Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

[kardar233]

To support Spiryt's point, here's quite a good test of arrows against various armour types: English Longbow Testing circa 1400 (http://www.currentmiddleages.org/artsci/docs/Champ_Bane_Archery-Testing.pdf).

The short of it is that penetration depends on the arrow and the poundage of the bow and even quite thin plate (1.2 mm) is decent at stopping arrows from a 75 lb selfbow at 10 yds (or a 110 lb longbow at 250 yds).

One issue with the test is that the angle of penetration is optimal so shooting at an angle may result in less penetration than expected due to the physics of armour penetration.

Another test I remember tried 1.2 mm, 2 mm and 3 mm plate, with only partial penetration against the 2 mm and no penetration on the 3 mm at optimal angle (90 degrees). This would imply that 2mm plate would be effective against an arrow striking at an angle less than ~67 degrees so indirect fire could possibly cause less casualties against well armoured targets than expected.

That's a really good resource, thanks for linking it.

Is there any comparisons to see just how much a higher draw increases penetration? I'm working on a ludicrously strong character at the moment who may end up using a bow with a 200+ pound draw, and I wonder just how effective it would be against enemy plate.

Also, again assuming a ridiculously strong archer, might you make a bow with a steel belly (like an arbalest)?

[Deffers]

I got a really open-ended question for a friend. It's also just a little bit out there, so ignore me if it falls too far outside of the purview of this thread.

In a near-future, partway magical setting RP he's in, he's got a character who dual-wields, of all the damn things, chainsaws. It's a complicated story, and surprisingly his is not the most ludicrous weapon (that would be a weaponized, missile-firing ghost motorcycle that's mostly used in melee-- but that's hardly a real world weapon).

Anyway, I think it'd probably please him to no end if I found out how exactly you could make a chainsaw into any sort of viable weapon. Let's not even get into the gasoline part of the equation, let's presume they're powered by graphene and pixie fart batteries. What sort of modifications would you have to make to prevent it from clogging up at the first hint of mushy bits? Just, any modifications that don't involve the power source.

So basically, how do we turn an oft-used movie weapon, into a mechanically functioning real world weapon, in terms of mechanical operation?

Again, sorry if this is too far out of the scope of the usual stuff for this thread, but I thought it might work. Thanks for your help!:smallwink:

[warty goblin]

I'd think a bigger issue, assuming you get the weight down to something reasonable, is that chainsaws pull. All those teeth biting into whatever you're cutting want to yank the sucker right out of your hands. That's why people tend to jam the body of the saw right up against the log, so they don't have to pull the thing back manually. Obviously you can't do that when trying to slash somebody with one, so it's definitely something to keep in mind.

The pull of the teeth is also why when a person uses a chainsaw, they should always try to keep themselves out of the line of the blade. They can snag, and when they snag, they can kick back far too hard and fast for a person to stop. In a combat application, I'd be extremely worried about this. You don't want to chainsaw thwack somebody in armor, have the teeth jam on a pauldron, and get a face full of blade.

What I'm saying here is that if there were ever a weapon that deserved critical fumble rules, it's the chainsaw.


Actually clogging up wouldn't really be that much of a worry though. Compared to dry oak, people parts just aren't that tough, and lack the long fibers that can gum things up. I've never chainsawed meat, but I have saws-alled a pig carcass in half right down the center of the spine, and the sawdust produced wasn't really all that different from what you'd get sawing pine. While a reciprocating saw does a better job of cleaning itself, it's also way less powerful, and chainsaws can run with a crazy amount of filth gumming them up.

[TuggyNE]

What I'm saying here is that if there were ever a weapon that deserved critical fumble rules, it's the chainsaw.

On a natural 1-3, no less.

And here "you fumble and auto-crit your ally 20 feet away" is almost plausible, too. :smalltongue:

[Matthew]

What armor could that be referring to? I was under the impression that even full gothic harness isn't so heavy that you can't, for instance, lift yourself up from the ground.

I can't find the video I wanted (older gentleman flinging himself off a horse in armor and getting up just fine), but here's one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm11yAXeegg)...



Judging by period, it could be some full mail with some clunky early coat of plates, perhaps with a lot of padding and leg armor, that would make moving on your own rather tiring and sluggish.

I would say that this text is obviously a hyperbole, like with many medieval accounts, but it was certainly possibility for very encumbering armor in 13th century.

As far as I recall, full armor that famous 'Kings Mirror" suggest sounds pretty damn bulky, multiple layers of linen both under and over the mail...

Indeed, it must be hyperbole to some extent, and dismissing it as such seems the simplest solution. However, I think we have hit on a more satisfying answer in the idea of "overspecialisation". Whilst the Maciejowski Bible suggests mainly mail body armour for the mid thirteenth century, it may be that this comment relates to the beginning of the "transitional" period and that specialised lancers in heavier, more cumbersome, armour were beginning to appear. That initial inefficiency would perhaps have preceded and even driven the creation of armour with better mobility.

[Berenger]

I can't find the video I wanted (older gentleman flinging himself off a horse in armor and getting up just fine), but here's one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm11yAXeegg)...

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

[Yora]

Only a tangentially related question, but you guys seem to be knowledgable of such things:

What name did Charlemagne use himself as king of the Franks?

[Rhynn]

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

That's the one. That's great stuff. He's even in full harness (although the backs of his thighs are bare, which was typical), rather than three-quarter, which became more common in the Renaissance - presumably because any proper armor on your legs is a pain to walk with...

[Brother Oni]

Is there any comparisons to see just how much a higher draw increases penetration? I'm working on a ludicrously strong character at the moment who may end up using a bow with a 200+ pound draw, and I wonder just how effective it would be against enemy plate.

Galloglaich mentioned Dr Alan Williams who's apparently done a fair bit of work on this. I haven't been able to find any papers he's done yet, but I probably need to do some more googling.



Also, again assuming a ridiculously strong archer, might you make a bow with a steel belly (like an arbalest)?

Did you mean a laminate bow (multiple layers of different materials) or a self bow (made out of a single piece)?

Making a laminate bow out of materials which don't bend well together (like metal and wood) is just asking for trouble.

I believe the prod of an arbalest is entirely made out of metal, thus making it the equivalent of a self bow. There have been self bows made entirely out of steel (I've seen one dating from the 1950s and a quick google search gives me a 19th Century Indian one), so you could do the same here.
I'm unsure of what the draw distance of an arbalest is though, so it would depend on whether it could be drawn to the same length as a bow (typically 28").

Modern recurves are made out of different materials, (usually metal for the riser and composite material for the limbs), so you could have your character use one of those.

Depending on your character's setting though, you could just handwave the physics and have a magic bow made out whatever seems cool (a metal and wood laminate bow looks apt). :smalltongue:

[Rhynn]

Only a tangentially related question, but you guys seem to be knowledgable of such things:

What name did Charlemagne use himself as king of the Franks?

Apparently, written documents in early Frankish languages are almost non-existent. Carolus Magnus might be the closest you're going to get, because they mostly wrote in Latin. (Sometimes including some non-Latin words.)

[Deffers]

I'd think a bigger issue, assuming you get the weight down to something reasonable, is that chainsaws pull. All those teeth biting into whatever you're cutting want to yank the sucker right out of your hands. That's why people tend to jam the body of the saw right up against the log, so they don't have to pull the thing back manually. Obviously you can't do that when trying to slash somebody with one, so it's definitely something to keep in mind.

The pull of the teeth is also why when a person uses a chainsaw, they should always try to keep themselves out of the line of the blade. They can snag, and when they snag, they can kick back far too hard and fast for a person to stop. In a combat application, I'd be extremely worried about this. You don't want to chainsaw thwack somebody in armor, have the teeth jam on a pauldron, and get a face full of blade.

What I'm saying here is that if there were ever a weapon that deserved critical fumble rules, it's the chainsaw.


Huh. OK. So would there be any way to reduce that pull?

[warty goblin]

Huh. OK. So would there be any way to reduce that pull?

Not really, it's pretty much how a chainsaw works. All saws work by dragging the points of the teeth across the cutting medium, so they dig in and tear off bits of material. At a macro level this is quite distinct from a knife or sword, which doesn't remove material, just separates it. At a micro level of course a sawblade is just a lot of very small knives making lots of very small cuts. The 'pull' you feel operating a chainsaw is Newton's third law applying equal and opposite force to the saw away from you as the teeth move towards you.

Pretty much whenever the saw isn't powered by pure muscle, you have the potential for binding and kicking because of this. Reciprocating saws, table saws, chainsaws, anytime the teeth snag and the motor keeps trying to move the blade, you have the potential for some sort of mishap. With tablesaws you never stand behind the board, because if the blade binds it can shoot the wood backwards and seriously injure or kill the user, even though the blade is fixed. I've seen just how fast even a moderately sized tablesaw can shoot a bit of wood, and it's legitimately scary.


This is less of a risk and problem with a sharp blade, because it's less likely to bind up, but it's not like a person can afford to ignore the risks even then. Meat is much less tough than most woods though, so there could well be less of an issue with the blade seizing up when halfway through a dude. On the other hand people are considerably more likely to be armored than your average tree, and armor is a good deal harder to cut than even dry oak logs. I'd think hitting somebody in chainmail with a chainsaw would be nearly as dangerous to the operator as the target.

It's also not the case that a chainsaw makes cutting through stuff effortless. They're a lot less work than a handsaw, but you still need to put some significant pressure on the blade for them to dig in, because the action of the teeth also pushes the blade upwards and away from what you're cutting. As I said, easier than a handsaw, and certainly faster, but still a lot of work.

[Galloglaich]

Re: Dr. Williams

http://books.google.com/books/about/The_knight_and_the_blast_furnace.html?id=GpVbnsqAz xIC

G

[Deffers]

@Water Goblin: Huh. OK, that's good to know. Yeah, it sounds like this definitely couldn't work in the real world, at least not safely. It does sound like if someone had superhuman strength, they'd at least be able to train with working against the pull of the chainsaw in the heat of combat. For the RP, at least, that's not outlandish.

Oh well. So basically, what it comes down to is you'd need to be quite strong to wield one as a weapon and not die violently from the bigger, meaner cousin of stabbing yourself, and even then the chainsaw could still have its chain snap, right? I've heard stories of, basically, jerks putting nails into trees that were going to be cut, so that when someone chainsawed them the chain would snap and injure them. Could this actually happen?

[Brother Oni]

How about a chainsaw with two sets of teeth, which oscillate back and forth a short distance inversely, thus it would have a cutting action (like scissors) in addition to the standard tearing?

As I understand general mechanics, the motor probably wouldn't drive the chains directly, thus it'd probably be less powerful but may have reduced kickback.


Re: Dr. Williams

http://books.google.com/books/about/The_knight_and_the_blast_furnace.html?id=GpVbnsqAz xIC

Excellent, thanks for that Galloglaich.

[Galloglaich]

@Water Goblin: Huh. OK, that's good to know. Yeah, it sounds like this definitely couldn't work in the real world, at least not safely. It does sound like if someone had superhuman strength, they'd at least be able to train with working against the pull of the chainsaw in the heat of combat. For the RP, at least, that's not outlandish.

Oh well. So basically, what it comes down to is you'd need to be quite strong to wield one as a weapon and not die violently from the bigger, meaner cousin of stabbing yourself, and even then the chainsaw could still have its chain snap, right? I've heard stories of, basically, jerks putting nails into trees that were going to be cut, so that when someone chainsawed them the chain would snap and injure them. Could this actually happen?

I think no matter how light you tried to make the chainsaw, and no matter how strong you were (within the realm of physics) it would be so much heavier and clumsier than a real sword, spear etc., that it would be ridiculously easy for a trained opponent to just stab you in the face or cut your hand off before you managed to cut them.

G

[cucchulainnn]

I think no matter how light you tried to make the chainsaw, and no matter how strong you were (within the realm of physics) it would be so much heavier and clumsier than a real sword, spear etc., that it would be ridiculously easy for a trained opponent to just stab you in the face or cut your hand off before you managed to cut them.

G

but, but, it worked in army of darkness. you must be mistake. if ash can do it why can't I. :smallwink:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Wlml5Mi1yoU/UVJdXDNvVgI/AAAAAAAAMmw/lwgdVqe5YHE/s1600/img-jh_army_of_peanuts.jpg

[AgentPaper]

A chainsaw meant for combat would probably be a lot thinner than one made for cutting wood, and designed to slice rather than rip and tear. For example, it could have a bunch of small, curved blades that would cut any flesh they touched, but wouldn't get caught on armor or other hard bits. It would probably also use a smaller, less powerful engine, since it doesn't need to be as powerful, thus making it lighter.

Such a chainsaw would likely do great against soft targets, cutting through them like a knife through butter, but fare much worse against armor or even bone, since it's blades are designed to slide over hard surfaces rather than dig in. This does mean though that it's much less likely to snag, break the chain, and lacerate your friend 20 feet away.

[warty goblin]

@Water Goblin: Huh. OK, that's good to know. Yeah, it sounds like this definitely couldn't work in the real world, at least not safely. It does sound like if someone had superhuman strength, they'd at least be able to train with working against the pull of the chainsaw in the heat of combat. For the RP, at least, that's not outlandish.

