, but flimsy 'two shots and gone' shields.

(based on some experiments done by re-enactors) was that the light, fibrous limewood was actually better at catching and stopping or slowing arrowheads and javelin points, whereas the oak while stronger would split much easier.

We had to remember that from the lack of materials/knowledge, a lot of reenacting experiments tests stuff made from sawmill planks, and other modern materials.

While in this particular applications, antique methods of acquiring planks/pieces of wood can make really staggering difference - particularly torn wood (is that right english word?).

English in the 12th Century (and gradually made more powerful over the course of 3 centuries, or at least that is the theory proposed by The Great Warbow) and then the Mongols re-introduced very powerful steppe bows to Europe in the 13th Century.

I don't disagree, but is there any evidence that Mongol bows were particularly more poweful than, say, bows of Avars, Khazars, Pechenegs, or any other of them very nice steppe people that were hoping in for visits in Europe?

One example of a kind of 'hooked' weapon which was used effectively against shields, though I think more to just slice them up than anything else, was the Dacian Falx. The Romans had to equip their Legionaires with better arm protection (adapted from Gladiator armor) to cope with them, as so many Legionaires were getting their arms lopped off.

http://ranistorum.midhedava.net/site_eng/Images/falx_02.jpg

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

G

I've heard it plenty of times, I wonder how much truth in it there is though.

In that particular experiment, effects would be very catastrophic for Dacian guy though - huge, exposing swing, just to have falx stuck, no part of legionaire actually reached. :smallbiggrin:

Yora

2013-01-29, 09:32 AM

Also, the shield seems to be on a fixed mount. On a legionaires arm, it would swing with the blow.

AMX

2013-01-29, 10:14 AM

Love those things, the "Renaissance Grenade Launcher". Awesome for any RPG...

They date back to the 16th Century... apparently it took a lot of expertise and trust in whoever made the projectile since, being fuse based, it could be a little dicey if it misfired (as early firearms so often did)

They were used at least a little though, apparently one was even used in action in (what would later become ) the US, I remember some comment about 30 rounds being fired 'in earnest' in some battle against some Native Americans.

I think the main limitation was the high level of expertise required for whoever used the weapon and whoever made and prepared the ammunition.

EDIT: the Wiki says they could be shot about 80 yards, or at least one version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_mortar

G

Ah, "Hand Mortar" - having the right search term makes quite a difference :smallsmile:
You can actually get replicas of some types :smallbiggrin:

Seems 80 yards is typical for use as a line-thrower - grenades should go somewhat further, since a thrown line has insanely high drag...
Apparently, tennis balls can be shot up to 300 yards :smallbiggrin:

Traab

2013-01-29, 10:15 AM

In that particular experiment, effects would be very catastrophic for Dacian guy though - huge, exposing swing, just to have falx stuck, no part of legionaire actually reached.

Maybe not, look how far past the shield the blade is sticking. Im not sure how close to the body a legionnaire would hold his shield, but he could get caught out by that. Though the rest of what you said is spot on. You can almost see a 2 second window for the guy to get stabbed as he winds up the blow for that attack where he is so wide open you could pitch a tent in his unprotected area. Also, as Yora mentioned, that is on a fixed mount, the sheer amount of force on the downward swing would possibly take the roman way off balance, possibly removing the shield from his arm, possibly pulling him to the ground with the momentum, I dunno.

Spiryt

2013-01-29, 10:57 AM

Maybe not, look how far past the shield the blade is sticking. Im not sure how close to the body a legionnaire would hold his shield, but he could get caught out by that.

In case of unarmored legionnaire, this could be possibly very harmful blow indeed, though it does seem to fall to short.

Also, as Yora mentioned, that is on a fixed mount, the sheer amount of force on the downward swing would possibly take the roman way off balance, possibly removing the shield from his arm, possibly pulling him to the ground with the momentum, I dunno.

If the falx is cutting trough, force of the impact won't be great at all - simple physics of F = m*a (in this case deceleration being slow and over time).

Aside from that, hard to see the way for such a swing at rather heavy shield to in any way outbalance the holder.

In case of some really powerful blow, I could easily see it being pulled out of his hand, I guess.

warty goblin

2013-01-29, 11:36 AM

I've heard basswood is almost like balsa, I was wondering if linden was a little tougher maybe? It's a mystery to me how these shields worked. I have made some myself out of birch plywood which were very light, 3/8" inch, and have held up pretty well to beating from wood sticks and nylon fencing swords, but I kind of wonder how well they would stand up to a sharp.