There's also the issue of conservation of angular momentum to consider. While a chainsaw won't be nearly the worst power tool in this category*, the spinning chain will have a gyroscopic effect, which could slow down recovery from a swing in very strange ways.

Also, if somebody's strong enough to manhandle a chainsaw in combat like a sword, there's other things they could be pulling out of the toolshop I'd be a lot more worried about. The nine pound splitting maul comes to mind, to say nothing of the six foot iron prybar they could swing like a quarter-staff. Things just break when you hit them with one of those.


*For real fun with conservation of angular momentum, try a diamond edged 20" stone cutting saw. You'd better hope you've got the blade in the plane you want before you turn it on, because it's a right wrestling match to tilt the sucker once it's up to speed.


Oh well. So basically, what it comes down to is you'd need to be quite strong to wield one as a weapon and not die violently from the bigger, meaner cousin of stabbing yourself, and even then the chainsaw could still have its chain snap, right? I've heard stories of, basically, jerks putting nails into trees that were going to be cut, so that when someone chainsawed them the chain would snap and injure them. Could this actually happen?
Chain breakage is another issue, one that, thankfully, I've never actually seen. It's certainly something I was taught to worry about when learning to operate a chainsaw though - always clear the cutting area, check for any bits of metal or stone that could jam the blade, etc.

I remember our old chainsaw had a metal guard that covered the end of the blade blade specifically so that if the chain did snap, it didn't go shooting off like the Devil's own leg-mangling bolo. It's been a while since I've seen a saw with that feature, so it could be modern chains are substantially less likely to snap. Either that or people just got fed up with taking them off every time they wanted to section a tree longer than the blade. Remarkably, you will always find a tree larger than your chainsaw in my experience.


How about a chainsaw with two sets of teeth, which oscillate back and forth a short distance inversely, thus it would have a cutting action (like scissors) in addition to the standard tearing?

Then you have what amounts to a sicklebar, which also cut quite well. The problem with them is that the shake like crazy. I've used sicklebar mowers on occasion, and they'll cut through thick grass, small trees, and I'd imagine legs, etc without any trouble. What makes 'em awkward is that they vibrate so much your hands go numb. This is attached to a quite large self propelled mower mind you, so there's a lot of mass to absorb the shock between me and the blades. Something heavy and powerful enough for combat use that's hand-held would be well nigh uncontrollable.

It also increases the number of moving parts significantly, which increases the ways and chances for something to break. A chainsaw is really quite simple, and my experience is that they're the better part of indestructible because of this. You need to sharpen the blade pretty frequently, lubricate often and heavily, and the bar needs replaced every once in a great while, but that's about it until the engine craps out after a couple decades. The sicklebar needs overhauled at least a couple of times a summer, when it isn't flat-out broken because it's under so much more stress when operating. Our current model has blades screwed onto a steel bar that's maybe an inch wide and perhaps a quarter thick. We've had this snap right in half at least once I can remember. The blades themselves also break, chip and generally self-destruct fairly frequently, and they're pretty large, sturdy bits of steel. This is just running through grass, scrub and the occasional unanticipated bit of turf or chicken wire mind. Running one into a bit of actually thick high quality metal makes me shudder to contemplate.


As I understand general mechanics, the motor probably wouldn't drive the chains directly, thus it'd probably be less powerful but may have reduced kickback.
I'd think the kickback could well be harder to deal with, since now you don't even know which direction it's going to act in. With a standard chainsaw at least I know it's going to pull away and up, with this it could just as well throw itself backwards into me.


I think no matter how light you tried to make the chainsaw, and no matter how strong you were (within the realm of physics) it would be so much heavier and clumsier than a real sword, spear etc., that it would be ridiculously easy for a trained opponent to just stab you in the face or cut your hand off before you managed to cut them.
G

On the upside for Mr. Chainsaw, at least it'd be scary as hell to fight against. I mean I know if I had a sword or a spear any sort of weapon-to-weapon contact would be something I'd avoid like the plague. My blade would get thrown somehow and somewhere, but neither of us would be able to predict or control where.


Also this appears to be the real world weapons, armor and power tool thread. We could talk about cutting torches next.

[Deffers]

Yeah, my buddy's character is basically Mr. Scary. Doesn't surprise me that's the one thing a fighting chainsaw would be excellent at.

What if you put it on a stick, like some horrible chain-spear? Would that be easier to handle?

And power tools are totally real world weapons. It's a modern spin on turning your plough into a sword. A horrible, crappy sword that is every bit as likely to kill you as anyone else.:smallwink:

[AgentPaper]

What if you put it on a stick, like some horrible chain-spear? Would that be easier to handle?

Putting it on a stick would make it even more difficult to handle, since it still has all the same problems, except now you have much less leverage and have to worry about the stick wobbling around and not going exactly where you want it to. There's a reason that the blades of most polearm weapons are smaller than their corresponding, shorter-hafted counterparts.

[warty goblin]

A chainsaw meant for combat would probably be a lot thinner than one made for cutting wood, and designed to slice rather than rip and tear. For example, it could have a bunch of small, curved blades that would cut any flesh they touched, but wouldn't get caught on armor or other hard bits. It would probably also use a smaller, less powerful engine, since it doesn't need to be as powerful, thus making it lighter.

Such a chainsaw would likely do great against soft targets, cutting through them like a knife through butter, but fare much worse against armor or even bone, since it's blades are designed to slide over hard surfaces rather than dig in. This does mean though that it's much less likely to snag, break the chain, and lacerate your friend 20 feet away.

Chainsaws already slice - try running one through a bit of wood with the grain parallel to the blade. You don't get sawdust, you get lots of long, thin ribbons of wood. You only get sawdust when cutting cross-grain because the wood is weak in that direction, and the fibers break apart.
http://www.solarnavigator.net/images/Chainsaw_chain_teeth.jpg
The teeth are those slanted flat chiselish bits on the top of the chain in the picture. They are basically little right angles sticking out of the chain, and are sharp on both sides All those spiky things on the bottom are gear teeth, which is what allows the engine to power the chain, and keeps said chain from sliding off the bar. The little pointy things on top act to limit the cut depth so the saw doesn't dig in too deep and bind, but they aren't sharp and don't cut.

The way a chainsaw cuts is by dragging the sharp face of those teeth along the surface. When pressed down by the operator, the angle of the blade causes it to bite, and lift a bit of material off as the chain moves. It's essentially a belt of chisels or knives that lift little pieces of the material as they pass across it. That picture doesn't really show it very well, but the teeth usually have somewhat curved edges as well.


Putting it on a stick would make it even more difficult to handle, since it still has all the same problems, except now you have much less leverage and have to worry about the stick wobbling around and not going exactly where you want it to. There's a reason that the blades of most polearm weapons are smaller than their corresponding, shorter-hafted counterparts.
Really, the only sensible thing to do is the chainsaw gauntlet. It solves most of the leverage issues, the risk of removing your own face is way lower, and you're punching people with a chainsaw. How much more could a person possibly want?

[Brother Oni]

Also this appears to be the real world weapons, armor and power tool thread. We could talk about cutting torches next.

Speaking of cutting torches, the US Navy put this video out today that may interest some people: Laser Weapon System (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmoldX1wKYQ).



Really, the only sensible thing to do is the chainsaw gauntlet. It solves most of the leverage issues, the risk of removing your own face is way lower, and you're punching people with a chainsaw. How much more could a person possibly want?

Wait, are you saying a 40K chainfist (http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Chainfist#.UWNZWcrV430) is actually reasonable?

[warty goblin]

Wait, are you saying a 40K chainfist (http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Chainfist#.UWNZWcrV430) is actually reasonable?

Conditioned on the vast impracticalicity of a chainsaw weapon to begin with, some sort of punching attack really seems the best way to go.

Although personally if I were designing it, I wouldn't do a single short bayonet style blade. I'd go with four short semicircular blades, with maybe a quarter inch between them. Why four? It's the smallest number that will produce a net torque and a net force of zero when all of them strike at once. Run the two on the edge upwards, and the two in the middle downwards. This reduces the chances of spraining your own wrist every time you decide somebody's insides would look better as wall paint. The half-circle design is to allow for efficient slashing attacks, as well as more linear punches. It also maximizes the amount of chain that is actively cutting in any one attack, while minimizing the depth of penetration for area of laceration. This gives a large amount of trauma while reducing the amount of leverage the saw-fist can exert on your elbow. Also I think it looks cool.

On the downside, you won't get a penetration much deeper than the depth of the blade. On the upside you just punched four deep, extremely messy gouges into somebody's torso. I suspect neither you nor they will be worried about your failure to make a hole all the way through their body. They'll be wondering exactly how fast they can lose all their blood. You will be worried about the dry-cleaning bill. Because as an added benefit of running the chains in opposite directions, this thing will spray gore literally everywhere.

[Deffers]

Well, that's way cooler than a chainsaw. OMEGA CHAINFIST, GOOOOOO

[eulmanis12]

I'd suggesst having the chains moving towards the opponent on the outside, that way a hit that wasn't perfectly flat would not yank you forwards it would instead push back, something much less likley to catch you off balance as you would alread be braced for resistive force

[Ashtagon]

Really, the only sensible thing to do is the chainsaw gauntlet. It solves most of the leverage issues, the risk of removing your own face is way lower, and you're punching people with a chainsaw. How much more could a person possibly want?

A nose that isn't itchy?

[warty goblin]

A nose that isn't itchy?

With the Mk. 1 QuadRipper Chainsaw Gauntlet (Now Available in Black!) you never have to worry about your itchy nose again!

[Galloglaich]

how about a vibrating sword or spear-blade like the electric carving knife they use to cut up a turkey?

G

[Rhynn]

how about a vibrating sword or spear-blade like the electric carving knife they use to cut up a turkey?

G

Now I am curious - are vibro-blades feasible? They're a sci-fi staple (well, a certain kind of sci-fi, anyway)...

[eulmanis12]

Now I am curious - are vibro-blades feasible? They're a sci-fi staple (well, a certain kind of sci-fi, anyway)...

making a blade that vibrates isn't that hard, wielding it on the other hand could get difficult, and its effects could get rather unpredictable as different materials respond differently to it.

however, the guns of the future will continue to do what the guns of the past and present have done, render the sword (of any kind) useless on the battlefield

[Galloglaich]

Food for thought

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NE35rm-UY4

G

[Spiryt]

I'm not sure what's this video point to be sure, TBH.

That if some crazy piece of..... attacks you with a knife out of sudden, you're screwed at best, and often dead?

Well, that's kinda given. :smallwink:

Myth about only 'idiots grabbing you while they stab' was kinda weird indeed, after all, one can control what he grabs. To stab and prevent from running away.


As far as guns go, I remember some police research, with a lot of officers playing 'roles' of paroling guys with guns with blanks/lasers/can't remember. white clothes, and other played rampaging knife hobos, using red dye sharpies.

Analysis showed that distance, from which knife guy had to attack from, to give gunner solid chance to notice, evaluate the danger, and then grab a gun, aim and eliminate threat was disturbingly high.

Maybe I will find it later.

[Straybow]

I'd agree with AgentPaper. Instead of the perpendicular chisel-type blades use curved, in-plane slicing teeth. And with eulmanis12, running it backwards compared to a normal chainsaw would probably help prevent snags pulling the weapon from your grip.

I'd add that the saw could be made like a backsword, with the chain guide taller than the blade teeth on the back side. It would still be rather heavy unless made quite short, and way too dangerous to use one-handed, IMO.

[Straybow]

There's a Tony Hillerman character who carries a knife, and when the other policeman questions him about it he cites a figure of 21' being the range from which a knife-wielder can get to you before you can draw and fire your holstered gun.

[AgentPaper]

Note that modifying the chainsaw in this way (removing the chisel blades, reversing the direction) would make it much worse at it's job of sawing through things, since that's why normal chainsaws have those features in the first place. You almost certainly wouldn't be able to cut through wood with a chainsaw like that, and metal armor would be just as much a hindrance as with a normal sword, if not more so due to the lack of a tip and the tendency to push itself away from the armor instead of digging in.

Which means it's worse than a sword at hurting people, and worse than a saw at sawing things, making it an eminently useless item, but if you really did need to fight someone using a chainsaw (and simply smacking them over the head with the engine doesn't count), that's about the only reasonable way to do it.

[fusilier]

There's a Tony Hillerman character who carries a knife, and when the other policeman questions him about it he cites a figure of 21' being the range from which a knife-wielder can get to you before you can draw and fire your holstered gun.

I think this assumes a well trained knifeman who gets the drop on an average person gunman -- not an experienced trick shooter with an old-west style quick-draw holster, who's waiting for the knifeman to "make his move". :-)

The attacker often has an advantage as the defender is typically unprepared for the attack. Police undergo very strenuous training to be prepared to react to such situations.

[AgentPaper]

If someone is going to get a knife on you before you can get your gun out, how is having your own knife going to be any more useful? Are you going to drop your half-drawn gun and then take even more time to unsheathe your knife?

[kardar233]

I think this assumes a well trained knifeman who gets the drop on an average person gunman -- not an experienced trick shooter with an old-west style quick-draw holster, who's waiting for the knifeman to "make his move". :-)

That's definitely true. However, I've seen the study that Straybow is referencing, and while I don't quite recall the numbers 21 feet does sound right. It was a test to see how close someone with a knife would have to be so that by the time the officer got his weapon online he would already be stabbed.

[Xuc Xac]

I think this assumes a well trained knifeman who gets the drop on an average person gunman -- not an experienced trick shooter with an old-west style quick-draw holster, who's waiting for the knifeman to "make his move". :-)

It's actually the other way around: average person with a knife versus trained gunman. If the knife-wielder is closer than 21 feet, the gunman won't have time to draw and fire before being stabbed. A lot. If the gunman doesn't already have his gun drawn and ready when the knife wielder charges, then it's too late for shooting. The gunman needs to focus on running away or grabbing the knife hand before getting cut and stabbed too badly.

[Rhynn]

I think this assumes a well trained knifeman who gets the drop on an average person gunman -- not an experienced trick shooter with an old-west style quick-draw holster, who's waiting for the knifeman to "make his move". :-)

The attacker often has an advantage as the defender is typically unprepared for the attack. Police undergo very strenuous training to be prepared to react to such situations.

I'm not so sure it's anything to do with well-trained - you don't need a lot of training to stab people. It's more about being determined - which a lot of knife-attackers obviously are. And as Xuc Xac says, I'm pretty sure it was just a guy with a knife told to rush and slash/stab. Certainly the attacks exhibited, IMO, no particular finesse or expertise - they don't need to.

The distance was IIRC more like 12'-15' feet (I'm pretty sure it was actually discussed and linked up-thread!) And it wasn't, IIRC, that you absolutely can't draw and shoot the guy as he rushes you, it's that even if you shoot and hit (hardly a given, since you won't be able to aim, and you'll probably be trying to dodge/backpedal), you'll probably still get stabbed.

[Yora]

I think the most lethal thing about knives is that they make it very easy to suprise someone. Even in places outside the US where you wouldn't assume that every person could carry a gun, it is still possible that everyone could have a knife. Not sure how this translates to cops being less attentive to indications for attacks, but it wouldn't suprise me. Getting the drop on someone with a knive is very easy.

And as others mentioned, getting one bullet of before the attacker with a knive reaches you isn't going to save you. It might, if you are lucky, but even if the attacker bleeds so badly that he falls unconscious within 10 seconds, that's still enough time to get fatally stabbed lots of times. And with a 9mm handgun and an attacker that is charging you, the chance that he will instantly drop when hit should be pretty low.

That said, attacks with knives are highly lethal, even at medium range, but I also don't see how a knive would be better in defending against knives than a gun. Trying to shot someone with a knive would always be better than getting in a grapple with knives. And you can still continue shooting even once a grapple has started.

[Deffers]

The knife thing is why my gun toting buddies prefer higher caliber rounds in their handguns. Like, 10mm +P hollow point rounds. Basically, they go for the "blow a huge hole in the target" deal.

[Rhynn]

The knife thing is why my gun toting buddies prefer higher caliber rounds in their handguns. Like, 10mm +P hollow point rounds. Basically, they go for the "blow a huge hole in the target" deal.

Sweet, let's get into the whole "stopping power" argument... :smallbiggrin:

[Deffers]

Hey, I never said they were right. I just said they aim for "my chest cavity now has its own cavity" rather than "bleeding out."

And I'm pretty sure they use overpressured 10mm rounds in places where polar bear is an expected hazard.

[Galloglaich]

I think the point is that, given the 'stopping power' and continued popularity of hand weapons like a big knife or bayonett, a bayonetted rifle, a sharpened entrenching tool, a machete, a kurkri knife or a hatchet... there still is a niche, a very small niche granted, but a niche nevertheless, for a hand weapon for those very close-range encounters. If someone was entering my house at 4:00 am, I grab one of my guns. If someone is already in my bedroom at 4:00 am, I'm going to grab my knife.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HVMP67prDhA/UCY_8BMhH7I/AAAAAAAAKyg/57HtctlcPFQ/s640/pageant.jpg

I'd even go a step further and say, in a theoretical sci fi scenario where you had very good body armor sufficient to protect against small arms, and a close-in fight was very likely, you might even be better-off carrying a buckler on your belt as well as something like a sword. This creates an enormous advantage in hand to hand combat (not reflected in most RPG systems but very much the case in real life).

I once had a debate about reach in RPG rules with my buddy Jake Norwood, inventor of Riddle of Steel and at that time, deputy director of ARMA. My position was that reach and a buckler conferred a huge advantage against a knife, we were arguing about it on 'The Forge'. So back in 2004 when we met at a fencing event, we had a bet where we did a little contest, he tried to get me with a dagger, I had a buckler and an arming sword. He had 20 tries to get me... the best he was able to manage was a couple of double-kills. I think I got him clean 17 times out of 20. He even managed to kick his shoe into my face one time but to no avail ;)

And there is no doubt (especially at that time), Jake was a better martial artist than I am, but the buckler and the reach advantage of the sword just make that much of a difference.

In the real world battlefields of today though, I think the point of the various hand weapons which are still in use, is that they can kill so quickly. I don't want to get into the 'stopping power' debate either, but I think a stab wound from a 12' knife is pretty damn lethal; as is hacking half way through somebodies skull, or knife hand, with a kurkri or an e-tool.

G

[AgentPaper]

From what I've learned, if you ask any soldier, he's going to tell you he carries a knife. However, ask him why he carries that knife, and he's not going to say "so I can stab people within 21 feet of me", he's going to say because it's an infinitely useful utility tool. Cut ropes, saw through bits of wood, pry open containers, cut open cans of food, cut meat, start a fire, dig a hole, pick your teeth, carve a figurine, have a knife-throwing contest, cut open clothes/cut strips of cloth when someone's wounded, sharpen sticks (for hunting), skin and gut animals, dig out bullets from wounds, signal for help (reflect light at the helicopter)...

Sure, maybe when you get in a fight with a scrappy enemy, and your gun gets kicked waaay across to the other side of the room, you might want to take out that knife and actually fight with it, but regardless of whether or not it's actually useful in any significant portion of combat situations, it's not the reason you want to carry a knife around as a soldier.

[Rhynn]

I once had a debate about reach in RPG rules with my buddy Jake Norwood, inventor of Riddle of Steel and at that time, deputy director of ARMA. My position was that reach and a buckler conferred a huge advantage against a knife, we were arguing about it on 'The Forge'. So back in 2004 when we met at a fencing event, we had a bet where we did a little contest, he tried to get me with a dagger, I had a buckler and an arming sword. He had 20 tries to get me... the best he was able to manage was a couple of double-kills. I think I got him clean 17 times out of 20. He even managed to kick his shoe into my face one time but to no avail ;)

And there is no doubt (especially at that time), Jake was a better martial artist than I am, but the buckler and the reach advantage of the sword just make that much of a difference.

Whoah, he seriously argued a knife could beat a sword? That is pretty weird, because it seems intuitively impossible, and TROS actually models just that - you're pretty screwed trying to hit a fighter with a longer weapon (but, then, they're screwed if you can get in close, for instance thanks to armor letting you ignore their attack).


In the real world battlefields of today though, I think the point of the various hand weapons which are still in use, is that they can kill so quickly. I don't want to get into the 'stopping power' debate either, but I think a stab wound from a 12' knife is pretty damn lethal; as is hacking half way through somebodies skull, or knife hand, with a kurkri or an e-tool.

I dunno... my understanding is that 1 stabwound may be lethal, or 40 may not.

A great article on the topic, The Dubious Art Quick Kill, mostly about historical accounts etc.:
Part 1 (http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/bloody.php)
Part 2 (http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/kill2.php)

Semi-related, I remember reading a Something Awful Ask/Tell thread titled something like "Ask me what it's like to kill a person," by an American serviceman who'd been in Afghanistan. He'd killed a Taleban fighter in close-quarters while doing sweeps of houses - they ran into each other at opposite sides of a small room, and ended up knife-fighting. He'd been taught well (not by the military), so he didn't stop sticking the knife in until his opponent had stopped moving, because that's the only way to be sure you're safe - otherwise, you might get stabbed back the moment you stop.

That last part always sort of stuck with me, because it makes sense - you can't really assess the effect your attack is having reliably until your opponent is dead or incapacitated, so if you want to win you have to keep at it until that point.

This jives with other knife-fighting (as in "I went to prison for killing a man with a knife," not "I teach knife-fighting martial arts") material I've read, and my understanding of your basic knife attack (AKA prison-yard shanking) - you get in as close as you can and stick it in as many times as you can, then get out. The thing that stuck with me from that stuff most was that there are no winners in a two-sided knife-fight - everybody's probably going to the hospital, then prison, unless somebody goes to the morgue instead.

Incidentally, my understanding is also that you don't actually need a long blade - a few inches, or even one inch, can be plenty lethal if you get in enough stabs in the right area.

Knives are nasty business.


edit: Obviously, I'm not saying that most servicemen are ever likely to fight with a knife. Quite the opposite. Just an anecdote.

[warty goblin]

So this seems like it goes a long way towards explaining the popularity of cutting weapons throughout history. Even if your adversary later dies of the wound, it does you no good to poke a hole in him, if he follows it up by laying you open with a cut.

[Rhynn]

So this seems like it goes a long way towards explaining the popularity of cutting weapons throughout history. Even if your adversary later dies of the wound, it does you no good to poke a hole in him, if he follows it up by laying you open with a cut.

Yeah, sort of. My understanding is that cutting/hewing/slashing weapons will deal more incapacitating but possibly less lethal wounds. They'll cut muscles or tendons, making limbs useless, and maybe even break bones. Of course, bleeding from a cut to a limb might be worse than from a puncture?

Obviously, thrusting a spear through someone is probably very different to a rapier-thrust or knife-stab, and daggers absolutely were used in battlefields a lot - specifically stabbing ones (poniards, stilettos, misericordes), often to dispatch armored warriors. A dagger is an essential part of harnischfechten: you throw your opponent to the ground with what amounts to judo in full plate armor, then stab him in the eye-hole or throat or under the arm, or even open his visor or pull off his helmet to stab at the face.

As I recall, George Silver in his Paradoxes of Defense complains vehemently (and almost certainly excessively, partly moviated by nationalism) about rapiers, and one of the problems he cites is that rapier duels often result in mutual serious injury, possibly death. Which, looking at those articles, certainly looks feasible (how common it was is another matter). Silver IIRC recommends cutting swords.

Edit: Some of the recountings of duels cited in those articles I linked are just crazy.


However, consider the duel between Lagarde and Bazanez. After the later received a rapier blow which bounced off his head, Bazanez is said to have received an unspecified number of thrusts which, according to the account, "entered" the body. Despite having lost a good deal of blood, he nevertheless managed to wrestle Lagarde to the ground, whereupon he proceeded to inflict some fourteen stab wounds with his dagger to an area extending from his opponent's neck to his navel. Lagarde meanwhile, entertained himself by biting off a portion of Bazanez's chin and, using the pommel of his weapon, ended the affair by fracturing Bazanez's skull. History concludes, saying that neither combatant managed to inflict any "serious" injury, and that both recovered from the ordeal.

They certainly crap all over the Hollywood notion of a light-footed, stand-up duel with one hand tucked behind your back...

[warty goblin]

Yeah, sort of. My understanding is that cutting/hewing/slashing weapons will deal more incapacitating but possibly less lethal wounds. They'll cut muscles or tendons, making limbs useless, and maybe even break bones. Of course, bleeding from a cut to a limb might be worse than from a puncture?

If test cutting is anything like an accurate representation of battlefield performance, cutting weapons don't so much break bones as simply go through them. This for example is a reasonably good video demonstrating what Viking era weapons can do to a pig carcass. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juIw20z5p0c). Don't watch if you dislike watching dead pigs get cleaved. While not perfect, the guy doing the cutting is at least delivering strokes from wards without winding up.The sword cut to the upper thigh is I think particularly noteworthy. There's a lot of meat on a pig there, and the bone is fairly substantial as well. Not I think the thickness of the thighbone of an adult male, but still a pretty hefty thing.



Obviously, thrusting a spear through someone is probably very different to a rapier-thrust or knife-stab, and daggers absolutely were used in battlefields a lot - specifically stabbing ones (poniards, stilettos, misericordes), often to dispatch armored warriors. A dagger is an essential part of harnischfechten: you throw your opponent to the ground with what amounts to judo in full plate armor, then stab him in the eye-hole or throat or under the arm, or even open his visor or pull off his helmet to stab at the face.

If nothing else, sticking somebody with a spear keeps them a fair distance away from you, and gives you a nice lever sticking into them. Applying a bit of force to your end would, I imagine, make accurate retaliation difficult.

I rather suspect the use of daggers for armored fighting wasn't so much that repeated stabbings was a particularly fast way to kill somebody in general, as it was one of the few options on the table for somebody in full harness. Which is to say it's certainly something that people did, but perhaps less because daggers are fantastic weapons, and more because there wasn't much else they could do. Besides polearms, obviously.



Edit: Some of the recountings of duels cited in those articles I linked are just crazy.

You'd think the fact that there's a sword sticking out of a guy would rather occupy his mind. Although maybe if you're willing to kill somebody over a social slight, you're mentally better prepared for dealing with the occasional perforation.