Basswood is very soft, but nowhere near as soft as balsa. Balsa's so soft it actually takes a very sharp blade to cut cleanly, because otherwise the pressure just crushes it. Both are favored for woodcarving because they lack significant grain, which means you don't have to worry about splitting.

This is certainly true with basswood. I've got a chunk of it around here I just did some test hits on. The piece is about 2 1/2 inches on a side, maybe a foot long. The best striking implement I have available is a fairly heavy kitchen knife with a ten inch blade. The edge isn't razor sharp or anything, but I suspect most weapon edges weren't either. This is a knife I got as 'severance pay' when I left a commercial kitchen I used to work at, and for reference I recall loping through two or three inch chunks of beef fat with it fairly easily.

For this morning's test hitting, I put the wood on the lid of my trashcan, since any damage to that won't come out of my security deposit. This put the wood at just above waist height, which wasn't terribly convenient. It did however keep it stable, and minimized the damage that could occur if I missed my mark.

The first hit was across the grain, so a cut into a flat surface with no corner to bite into. The blade penetrated about 3/16ths of an inch, quite uniformly across the width of the wood. There was no evidence of splitting, and only a few splinters near one edge of the wood indicated the blade had crushed, as opposed to cut, the fibers.

The second hit was along the grain, hitting the top of the stick. The blade struck at an angle, and at its deepest penetrated perhaps 3/4ths of an inch, with the shallow portion of the cut just creasing the surface. In spite of this being a powerful blow delivered in-line with the grain, there was only superficial cracking.

I tried delivering several additional blows to the flat of the wood, running along the grain. I had a hard time getting these to stick, mostly because of the height I was swinging at. With the edge of the blade essentially parallel to the wood, the cuts were exceedingly superficial. I suspect, although did not verify, that several such blows struck at shallow angles to each other would, despite their shallow penetration, cause the surface of the wood to beging to peel away from the body, particularly where the cuts intersected. Striking with the tip at an angle to the wood's surface proved very difficult to do accurately at that height*, but the few hits I did accomplish suggested fairly deep penetration could be achieved. Particularly if the target was bigger and at a more convenient height and angle to the striker's body.

*There's now a new hole in in the steel lid of my garbage can to prove it.

Can you describe the characteristics of some other woods like birch, poplar, spruce, fir, (northern European species of) pine? I believe those were used for shields historically as well.
I've unfortunately done very little work in those. Fir, at least the kind I've used for trim boards on barns etc, splits if you look at it funny, and is fairly soft as well. On the plus side it weighs very little. American White Pine tends to be extremely soft, and splits fairly easily, I really have no idea how it compares to European varieties.

I have a Norwegian style belt knife with a haft made from burl birch (which is European, not American). I did most of the work on the handle myself, and found the wood to be quite hard, and to be fairly split resistant. I was however doing what amounted to detail carving and polishing, which obviously doesn't put very much stress on the wood. I believe this was also wood from the root ball of the tree, which can have very different properties to trunk or branch wood.

Since I had that knife out, I thought I'd try it out against my trusty basswood blank as well. This one has a blade that's about 3 1/2 inches long, maybe 3/4 inch wide, and has a very thick spine - nearly a quarter inch! The edge is ground down in a single bevel, so it basically has the edge geometry of an axe.

On the cut this did a lot more damage than I thought it would. The wide angle of the edge proved effective not only for cutting, but for crushing the wood as well. It did not penetrate as well as the kitchen knife, but made big, noticeable gouges to the other's finer cut marks. Thrusting proved ineffective, although that says probably more for my deficient technique* than it does either knife or wood.

*Being a Norwegian belt knife, it lacks any kind of cross and the haft is in fact widest in the middle of the grip, narrowing towards the butt and blade. An overeager thrust is likely to push the hand down onto the blade. I'd rather not slice any fingers to the bone this early in the morning.

Ash was, of course, used for spears quite a bit. Now sadly most ash trees are dead...
It also makes wonderful hafts for axes. I've used splitting mauls with ash shafts, and they last a couple years, despite some rough abuse - sometimes you missplace your swing and hit the log with the top of the shaft instead of the blade. Wrapped in a bit of electrical tape to cushion the blow and protect the wood fibers from splintering under impact, they survive this handily. I've even accidentally split logs doing that, just from the impact.

IIRC ash splits apart like butter when you hit the end grain though.