They certainly crap all over the Hollywood notion of a light-footed, stand-up duel with one hand tucked behind your back...

It does at that, although I always found that hand behind the back thing suspect to begin with. There are better things the offhand could be doing, like grappling the person who's trying to impale its owner.

[Traab]

I have a question. There is a song lyric by a group called Big and Rich. (the guys who sing save a horse ride a cowboy, i think thats their most recognizable hit) In the lyric they say, "There's never a winner of the quick draw." This makes sense to me because barring confrontations between either really good and really bad shots, both sides are going to get a bullet off before one of them dies or takes a debilitating hit. So the chances of both sides getting hurt is pretty damn high. So is this accurate? Hell, did they even ever DO quick draw type duels in the old west days? Or is it mostly cowboy movie malarky?

[Rhynn]

It does at that, although I always found that hand behind the back thing suspect to begin with. There are better things the offhand could be doing, like grappling the person who's trying to impale its owner.

Exactly. How often do you see grappling or anything that looks like "I'm fighting for my life" in a movie duel? IRL, it was pretty much the rule, because most people will do everything they physically can to not get stabbed or cut...


I have a question. There is a song lyric by a group called Big and Rich. (the guys who sing save a horse ride a cowboy, i think thats their most recognizable hit) In the lyric they say, "There's never a winner of the quick draw." This makes sense to me because barring confrontations between either really good and really bad shots, both sides are going to get a bullet off before one of them dies or takes a debilitating hit. So the chances of both sides getting hurt is pretty damn high. So is this accurate? Hell, did they even ever DO quick draw type duels in the old west days? Or is it mostly cowboy movie malarky?

Basically all Western movie gunfighting is BS; if you want to know how it was done, you'd have to forget all of that, then read about the real deal. The only example of a stand-up face-off gunfighting duel I can think of was the one between Wild Bill Hickock and a man named Davis Tutt in 1865. Dueling with guns certainly happened, but not really the way movies do it.

The Gunfight at the OK Corral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfight_at_the_O.K._Corral) didn't really go down like in movies, either.

Dallas Stoudenmire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Stoudenmire) is probably one of my favorite gunslingers. The Four Dead in Five Seconds Gunfight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Dead_in_Five_Seconds_Gunfight) was a mess - Stoudenmire shot an innocent bystander, the actual perp, and a man who hadn't actually shot anyone but was holding a gun. (Incidentally, Wild Bill on several occasions accidentally shot his own deputies.)

This is the absolute best bit, though:

Three days after the gunfight, on April 17, 1881, James Manning, a friend of Hale and Campbell, convinced former deputy Bill Johnson to assassinate Stoudenmire. Stoudenmire had publicly humiliated Johnson days before. Late at night of April 17, an intoxicated Johnson was hiding behind a pillar of bricks, but his wobbly legs gave in and he fell backward squeezing double triggers of his double barrel shotgun into the air which narrowly missed Stoudenmire. Stoudenmire immediately fired his Colts and sent eight volleys of bullets at Johnson, shooting off his testicles. Johnson bled to death quickly.

Actual Wild West gunfights were nasty, confused affairs, little different from modern gunfights between criminals, or criminals and the police; or shootings by criminals. (Most gunfighters preferred to shoot someone who wasn't ready to shoot back, naturally.)


However! As to the actual quick-draw duel: the effects of being shot are very unpredictable, but especially with large-caliber handguns (like many old revolvers, which were in often in .45), there's a pretty good chance you'll be incapacitated by being shot. Many people just mentally shut down when shot. The chances of hitting when trying to draw and fire as fast as possible are fairly low to begin with, so I highly doubt that both sides getting shot was very likely - although, even if you dropped your opponent and didn't get to cover, they might indeed shoot you back.

It's not about being a really good or really bad shot, either. If you look at modern statistics on civilian gunfights, they're mostly fought at ridiculously short distances (dozens of feet) and most shots miss. This is because you're trying not to get shot while shooting back.

The Hickok-Tutt shootout in short:

Both men faced each other sideways in the dueling position and hesitated briefly. Then Tutt reached for his pistol. Hickok drew his gun and steadied it on his opposite forearm. The two men fired a single shot each at essentially the same time, according to the reports. Tutt missed, but Hickok's bullet struck Tutt in the left side between the fifth and seventh ribs. Tutt called out, "Boys, I'm killed," ran onto the porch of the local courthouse and back to the street, where he collapsed and died.

So Hickok definitely won that one.

[Traab]

Thanks for the reply. Oh, and I was trawling through some of the other posts earlier talking about chainsaws and how much they would generally suck as a melee weapon. What about say, a pizza cutter wheel instead? A smooth slicing surface with a motor behind it putting out tons of torque should just slash through most targets without getting hung up as it has no jagged bits to catch on. Dunno how it would do against chain mail, or plate armor, but leather should get slashed through pretty simple.

[warty goblin]

Thanks for the reply. Oh, and I was trawling through some of the other posts earlier talking about chainsaws and how much they would generally suck as a melee weapon. What about say, a pizza cutter wheel instead? A smooth slicing surface with a motor behind it putting out tons of torque should just slash through most targets without getting hung up as it has no jagged bits to catch on. Dunno how it would do against chain mail, or plate armor, but leather should get slashed through pretty simple.

It'd cut through dudes just fine, but hand-powered weapons already do that. If you used a diamond-carbide blade you could probably even do a number on armor as well. As I said upthread, I've used a fairly large stone-cutting saw before, and it goes right through rock. Not as easily as an ordinary circular saw through wood, but it's hardly difficult cutting. With an appropriate blade I suspect it'd make short work of the thicknesses of steel you see in armor.

The real problem is that such tools are both heavy and immensely cumbersome. Once you get that big, heavy blade spinning at 1400rpm or so though, conservation of angular momentum becomes a definite issue to contend with. It takes a lot of main force to rotate the saw's axis. That is if you have the blade perpendicular to the ground, it's easy to move it up or down, but you've really got to push the thing to turn the blade to the left or right. Personally I don't much fancy getting into a wrestling match with my weapon after every single swing.

If a person absolutely insists on a powered melee weapon, I really think the best overall bet would be some sort of souped up reciprocating saw. If you could get the motor down to a manageable bulk and mass, such a thing could make for a truly wicked bayonet sort of deal. Perfect for Space Marines needing to carve through bulkheads. In case for some reason everybody left their cutting torches and shaped charges back on the boarding pod.

[Galloglaich]

Whoah, he seriously argued a knife could beat a sword? That is pretty weird, because it seems intuitively impossible, and TROS actually models just that - you're pretty screwed trying to hit a fighter with a longer weapon (but, then, they're screwed if you can get in close, for instance thanks to armor letting you ignore their attack).

That is partly a result of our arguments about reach ;). I was a writer for TROS as well, I did their weapons encyclopedia for their second book.




I dunno... my understanding is that 1 stabwound may be lethal, or 40 may not.

A great article on the topic, The Dubious Art Quick Kill, mostly about historical accounts etc.:
Part 1 (http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/bloody.php)
Part 2 (http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/kill2.php)

Semi-related, I remember reading a Something Awful Ask/Tell thread titled something like "Ask me what it's like to kill a person," by an American serviceman who'd been in Afghanistan. He'd killed a Taleban fighter in close-quarters while doing sweeps of houses - they ran into each other at opposite sides of a small room, and ended up knife-fighting. He'd been taught well (not by the military), so he didn't stop sticking the knife in until his opponent had stopped moving, because that's the only way to be sure you're safe - otherwise, you might get stabbed back the moment you stop.

The thing about knives is that there are knives and there are knives. If you look at the FBI statistics, three things strongly effect lethality: length of the blade, and breadth of the blade, and whether it's a strait or folding blade. Folding blades snap or collapse during knife attacks very frequently, which reduces their lethality. Blades over 4" tend to be much more lethal. But blades over 12mm in width have two contradictory characteristics - they are less likely to penetrate through clothing and bone and fascia, but if they do, they cause death more quickly.

http://www.truefork.org/Photography/Angelo_files/angelo18.jpghttp://historische-waffen-fricker.de/assets/images/db_images/db_IMG_20164.jpg

For me like so many things it's best to look at history as a guide. Misericordes, stilettos and poignards, as you mentioned, were used in armored fighting to make precise lethal wounds. Same for the stronger roundel family of daggers. These are all optimized for penetration - getting the point in there. Which gives you a good chance of causing a fatal wound. So they were ideal for finishing people off, assassinating people in ambush, and delivering those desperate stabs during a grapple with an armored opponent.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~morrisrh/pics/pugio.jpghttp://www.romancoins.info/a-2005-dagger.JPG

But if you look at the Roman pugio you see another family of dagger blades which work on a different theory. These things were made almost like garden shovels. They are designed to penetrate, with their narrow point, but they have very broad blades which will not only pierce, but split muscles and organs like ripe fruit. Blades like this are extremely lethal. This is also I think the reason why double-edges blades were first invented, they slice on both sides on the way in. This is a weapon for a quick kill, quick incapacitation.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Schweizerdolch.JPG/800px-Schweizerdolch.JPG
You see a lot of blades which seem to follow this basic design theory in the Medieval context as well. But obviously it's a trade off since these aren't going to be as easy to get into gaps in armor, or punch through heavy clothing or textile armor.

In a semi-modern context (19th-20th Century), you see a lot of military bayonets which are kind of between these two extremes, strong enough not to break (one of the most important things that the majority of stainless steel 'fighting' knives will fail on) broad enough to do some real damage, but also narrow enough to punch through clothing and ribs and so on.



That last part always sort of stuck with me, because it makes sense - you can't really assess the effect your attack is having reliably until your opponent is dead or incapacitated, so if you want to win you have to keep at it until that point.

This jives with other knife-fighting (as in "I went to prison for killing a man with a knife," not "I teach knife-fighting martial arts") material I've read, and my understanding of your basic knife attack (AKA prison-yard shanking) - you get in as close as you can and stick it in as many times as you can,

One thing about prison shanks is that they tend to be very short bladed on average and / or thin. Not to mention prison fights are going to be broken up quickly. One of my favorite 'knife experts' is Jay Vail, another ex-ARMA guy, he's the guy who compiled that video. He kind of crosses the threshold between having a very personal interest in knife defense with being heavily involved in martial arts. He's considered one of the top knife guys in the HEMA / WMA scene today, but he's respected beyond it. And he says kind of what you are saying (as you can see in a lot of the real life videos he compiled) knife attacks are often determined, repetitive and very aggressive.



edit: Obviously, I'm not saying that most servicemen are ever likely to fight with a knife. Quite the opposite. Just an anecdote.

The need for them tends to come up mainly in certain very specific circumstances - trench fighting, jungle fighting, fighting in close-in urban environments and inside buildings like in the example you cited. That is where you start to see all kinds of improvised close-combat weapons coming back into use- trench clubs, hatchets, and various knives.

G

[Silver Swift]

Regarding pistol duels, I once heard someone explain that duels with very early single shot pistols (as in take-ten-paces-then-turn-around-and-shoot-duels, not the western style ones) were relatively common ways of dealing with social slights because the lethality rate was ridiculously low. The reasoning was that at that distance early guns had basically no chance of hitting a person sized target and even if they hit, you had to get really unlucky do die from your injuries.

Any truth to this story?

[Mike_G]

Regarding pistol duels, I once heard someone explain that duels with very early single shot pistols (as in take-ten-paces-then-turn-around-and-shoot-duels, not the western style ones) were relatively common ways of dealing with social slights because the lethality rate was ridiculously low. The reasoning was that at that distance early guns had basically no chance of hitting a person sized target and even if they hit, you had to get really unlucky do die from your injuries.

Any truth to this story?

Early pistols weren't very accurate, and it is only one shot.

The point was to prove you are brave enough to put your life on the line over a point of honor. That being proven right was worth a chance of being killed. Many men did fight duels and deliberately shoot wide. Just standing there and being shot at satisfied honor.

But I think the chances of being killed were reasonably high. The ranges were short, and medicine wasn't what it is today. You could very well take a survivable wound but die from infection. Andrew Jackson killed an opponent in a pistol duel. Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton.

And that's just the duelists featured on US currency.

[Eorran]

But I think the chances of being killed were reasonably high. The ranges were short, and medicine wasn't what it is today. You could very well take a survivable wound but die from infection. Andrew Jackson killed an opponent in a pistol duel. Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton.

And that's just the duelists featured on US currency.

Wasn't duelling pretty much Jackson's favorite pastime? I thought it was said of him in his old age that he rattled from having so many bullets still in him.

[Rhynn]

Regarding pistol duels, I once heard someone explain that duels with very early single shot pistols (as in take-ten-paces-then-turn-around-and-shoot-duels, not the western style ones) were relatively common ways of dealing with social slights because the lethality rate was ridiculously low. The reasoning was that at that distance early guns had basically no chance of hitting a person sized target and even if they hit, you had to get really unlucky do die from your injuries.

Any truth to this story?

I seriously doubt twenty paces (or, really, whatever distance they actually used) was too long a distance for e.g. flintlock pistols.


The point was to prove you are brave enough to put your life on the line over a point of honor. That being proven right was worth a chance of being killed. Many men did fight duels and deliberately shoot wide. Just standing there and being shot at satisfied honor.

Yeah, this is my understanding. In a duel with pistols, you could shoot wide, and people sometimes did. In a duel with swords, you were going to get in a stabbing (or stabbing-and-cutting) match with someone, fighting at close quarters for your life. (And could, apparently, get your chin bit off.)

[Brother Oni]

But I think the chances of being killed were reasonably high. The ranges were short, and medicine wasn't what it is today. You could very well take a survivable wound but die from infection.

As an example of this, in Andrew Jackson's duel mentioned by Mike_G, his opponent, Charles Dickinson, fired first and hit but didn't fatally injure Jackson.

The rules then required that Dickinson stand still and take Jackson's shot, whereupon Jackson took his time to aim and killed Dickson outright (Jackson then went on to live another 39 or so years).

[Traab]

I seriously doubt twenty paces (or, really, whatever distance they actually used) was too long a distance for e.g. flintlock pistols.



Yeah, this is my understanding. In a duel with pistols, you could shoot wide, and people sometimes did. In a duel with swords, you were going to get in a stabbing (or stabbing-and-cutting) match with someone, fighting at close quarters for your life. (And could, apparently, get your chin bit off.)

You dont think roughly 60 yards for flintlocks is a good distance for easy missing? I mean, a solid pace has to be nearly a yard in distance. (Or is there some standard measurement for a pace?)

[Rhynn]

You dont think roughly 60 yards for flintlocks is a good distance for easy missing? I mean, a solid pace has to be nearly a yard in distance. (Or is there some standard measurement for a pace?)

If a pace is a yard, then both duelists taking ten paces comes out to 20 yards (60 feet) of distance. That's a challenging handgun range but not at all a sure (or even likely) miss, and while flintlocks were bound to be somewhat less accurate, it's clear enough that there were plenty of hits at dueling ranges. (Of course, we can't say whether it was 25%, 50%, or 90%.) Certainly, it's not going to be an easy shot, but I don't see any reason to think these were fast snap-shots, either. And your opponent, presumably, wasn't trying to dodge - I don't know for sure, but I think that would have been seen as extreme corwardice, and the whole point was to stand fast and take your shot.

60 yards would definitely be too long of a distance; AFAIK at that range, you'd have a hard time hitting a single man-sized target with a musket, nevermind a flitnlock pistol.

So, no "basically no chance to hit" is definitely wrong, I think, and that's IMO born out by reports of duels.

[cucchulainnn]

weren't most purpose made dueling pistols smooth bores. if it was about killing each other they would have been rifled.

[Spiryt]

weren't most purpose made dueling pistols smooth bores. if it was about killing each other they would have been rifled.

With round balls, black powder etc. rifled gun wouldn't really be all that more accurate, especially at such tiny distances.

Lack of flaws on round ball, clean weapon, carefully measured and loaded powder, tightly fitting ball etc. would be most important.

And shooters performance, obviously.


You dont think roughly 60 yards for flintlocks is a good distance for easy missing? I mean, a solid pace has to be nearly a yard in distance. (Or is there some standard measurement for a pace?)

How are you getting 60 yards here?

If pace is around yard, then it's 20 yards, obviously.

[Galloglaich]

It's worth noting a few things here

First, dueling practices varied enormously from country to country / region to region, and across time.

Time-wise, very generally speaking, the earlier you go, the more widespread and informal dueling was, though the formal duel (holmgana etc.) also exists side by side going back into pre-Christian times. Later in time you see dueling (and carrying / owning lethal weapons) becoming increasingly the prerogative of professional soldiers and the upper classes - and being technically illegal though tolerated among the rich and powerful, until finally in the late 19th Century we see a total State monopoly on violence and all dueling is effectively outlawed.

Space wise, in a nutshell this started to happen at a much different rate in different places. In France, England, and Spain, by the late Medieval period commoners were increasingly less likely to carry swords or to own guns. In Italy this happened slower and varied from city to city but by the late Renaissance dueling had become mostly an activity of the nobility and the patricians, and had become very formal. The vendetta of course was a hobby of all classes in Italy but that was kind of a different (if occasionally overlapping) thing.

In the German and Slavic speaking parts of Central Europe however, commoners, particularly in the free cities, were still carrying swords and owning large numbers of firearms until the 18th Century. In the German universities, the dueling culture actually continued right up to this very day, in a very formalized style called mensur. I've actually trained with some people who do this, it's pretty crazy and strange.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-l_E7c7VN82E/Tjm4CKkcAoI/AAAAAAAAEA8/Y0HimSBiEEs/s1600/mensur%2Btajo.jpg

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

Second, dueling varied as well of course based on the weapon. One thing about a pistol duel, is that it usually (not always, but usually) meant one shot each, with a chance at a dangerous or fatal wound... basically a roll of the dice. A duel with swords (which was generally speaking, more common almost everywhere) could either be much safer - fought to the first blood, a small cut on an extremity or in the case of mensur, on the face or head; or it could be much more dangerous - a unrestricted fight where instead of one shot, the looser might expect multiple cuts and thrusts. -Or both the "winner" and the loser could end up with fatal wounds as George Silver liked to point out, often happened in rapier duels.

I am reading a book right now which gets into this a little bit, and it has an interesting chart related to lethality of weapons. Under German town law, you were actually more likely to get in trouble for a planned fight than an impromptu fight, so long as the latter was done 'according to the rules' - meaning you fought honorably and for the right reasons (to defend your honor). For example, don't gang up on people, don't hit people when they are down, and curiously, sword fights usually start by striking with the flat of the blade though can escalate to cutting and (the most serious) thrusting.

The author collected records of incidents in southern Germany from 1450 -1750 and came up with this ratio:

Weapon No Harm \ Injury \ Death
Blades* 51% \ 25% \ 24%
Blunt Objects 69% \ 17% \ 14%
Guns and Crossbows** 65% \ 15% \ 20%
Other or unknown 6% \ 40% \ 15%

*"blades" here includes swords, messers, daggers and knives
**of the guns 40% were pistols, 10% were crossbows, the rest hook-gun, shotgun, arquebus or musket

Source "The Martial Ethic in Early Modern Germany" page 157

G

[Galloglaich]

A little lagniappe... some footage of duels in the early 20th Century. These are obviously the extremely careful kind, fought with epee's or foils with the aim of just cutting the other guys arm. It's the very end of the tradition. But it can give you an idea of what it once meant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rElNQuBvFeQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vybUtd4GOnU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ly6mPSppa0U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QZMtxrGwH1E

G

[Thiel]

Am I the only one who find the image of shotguns at twenty paces to be ever so slightly suicidal? :smalleek:

Also I think the above videos shows where Hollywood got its fencing style from.

[Hawkfrost000]

Well, assuming Minotaurs count as obscure (33 exist):

Gorehorn Bloodchief 2RRR
Legendary Creature - Minotaur Warrior M
Bloodthirst 3
Trample
Whenever Gorehorn Bloodchief deals combat damage to a player, put a +1/+1 counter on each Minotaur creature you control.
3/3

I don't think this is the thread you think it is.

DM

[AgentPaper]

I don't think this is the thread you think it is.

DM

Derp.

Thanks for telling me, heh.

[Rhynn]

A duel with swords (which was generally speaking, more common almost everywhere) could either be much safer - fought to the first blood, a small cut on an extremity or in the case of mensur, on the face or head

How common were sword duels to the first blood (not counting mensur), anyway? My understanding is that, at least up to the 17th century, it was not generally accepted, and considered unmanly; a duel was fought until someone wasn't able to fight, or both parties agreed to stop. (I'm actually unclear on whether one side could just surrender and the other had to stop...)

[Yora]

But if you look at the Roman pugio you see another family of dagger blades which work on a different theory. These things were made almost like garden shovels. They are designed to penetrate, with their narrow point, but they have very broad blades which will not only pierce, but split muscles and organs like ripe fruit. Blades like this are extremely lethal. This is also I think the reason why double-edges blades were first invented, they slice on both sides on the way in. This is a weapon for a quick kill, quick incapacitation.
I assume difficulty to penetrate armor wasn't a major concern for Roman troops. That would make the benefit of narrower blades rather moot while giving up the width of the cut. And with a blade that wide, you probably don't even need more length than that.
Were snapping blades a concern with the steel used in Roman weapons? A blade that wide and short would be really hard to accidentally break, I think.

How common were sword duels to the first blood (not counting mensur), anyway? My understanding is that, at least up to the 17th century, it was not generally accepted, and considered unmanly; a duel was fought until someone wasn't able to fight, or both parties agreed to stop. (I'm actually unclear on whether one side could just surrender and the other had to stop...)
I think I've heard, and interestingly, more for the 18th and 19th century, that the focus of a duel was not so much on causing real harm, but to show that you were a man of true character and integrity. And even though you might have your differences, you confirm that you are not a coward. Showing up to a duel and facing the risk of injury was enough to prove you were a true gentlemen and worthy of the respect of your peers, including your opponent. Reportedly, actually trying to kill your opponent was considered very unbecomming and a serious breach of civil behavior, even though it technically had to be accepted as your right.

[Galloglaich]

Am I the only one who find the image of shotguns at twenty paces to be ever so slightly suicidal? :smalleek:

The stats include 'impromptu' duels, meaning basically bar fights, street brawls and so on, which presumably was where shotguns and muskets and so on came into play.

But there is actual precedent for "shotguns and 20 paces", here where I'm from in New Orleans, back in the early 1800's, when the Americans first arrived (locals called them 'Kaintuks', on the assumption that they all came from Kentucky) , they didn't understand the local Creole (French / Spanish) dueling culture which was then thriving. When challenged, given choice of weapons, they tended to pick weapons they were familiar with. So ... shotgun, squirrel rifles, bowie knives and tomahawks entered the dueling sphere, alongside the more traditional smallsword, rapier, backsword, colichmarde and saber.

Needless to say the mortality from duels shot up through the roof, leading to a crackdown from the authorities, though at least some of the Creoles rose to the occasion and became experts with all the new weapons.


http://www.eskrima.ws/announcemnts/llullaobituary



Also I think the above videos shows where Hollywood got its fencing style from.

Keep in mind this is old film so it looks speeded up about double. But this is fairly typical foil / epee style which indeed, is where Hollywood was inspired from, though sometimes this could be done very well during the heydey (when actors still knew how to fence).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=lMcTKNDB2TM#t=4536s

G

[Yora]

Wow, from a film perspective, that Zorro fight is really quite excelent. The sound effects may be a bit too much, but they really look like they are meaning business. Unlike olympic fancers going for points in a controlled environment. It at least looked better to me than the Bob Anderson-School of movie fencing. Those always seem a bit too much "brunt force" hacking and chopping to me. Which does look good in mainstream movies, though.

But the man who got stabbed probably died much too quickly. He probably should have had a couple of minutes.

[Galloglaich]

I assume difficulty to penetrate armor wasn't a major concern for Roman troops. That would make the benefit of narrower blades rather moot while giving up the width of the cut. And with a blade that wide, you probably don't even need more length than that.
Were snapping blades a concern with the steel used in Roman weapons? A blade that wide and short would be really hard to accidentally break, I think.

Mostly weapons then were untempered steel or 'steely iron' or iron, so they wouldn't be too brittle, some of the "Celtic" swords were pretty thin, not all were as broad. But you do have a good point, armor was probably less ubiquitous among Romes enemies (except when they were fighting other Roman Legions as they fairly often did)



I think I've heard, and interestingly, more for the 18th and 19th century, that the focus of a duel was not so much on causing real harm, but to show that you were a man of true character and integrity. And even though you might have your differences, you confirm that you are not a coward. Showing up to a duel and facing the risk of injury was enough to prove you were a true gentlemen and worthy of the respect of your peers, including your opponent. Reportedly, actually trying to kill your opponent was considered very unbecomming and a serious breach of civil behavior, even though it technically had to be accepted as your right.

This is true though as I said upthread, it depends enormously on the time and place, and also on the circumstances of the duel itself. In medieval Germany, a "duel" could be a sudden fight over a card game, after an invitation to 'step outside'; or a formal judicial combat with strange weapons and stranger rules like this one between a man and a woman

http://www.fscclub.com/history/images/judiciall-talhoffer.jpg

or this one with dueling shields
http://talhoffer.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/thott-duel.jpg

Or the conventional formal armored type duel, (note the coffins)
http://www.aemma.org/images/judicialDuel.jpg


How common were sword duels to the first blood (not counting mensur), anyway? My understanding is that, at least up to the 17th century, it was not generally accepted, and considered unmanly; a duel was fought until someone wasn't able to fight, or both parties agreed to stop. (I'm actually unclear on whether one side could just surrender and the other had to stop...)

VERY generally speaking, depending how bad the insult was, as Yora alluded, it was often better for a whole slew of reasons to limit the extent of the fight. But this varied a great deal country by country, even in the 18th and 19th Centuries; in France duels tended to be more lethal and it was more honorable to kill or wound your opponent, in Italy it was the opposite. But regardless, especially among the nobility who were the ones that generally fought duels in those countries in the more recent times, killing somebody could get you in trouble not only with the authorities, but with their family, which in the case of a powerful aristocratic clan, could be real trouble.

In Germany and Slavic areas where the old medieval laws held sway a lot longer, the emphasis was more on a 'fair fight' and on reactions commensurate with the affront to your honor that was being avenged. For a petty insult, a few rounds of fighting with the flat of your sword might be enough to satisfy honor (and land you both a fine). In the case of a more serious insult, an accusation of cowardice or theft, or some actual harm being inflicted by one man against another, escalation was more likely, and more excusable.

It worked the same way in England, though in England you could very easily be hung for killing someone in a duel even when defending your honor and fighting fairly, in German town law if the witnesses said it was a fair fight, you were more likely to be banished and possibly face a stiff fine (equivalent of tens of thousands of dollars in today's money) but sometimes no penalty at all. The latter was more like the American "Wild West" in that sense, though violence did tend to be a bit more controlled since there were many rules on when and where it was permissable. But if someone really did something to you, you did have the right to defend yourself.

G

[Yora]

In the German and Slavic speaking parts of Central Europe however, commoners, particularly in the free cities, were still carrying swords and owning large numbers of firearms until the 18th Century. In the German universities, the dueling culture actually continued right up to this very day, in a very formalized style called mensur. I've actually trained with some people who do this, it's pretty crazy and strange.
However, let it be known that this entire student culture is considered extreme right-wing fringe and borderline racist with strong neo-nazi connections (with some groups under surveilance by the internal intelligence service). And even the majority of those consider the groups that still practice fencing as rather crazy and more than a bit too much obsessed with old traditions.

Which makes me wonder how mainstream these fraternities ever were historically.

[Galloglaich]

In the late 18th and early 19th Century though, it's correct that just being in a duel of any kind, let alone having a small wound to prove it, was an important badge of honor. This mentality went back in the Chivalric estates, particularly in France to the late medieval era and through the Early Modern.

G

[Galloglaich]

However, let it be known that this entire student culture is considered extreme right-wing fringe and borderline racist with strong neo-nazi connections (with some groups under surveilance by the internal intelligence service). And even the majority of those consider the groups that still practice fencing as rather crazy and more than a bit too much obsessed with old traditions.

Which makes me wonder how mainstream these fraternities ever were historically.

My understanding is that while there are some ultra-right wing ones, today at least there is actually a mix of political affiliations among those fraternities, some left, some right, some green. It apparently varies by University.

The guy I met, at a HEMA event in Houston, Texas last year, seemed like a pretty moderate person though I don't know his politics; the class included Mexicans and african-Americans and there were jewish people at the event too so I assume he couldn't have been that virulently racist.

Without a doubt though good or bad, this was widespread in the older German universities such as at Heidelberg. Needless to say not all the students were part of it, but the dueling culture was very well documented and students (not just in Germany, but everywhere) tended to be rather violent and rowdy particularly in the medieval era.



Also I want to be clear there is and always was a strong distinction between the university student culture, which was originally associated with the church and later increasingly the nobility; and the burgher or town-citizen fighting culture of the fechtschule, which was a completely different thing, mostly associated with artisan and never had any association with the right wing that I ever heard of. In fact the closest thing to link to that today is the German artisan tradition of the guild journeyemen which I know the Nazi's hated and tried to suppress.

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

Beyond that I'll defer to you since you live in Germany, I don't. :)

G

[Spiryt]

It seems that these guys are doing it, mostly for fun:

http://www.sarmatia.pl/szermierka-akademicka

Dunno if any serious duels to the blood appeared, they probably don't spread it around. I would bet it's in illegal, after all.

[Galloglaich]

Did I read that right (very low probability)... are they associating this with Sarmatism?

G

[Yora]

I was preparing a nice complex statement, until I remembered that such discussion of historic developments get heavily censored on this forum.

The intend of my "borderline extremist" statement was, that some groups within the culture are classified by German security officials to be dangerous to public safety, and that this makes the entire sub-culture highly controversial due to their refusal to renounce their association with the extremist groups.
Though I think last year, a sizeable minority did cut ties, forming a new alternative collective organization that takes a clear stand agains extremist ideologies.

Since World War 2, German student culture has underwent a massive radical shift, becomming the breeding ground for almost the entire left-wing extremist terrorism in the 70s and 80s. So to be clear that I'm not taking side here. :smallamused:

"Traditional" fraternities in Germany have a rather complex history that is directly tied into the creation of a national German identity and state in the beginning of the 19th century, which with all it's achievements really turned badly a century later. They also had their origin in paramilitary units, that in the complex situation of the time sometimes could be called the private armies of Warlords, which certainly is not a heritage that is easy to explain in a 21st century society. And it really is a sore Spot in German public conscience to this day. (Though we deal with it differently than Americans by examining it in detail out in the public without any stigma attached to it.)

The final word is: If you are a member in a German student fraternity these days, you have a lot of explaining to when most other people learn about it. And if you're in one that pracices fencing, you'll have a hard time finding acceptance in the public mainstream.

[Spiryt]

Did I read that right (very low probability)... are they associating this with Sarmatism?

G

Students corporations as such, as well as those menzurs most certainly didn't have much to do with Sarmatism, obviously, it apparently appeared in 19th century, from German speaking world.

It's patriotic students corporation, so they reference Sarmatism, mostly.

[Yora]

Ah, now I get it. Student fraternities and fencing were German origin and adopted by polish Samartism, not the other way around. That sentence kinda confused me. :smallbiggrin:

As I hinted at in my last post, the origin of the German Fraternities was in the early 19th century when the Germans began the process of developing a common German identity and a centralized German state. Prior to that, "Germany" was a region consisting of dozens (at times hundreds) of small principalities and a few larger Kingdoms, which compared to France, Brittain, or Sweden weren't mostly that big. At the center of this nationalist movement was the idea that Germans should stop constantly fighting each other and unite to form a common political and military power in Europe. My 10th grade history knowledge is a bit spotty on this, but basically the Germans were just out of another major war, probably with France and against Napoleon, and there was a real sentiment that things could not continue as they were and something had to be done. During the war, up to 50% of German students are believed to have volunteered for the many regional armies or paramilitary companies that made up the greater german army, and they became a very major faction in the emerging nationalist movement.
So you had these masses of young men with ambitions to create a new nation and completely overhaul society, and they also happened to have just returned from war in victory. And struggling to create a new state isn't easy since it means remving quite a number of people from power, so it didn't all go down peacefully. Lots, if not most of their culture, can be traced back to these facts. Including the whole fencing business.

[Galloglaich]

Prior to that, "Germany" was a region consisting of dozens (at times hundreds) of small principalities and a few larger Kingdoms, which compared to France, Brittain, or Sweden weren't mostly that big.
and free cities... like Lübeck, Hamburg, Frankfurt, Bremen and so on.


And while what you said is all true, actually the fencing tradition, like the Universities themselves, predates the idea of German unification or the Prussian Empire by centuries. Universities were hiring fencing instructors as early as the 15th Century.

Perhaps today's fraternities are trying to get back to the original roots of the practice, though I suspect you are right it's more linked to the 19th Century era.

In Poland things are further complicated since there was a great deal of connection between Poland and Germany prior to the 18th Century (and after of course- Poland got divided between Russia, Prussia, and Austria in the partition)

Some of the oldest Polish universities, like Jagiellonian University in Kraków, like the city itself, historically were German speaking and had large native german-speaking populations from the time of their founding, as well as Swedes, Lithuanians, Finns, Italians, Hungarians, Poles, Czechs and other slavs from around Central Europe.

G

[Spiryt]

More accurately speaking, not from the time of founding, but from colonization on Magdeburg/Lubeck/other law in 13th and 14th century, mainly.

Many cities all around Europe got pretty spectacularly multilingual in late medieval due to this, Lwów apparently had large Greek and Armenian population.

[Galloglaich]

By founding I was referring to the founding of the Universities. The towns themselves predate all that by many centuries in some cases. I think Kraków was originally supposed to be a dragons lair right? :) But the settlement there goes back to the neolithic from what I understand.

Prague is mentioned in a 9th Century Arab book as already having stone buildings and a thriving economy, and being linked by trade to Kraków.

G

[Rhynn]

However, let it be known that this entire student culture is considered extreme right-wing fringe and borderline racist with strong neo-nazi connections (with some groups under surveilance by the internal intelligence service). And even the majority of those consider the groups that still practice fencing as rather crazy and more than a bit too much obsessed with old traditions.

Which makes me wonder how mainstream these fraternities ever were historically.

Somehow, this does not surprise me, given that the most famous mensur scar (http://www.erasmatazz.com/TheLibrary/PeopleHistory/Skorzeny/files/388px-skorzenyotto.jpg) is on the face of a Waffen-SS officer... not that that suggests a logical connection, but it just seems to fit.

[Galloglaich]

Well I guess it's inevitable, Godwins law hahahahahah....


G

[Yora]

It is. But that's because that's all part of the process of German Nationalism. The whole thing with annexing Austria and Czech territories goes back to the concept of "Germany is where Germans live" that started the nationalist movement a century earlier.
The distinction between Germans and Austrians really only starts to have a real meaning after 1945. Before that, Austrians, Prussians, Bavarians, and so on were all segments of the larger group of Germans. Today you have "ethnic Germans with citizenship in the Federal Republic of Germany" and "ethnic Germans with citizenship in the Republic of Ausria". (And "ethnic Germans with citizenship in the Swiss Confederacy", to not forget them.)

[Mike_G]

Also I think the above videos shows where Hollywood got its fencing style from.

A point about "Hollywood" fencing and its disparagement.

Movies are storytelling. It's more important that the fighting serve the needs of storytelling than it fit true historical accuracy.

If the film is light family entertainment, like Princess Bride, or the old 1930's Errol Flynn movies like Captain Blood or The Adventures of Robin Hood we do not need to see a guy die in lingering agony from a belly wound or bite his opponent's chin off. Nice quick "gasp and fall over" type deaths from a quick thrust work fine.

The fencing in those films is very well done by well trained actors, to fit the tone of the movie. It looks exciting and dramatic and is perfect for what it intends to do.

Good fencing in real life puts your enemy down as fast as possible and keeps you alive. It doesn't necessarily look good on film.

A good example of realistic fencing in film would be that in The Duelists but the tone of the film is much grittier and darker than a fun family swashbuckler.

Most modern films skimp on the fencing, since actors are no longer trained fencers, so the 90s Three Musketeers (with Charlie Sheen and Kiefer Sutherland) sucked horribly. The fencing and the film itself. The older version with Michael York and Oliver Reed wasn't "realistic" fencing per se, but it was fun and exciting and did exactly what it was intended to do, looking less like Olympic fencing and more like a street fight with rapiers.

[Spiryt]

By founding I was referring to the founding of the Universities. The towns themselves predate all that by many centuries in some cases. I think Kraków was originally supposed to be a dragons lair right? :) But the settlement there goes back to the neolithic from what I understand.


Yeah, built on the rock in which dragon's cave was located. After inhabitant was eliminated, of course.

BTW, what do you based your mentions about German speaking Krakow's Academy?

I can't find much about Academy's beginning other than "based on Padova and Bologna universities", so I got interested.


First rectors of renewed Academy since 1400 was this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanisław_of_Skarbimierz)

From what we know, first lecturers, masters etc. could be from really everywhere, and I know any sources.

[Galloglaich]

Yeah, built on the rock in which dragon's cave was located. After inhabitant was eliminated, of course.

BTW, what do you based your mentions about German speaking Krakow's Academy?

I can't find much about Academy's beginning other than "based on Padova and Bologna universities", so I got interested.

Well, I think most study was in Latin particularly in the early days but perhaps I could say more realistically that it was 'mostly' German language, certainly not all.

It was originally an academy (secondary school) for Krakow, which as you probably know had a majority German-speaking population by the late 13th Century and did most of their official business in the German language ... although from what I gather the actual breakdown of the population was something like only 1/3 German, the rest ethnic Poles, Ruthenians, and some Italians, Czechs, Armenians and Hungarians. This was true of most towns in the region, they had multi-cultural populations (particularly in Poland) but the charter was from German town law, the official language was some version of German (plus latin), and a lot of the clothing style and other customs were related to the other German towns. You might say more accurately the 'hanseatic' towns and the free cities, since the towns had more in common with each other (due to circulation of journeymen and merchants) than they did with the region they were in, to some extent.

Universities were divided into language groups called "natios", (which sometimes followed odd groupings). Natio's were further subdivided into 'colleges' which is where the students actually lived. Krakow had a large German Natio, as well as a Czech, Polish, and Ruthenian if I remember correctly.

My best source on this in general is this book , the chapter on Krakow starts at page 283

http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item5659733/?site_locale=en_GB

of which there is a PDF copy online somewhere but I can't remember where the link is. It is in the public domain, and I have it in PDF if you want I could email you.

Krakow / Jagiellonian University was of the "Bolognese type" meaning professors were elected by the students and the school itself was linked to several Italian schools, some German ones like Rostock, as well as to Prague University until the Hussite heresy, at which time many of Prague's former students went to Krakow.



First rectors of renewed Academy since 1400 was this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanisław_of_Skarbimierz)

From what we know, first lecturers, masters etc. could be from really everywhere, and I know any sources.

Without a doubt there was a strong tradition of really important and influential Polish scholars and humanists particularly in the fields of law and optics, including Stanislaw of Skarbimierz, Paulus Vladimiri (a friend and ally of Skarbimierz), Albert Brudzewski, Grzegorz z Sanoka, Jan Dlugosz, Nicholas Kopernicus*, . Jan Dlugosz was the rector in the late 15th Century and he was definitely Polish. A lot of the church leaders in this area were ethnic Polish and Krakow university leadership (i.e. the rectors) were usually linked to the church.

*I know his ethnicity is subject of heated dispute but in my book, he was mostly Polish since he and his uncle were outspokenly on the Polish side of the ongoing dispute with the Teutonic Order.

G

[Spiryt]

Well, as far as I'm aware, in 15th century, significant portion of influential Kraków's financiers were Italian as well. But yeah, you're right, formal business/office language would be German in most cases.

Latin would be academical language, so its hard to tell.

But we're offtoping as hell, anyway, even if Knowledge is indeed Power.. :smallbiggrin:

[xeo]

With all the recent interest in duels I thought I'd post this related extract from the book I'm reading now, which is the memoir of a mid 18th century British naval officer.


The 11th I was on shore to settle all my affairs, and dined with Norris, Foulks and others. We supped also at the King's Arms, and at half past 11 at night the drawer came up to me and told me there was one wanted me. I went down (imagining it was someone wanted a convoy) without hat, sword or cane, and when down I saw behind the door Mr. Blankley (this was a clerk in the dockyard) whom three days ago had been very impertinent, and who I had threatened to beat yet he never took any notice of it then. I perceived he was very drunk, and he said I had used him very ill and he was come to ask me satisfaction. I told him it was a very odd time of night and as I saw his condition and had been these two days about the town, I would certainly give it him in the morning in any way he pleased. So as I turned to go up I perceived he made a blow at me with his stick, which I caught and immediately seized him and gave him a very good drubbing with it. As he was drunk I very easily threw him down. This made a great bustle, and people came about us; so I returned to my company. We all agreed he was a great scoundrel and a bully, but I determined to see what he was made of the next morning and to thrash him again if he did not give me satisfaction with his sword. At 6 in the morning I went with Norris to Blankley's house and asked for him. His father came out and assured me he was not at home. I told him I was sure he was. At last I spoke to one of the servants who told me he was in bed. I told him to make no noise but dress himself, fetch his sword and pistol and follow me; I would wait till he came. He seemed greatly surprised. I stayed an hour, sent two or three times, and he was not coming, I rung the bell. The servant gave me a very rude answer, and at last a boy told me he was gone out of the back-door. I then called out in the house that he was a scoundrel and a villain, and that wherever I met him I would treat him like one. I told every mortal I met of this, and so did Harry Norris. Every one said he was a villain and the only thing I could do was to treat him as such wherever I met him. I went again about afternoon, but he was not to be found. In the afternoon (tho' my ship was at St. Helen's under Captain Hill's orders for sailing immediately) yet I went on shore again, but could not find the dog. I told the Commissioner of it, that, as I was obliged to sail, he might know it all. In the morning early the 13th we had the signal for sailing. I wrote to Captain Robinson of Colonel Frazier's Regiment the whole story that he might tell every one what a villain this was, from whom I received a very pretty and satisfactory letter in return.

Source: David Erskine (ed.), Augustus Hervey's Journal, (Chatham Publishing, London, 2002)

[Brother Oni]

Thanks for that xeo.

It's interesting that even if you hadn't described the author and ignoring all the nautical references, you can tell it was a British officer of some sort. :smallbiggrin:

[TuggyNE]

It's interesting that even if you hadn't described the author and ignoring all the nautical references, you can tell it was a British officer of some sort. :smallbiggrin:

Some things never change. :smalltongue:

[JustSomeGuy]

Some things never change. :smalltongue:

Except the insults; unless you know of any villainous scoundrels!

[Brother Oni]

Except the insults; unless you know of any villainous scoundrels!

Given that 'conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conduct_unbecoming_an_officer_and_a_gentleman)' is still an offence, being a villain and a scoundrel is still possible in this day and age. :smalltongue:

[Traab]

I have been called a scoundrel, but at least I have avoided being titled a knave!

[Rhynn]

I just have to complain about this...

Has anyone else been watching this season of A Game of Thrones and thinking "damn, those Unsullied can't march for sh*t!" ?

It's bothering me endlessly. They're in extremely loose formation, they carry their spears slanting whichever way, and they can't even march in step. The whole point of the Unsullied is that they're the most disciplined, best-trained heavy infantry in the world. The image is really freakin' wrecked when you can't help but notice they haven't spent even one hour learning to march. It's not like it's hard - I could forgive them not being able to carry their spears right (they're almost certainly gripping them wrong for any proper in-formation carry, to start), but not being able to march?

Gah!

I can't remember if it was reading one of these GaRWWoAQ threads or watching lindybeige on YouTube that I came across some poor military film consultant's experience trying to teach film extras to march in formation, which was ruined when someone complained and they were told to stop practicing it...

[Brother Oni]

I just have to complain about this...

Has anyone else been watching this season of A Game of Thrones and thinking "damn, those Unsullied can't march for sh*t!" ?

Their battle discipline and method of fighting at the end of last week's episode (haven't seen yesterday's yet) also reflects this.

The problem is, a TV production like GoT doesn't have the time or the budget in order to train all the extras up to the degree required to accurately portray the Unsullied.

That's not to say it can't be done - The Last Samurai did it very well in my opinion, but they spent 10 days training up over 500 extras for the two major battle scenes, something I don't think the production for GoT can afford (the budget for Season 2 is estimated to be ~69million USD, while TLS is estimated to be 140million USD).

On a related note, I remember Sylvester Stallone saying that he prefers to use actual fighters for his Rocky movies as he believes it's easier to teach a fighter how to act, than an actor how to fight.
I tend to agree - there's only so much you can do with clever camerawork and good chroeography before you have to use nausea inducing sharp cuts and shakey cam cinematography techniques to hide the fact that your actors can't pull it off effectively.


Edit: I just remembered how a number of productions get around this issue - they put out a call for re-enactors.
Over here, I believe film work is anythere from 50-100 UKP a day, which may sound a lot when you have large numbers, but considering they bring their own gear which is generally authentic (vastly reducing your wardrobe requirements), know how to use their weapons and need minimal fighting choreography (e.g. "In lines, Saxons on one side, Normans on the other; have at it."), it's a fairly good deal for film makers.

Unfortunately I suspect the re-enactment scene is a bit thin on the ground in Morocco where Daenerys' scenes were filmed. :smalltongue:

[Rhynn]

The problem is, a TV production like GoT doesn't have the time or the budget in order to train all the extras up to the degree required to accurately portray the Unsullied.

Like I said, I wouldn't actually expect them to handle a spear right (although I'm not convinced it'd take very long either, for their limited purposes), but man, teaching them to march could be done on the side (like marching them to the set in formation), and really doesn't take very many hours in my experience - even for what was largely a bunch of morons, as far as I could tell...

The Unsullied look like no one made even the slightest effort, and it's really jarring. I don't remember noticing this sort problem in, say, Rome (or really, any TV show before, although that could be coincidence).

[Brother Oni]

Like I said, I wouldn't actually expect them to handle a spear right (although I'm not convinced it'd take very long either, for their limited purposes), but man, teaching them to march could be done on the side (like marching them to the set in formation), and really doesn't take very many hours in my experience - even for what was largely a bunch of morons, as far as I could tell...

The director/producer of that unit may have decided it was more trouble than it was worth. I'm with you - it'd be nice if they put a bit of effort in, but GoT has never been about the actual fighting and more about the interactions and the politicking.
The only thing you really need to know about the Unsullied is that they're great in set battles, not so good in skirmishing, and the plot can get on with all the more character stuff.



The Unsullied look like no one made even the slightest effort, and it's really jarring. I don't remember noticing this sort problem in, say, Rome (or really, any TV show before, although that could be coincidence).

Rome is different - a quick scan of Roman re-enactment groups (http://www.romanhideout.com/reenactors.asp) show a number that are based in Italy where it was filmed, thus sidestepping the lack of training.
A quick look on Wikipedia indicates that a number of the background characters were hired because of their skills, for example a butcher on the show was actually a butcher in real life.

[xeo]

GoT is apparently shot very much on the cheap, with every effort being made to keep costs down. I haven't watched much of it but a friend of a friend (inevitably!) did some work on it as a cameraman and he said that the crew was constantly changing because it was either cheaper to hire new crew or because the old crew got fed up of the lousy conditions and wages (although as he left the crew, this might just be sour grapes).

Speaking of television and getting extras to march, I remember Christopher Duffy writing that he became convinced that the use of columns by Napoleon's armies was because it was easier to teach to raw conscripts, rather than reflecting any tactical innovation. He was the military advisor on the BBC's 1970s production of WAR AND PEACE, which used the Yugoslav army as extras. Duffy had to teach them to march and found that column was very easy to teach and line very hard.

[Spiryt]

To be fair, we don't really have much idea how such 'ancient/medieval' armies really marched like, and with fantasy element, a lot can be hand-waved, I guess.

[Storm Bringer]

GoT is apparently shot very much on the cheap, with every effort being made to keep costs down. I haven't watched much of it but a friend of a friend (inevitably!) did some work on it as a cameraman and he said that the crew was constantly changing because it was either cheaper to hire new crew or because the old crew got fed up of the lousy conditions and wages (although as he left the crew, this might just be sour grapes).

Speaking of television and getting extras to march, I remember Christopher Duffy writing that he became convinced that the use of columns by Napoleon's armies was because it was easier to teach to raw conscripts, rather than reflecting any tactical innovation. He was the military advisor on the BBC's 1970s production of WAR AND PEACE, which used the Yugoslav army as extras. Duffy had to teach them to march and found that column was very easy to teach and line very hard.

you understand that a Napoleonic era tactical column (as opposed to a column of march) was formed by the companies of a battlion formed in line and then "stacked" behind one another? This site (http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infantry_tactics_4.htm#infantrycombatcolumns)i just found has a fairly good explanation of the formations

However, based on my own experince with formation movments, I'd agree a column is MUCH eaiser than a line to keep straight. british army recruits in basic training are marched everywhere, and while you can get them looking alright in a column of 3 files (i.e. 3 men wide and however many deep) within a week or so, getting them to march in a line of 3 ranks (ie 3 men deep and however many wide) takes a LOT more skill to keep a line straight.

I don't know how "Picky" the napoleonic drill masters were about dressing in the field, but keeping in step a line with 30-40 others is bloody hard work and takes up most of your attention.

[Zovc]

Background and Motivation:
I've recently started to do full-contact medieval combat with local SCA heavy fighters. I'm really humbled and impressed by the SCA fighters who reeled me into their game, so I am always trying to do my best around them. Unfortunately, we're all really busy so we don't get to talk much outside of fighter/pell practices. What this means is that I'm left to my own devices when it comes to figuring out what kind of kit and 'persona' I want.

It's hard for me to just 'know' what my options are, and I've yet to find a good, accessible medium that concisely lists and depicts what various helmets through history are. My friends have given me the "you can do what you want, but we don't want you to look stupid" talk, and I see where they're coming from, so I'd like a consistent kit that is based on reality.

Anyways, I stumbled upon a gallery of pictures from the Armor Archive, and I spotted a number of different sallets. I like the style of helmet, so I'm trying to learn more about the kinds of people who wore them, and the kind of armor that was worn along with them. Also, the kinds of weapons people were using at that point in time.

Ideally, you guys can help me justify wearing a sallet without wearing full plate armor. :)

I particularly like the look of this sallet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sallet_helmet,_Southern_Germany,_1480-1490_-_Higgins_Armory_Museum_-_DSC05461.JPG) for its one-slot, articulated visor, and the multiple lames that compose the tail of the helmet.

I'd like to learn more about the kind of armor that people wore when sallets became the predominant type of helmet in Europe. Particularly, I'd like to know what people who weren't knights wore as armor in Germany around the 1480's.

Also, what kinds of weapons and shields were people using around then? For warfare and/or tournament fighting.

[Spiryt]

This particular sallet looks very 'knigthly' to me. As in rather high end as far as cost and availability goes, and distinctly rider equipment.

Somebody may correct me, but such long, pronounced 'tails' are usually depicted on knights, and 100% closed sallet, covering whole head and with gorget is pretty universally worn with full plate armor. With brigandine instead of breastplate, of course.

So I guess you could pretend to be rich non-knighted horseman, that's pushing it a bit though.:smallbiggrin:

I'm not sure what are SCA requirement, but you may need full face protection anyway, but in case if not, here are more of infantry men sallets.


http://io.ua/6981191


https://picasaweb.google.com/118151091133960223434/HelmetsChalcisHoard?noredirect=1#55676460370520430 58

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/5993/xc013f5d2.jpg



As far as 'without full plate armor' goes - well, that's easy enough, but it depends what you mean.

Infantry, even best equipped ones, at least usually, didn't wear armor below the knee - so that's not a full plate armor. :smallwink:

[cucchulainnn]

this would be a good place to start

Extant 15th Century German Gothic Armour

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=21487

[Thiel]

Infantry, even best equipped ones, at least usually, didn't wear armor below the knee - so that's not a full plate armor. :smallwink:

Are you sure about that? I mean as metal armour goes greaves are just about the easiest part to make and they protect one of the more exposed parts of ones body.
FWIW Wiki says that they fell out of favour in the ninth century but made a comeback in the late medieval period.

[Rhynn]

Yeah, that sallet looks like part of a set of gothic harness, which is definitely "full plate" (or three-quarter, which I doubt the SCA would see as an appreciable difference).

If you're starting with helmets, Wikipedia has at least decent listings of helmets. At the bottom of this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaume), check out the Helmets box, and the first three sections: Extant Ancient, Military Ancient, and Military Medieval.

This picture (http://angelasancartier.net/wp-content/uploads/Evolution-of-European-medieval-helmets.jpg) has a pretty good charting of helmet evolution over time (the "branches" may be a bit speculative, I guess).

That's a lot of different helmets, to start with.


Infantry, even best equipped ones, at least usually, didn't wear armor below the knee - so that's not a full plate armor. :smallwink:

Incidentally, why is this? I can understand that once shields became less common, it may not have been a popular strike zone, but wasn't "below the knee" one of the most common places to get struck in a lot of medieval battles, because it was hardest to protect with a shield? (And mail byrnies and hauberks just weren't that long, generally.)

Well... I guess if you don't have a shield, you won't want to strike that low, because you'll leave yourself entirely open, huh?

[Zovc]

This particular sallet looks very 'knigthly' to me. As in rather high end as far as cost and availability goes, and distinctly rider equipment.

Somebody may correct me, but such long, pronounced 'tails' are usually depicted on knights, and 100% closed sallet, covering whole head and with gorget is pretty universally worn with full plate armor. With brigandine instead of breastplate, of course.

So I guess you could pretend to be rich non-knighted horseman, that's pushing it a bit though.:smallbiggrin:

This definitely is one of the more intricate and "nice" sallets I've seen, so I can see where you're coming from. :)

I was told there was a trend to wear gambesons and brigandines over breastplates. Which, I was also told I'd be able to get away with a gambeson over society minimum required armor (a kidney belt, for the torso). Most sallets--even the ones that covered the face--didn't cover the chin, they were usually worn with a bevor, which is like a gorget with chin and lower face protection.

From what my friends were telling me, my best angle is probably to personify myself as a squire or man-at-arms. That is kind of a justification for having some nice armor, but not a lot of it.


I'm not sure what are SCA requirement, but you may need full face protection anyway, but in case if not, here are more of infantry men sallets.

Yeah, I've got to cover my entire face so that a 1" rod can't fit through my helmet anywhere. Bar grills are a non-period, but acceptable solution. I much prefer the look of sallets that cover the entire face, though.


As far as 'without full plate armor' goes - well, that's easy enough, but it depends what you mean.

Infantry, even best equipped ones, at least usually, didn't wear armor below the knee - so that's not a full plate armor. :smallwink:

I suppose without full plate armor wasn't as specific as I wanted it to be. :)

This is the minimum of what I'd want to cover (in addition to my head):
Shoulders
Collar bone
Kidneys
Lower "floating" ribs
Elbows
Forearms
Wrists
Hands (for when I don't have a shield and/or basket hilt.)
Thighs
Knees

A gambeson/brigandine is likely satisfactory protection for my upper torso, above my floating ribs and my biceps. I'm not sure about my collar bone or shoulders, but right now I don't have very good coverage for them and I regret it when people manage to sneak shots in to my boney parts.

And, like I said, I could totally wear any sort of armor under a gambeson/brigandine, so long as it "looks right" for me to have the cloth armor on top of my other armor. I could even use hardened plastic for my kidney belt/rib protection under there.

[Spiryt]

Are you sure about that? I mean as metal armour goes greaves are just about the easiest part to make and they protect one of the more exposed parts of ones body.
FWIW Wiki says that they fell out of favour in the ninth century but made a comeback in the late medieval period.

Yes.

And you are right that at the very end of Medieval period calves armor f for infantry starts appear way more frequently. But still somehow rare.

As for 'why' - it's always a guess, but presumably because they actually had to move around in this, both in battle and outside it - no horse that doesn't care about additional 5 pounds.

And in most of fighting, particularly in formation, lower legs generally aren't very exposed, I'm pretty sure it had been explained quite a lot in this thread as well.

Anyway I recommend this blog (http://teutonica1455.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html) to Zovc.

Unfortunately only in polish, but there's a lot of period illustrations about professional Teutonic troopers about 1460.


This is quite late (http://de.academic.ru/pictures/dewiki/76/Luzerner_Schilling_Battle_of_Grandson.jpg) depiction, but it shows differences in infantry and cavalry armor nicely.

[xeo]

you understand that a Napoleonic era tactical column (as opposed to a column of march) was formed by the companies of a battlion formed in line and then "stacked" behind one another?

I honestly can't remember whether Duffy was referring to the tactical column or to marching in column. I suspect a bit of both.

[Janus]

Going back to the dueling thing, I found an interesting link about the reasons for having a duel in 15th century Germany:


Yet firstly this – Nobody is happy when one of his comrades cuts up his honour with loud words. He who would have at dueling with such a comrade, indeed he is within his rights and may well-fight him if he would. Thus dueling is wantonness ~
Now those aforesaid causes and articles are seven, wherefor a man has duty to fight:
Thus the first is murder.
The second is treason.
The third is heresy.
The fourth is becoming an urger of disloyalty to one’s lord.
The fifth is betrayal in strife or otherwise.
The sixth is falsehood.
The seventh is using either a maiden or lady.
http://www.thearma.org/essays/Causes.htm

Interesting to see someone from the time discourage fighting someone over a petty insult.

[JustSomeGuy]

On marching in step:

A lot of it depends on the audible thud of heels hitting the floor in unison, and marching in various dusty, sandy, muddy non-metalled tarmac areas would probably make this a whole bunch harder. Also, who says the unsullied need to march? Just because they are the most disciplined soldiers, like, ever, doesn't mean they were taught to march - they might have been more preoccupied with killing puppies and fighting over name belts in the a.m. or something (although drill movements and dress standards are often used as a euphamism for the unit's discipline, so it is fairly easy to use this in tv and film to convey the message).

Also, Stallone wanting his rocky films to look realistic... where do we begin? (I say this as a massive fan of the rocky series, but come on, realistic?)

[Spiryt]

I was told there was a trend to wear gambesons and brigandines over breastplates. Which, I was also told I'd be able to get away with a gambeson over society minimum required armor (a kidney belt, for the torso). Most sallets--even the ones that covered the face--didn't cover the chin, they were usually worn with a bevor, which is like a gorget with chin and lower face protection.


Well, some jupons or other more or less 'armored' textile were indeed worn over breastplates, but it was popular in 14th/early 15th centuries.

As 'hidden armor' it's obviously perfectly reasonable, of course.

Brigandine over breastplate is very wild idea, and I'm pretty sure that no one actually worn it like that...

Just to be precise - brigandine is this (http://www.olofsgillet.org/pentecost/IMG_0311.JPG) stuff (http://www.olofsgillet.org/pentecost/IMG_0312.JPG).

It's definitely not cloth armor.

[Brother Oni]

Also, Stallone wanting his rocky films to look realistic... where do we begin? (I say this as a massive fan of the rocky series, but come on, realistic?)

I don't think it's necessarily being realistic but looking authentic.

Compare some of the fights in the first The Matrix film. The Smith vs Neo in the subway especially is very stilted, compared to the better rehearsed fights (Neo vs Morpheus in the dojo), but still bearable to watch.

Now compare this to the final fight in The Medallion with Jackie Chan and Julian Sands, which employs both shakey cam and sharp cuts to hide the fact that Sands can't fight.

You can't get away with the second option in a Rocky film where seeing the two fighters beating ten bells of crap out of each other is integral to the drama and tension and I guess Stallone didn't want the fight looking stilted to detract away from this.

In something like Rocky, where realism isn't the goal, I'm happy to sacrifice some realism for a better story.

[fusilier]

Are you sure about that? I mean as metal armour goes greaves are just about the easiest part to make and they protect one of the more exposed parts of ones body.
FWIW Wiki says that they fell out of favour in the ninth century but made a comeback in the late medieval period.

I wanted to add a bit more to this. I think ancient Greeks often wore greaves (a shield would help protect other parts of the leg). By the renaissance (at least) you start seeing greaves again. Some infantry would armor one leg, the one that was typically advanced while fighting, while leaving the other leg unarmored.

[fusilier]

you understand that a Napoleonic era tactical column (as opposed to a column of march) was formed by the companies of a battlion formed in line and then "stacked" behind one another? This site (http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infantry_tactics_4.htm#infantrycombatcolumns)i just found has a fairly good explanation of the formations

Actually, the standard "marching" column was a column of companies, sometimes platoons. It depended upon how wide the road was. ;-) Marching a company by the flank was done often during battalion maneuvers, but, when conducting a long march, it was only used on narrow roads and trails.

The tactical column was usually two companies wide -- it allowed the formation to develop into a line more quickly (a line to the front that is, a marching column can form a line to the flank very quickly).

[Storm Bringer]

Actually, the standard "marching" column was a column of companies, sometimes platoons. It depended upon how wide the road was. ;-) Marching a company by the flank was done often during battalion maneuvers, but, when conducting a long march, it was only used on narrow roads and trails.

The tactical column was usually two companies wide -- it allowed the formation to develop into a line more quickly (a line to the front that is, a marching column can form a line to the flank very quickly).

I am aware of all that, i just glossed over it.:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:


A closed column of "divisions" (as the paired companies are sometimes reffered to) at half-distance* was ALSO able to form a square quicker, as the middle companies can just wheel outwards to form a solid fomation.


*for those who don't know, a "open" column was one where the interval between the stacked lines was enough that the each company or pair of companies could wheel into line left or right to form a battilon line. "closed" columnso of half and quarter distance were ones were the interval was reduced, as noted by the name.

[fusilier]

On marching in step:

A lot of it depends on the audible thud of heels hitting the floor in unison, and marching in various dusty, sandy, muddy non-metalled tarmac areas would probably make this a whole bunch harder. Also, who says the unsullied need to march? Just because they are the most disciplined soldiers, like, ever, doesn't mean they were taught to march - they might have been more preoccupied with killing puppies and fighting over name belts in the a.m. or something (although drill movements and dress standards are often used as a euphamism for the unit's discipline, so it is fairly easy to use this in tv and film to convey the message).

Also, Stallone wanting his rocky films to look realistic... where do we begin? (I say this as a massive fan of the rocky series, but come on, realistic?)

Having trained extras for this, it does help tremendously if they can hear themselves. A good drum is also very useful. But time constraints definitely get involved, and there's not much you can do without lots of practice. Also many of the military experts that are hired often have experience with modern militaries, and modern drills don't really work for historic ones.

Napoleonic style formations, where one soldier is literally touching the soldier next to him, actually helps a lot to keep the ranks straight, as one doesn't need to look to tell if he is keeping pace with his comrades (of course the moment someone trips over a shrub, the line is going to get wavy). I think this helps in training people to march in formation, and it's something that modern militaries *don't* do. Renaissance manuals depict formations that are usually pretty loose, although they can close together as needed. This takes a bit more time to train -- my biggest problem is that most of the reenactors I've trained for this have experience with ACW reenacting, and they naturally start to "bunch up" rather than maintaining their intervals.

The "snap" that modern militaries show in their drill is definitely more modern, but is so ingrained in the popular image that it's probably hard to avoid. Renaissance manuals are pretty vague, and even up to the American Civil War, the emphasis seems to have been on doing things in unison, and not necessarily with fast, "punctuated" movements.

[JusticeZero]

Need to know what the most likely weapon selection for a certain group is, based on historical stuff.

Campaign is in wetlands, so the ground isn't stable enough for massive fortifications, but cities and keeps are fortified. The fortification is with earthen and rough stone walls, and not terribly high, maybe 20 feet at most. As such, during an attack, the walls WILL be scaled by invaders, but it's a deterrent at least. On the bright side, the unstable ground also makes siege engines impractical.

The walls are patrolled by troops who train specifically for 1: defending the walls from attack, 2: repelling attackers who scale the walls, and 3: urban combat for policing and fallback for the attackers who get past the walls.

If I were to build up a typical unit for that force, what weapons would she most likely be trained to use, and with what standard tactics?

high quality metallurgy available, firearms very rare (not because "not many people have them" but because "unless you won the genetic lottery, it's just a paperweight"), hot and wet climate.

[DrewID]

Need to know what the most likely weapon selection for a certain group is, based on historical stuff.

Campaign is in wetlands, so the ground isn't stable enough for massive fortifications, but cities and keeps are fortified. The fortification is with earthen and rough stone walls, and not terribly high, maybe 20 feet at most. As such, during an attack, the walls WILL be scaled by invaders, but it's a deterrent at least. On the bright side, the unstable ground also makes siege engines impractical.

The walls are patrolled by troops who train specifically for 1: defending the walls from attack, 2: repelling attackers who scale the walls, and 3: urban combat for policing and fallback for the attackers who get past the walls.

If I were to build up a typical unit for that force, what weapons would she most likely be trained to use, and with what standard tactics?

high quality metallurgy available, firearms very rare (not because "not many people have them" but because "unless you won the genetic lottery, it's just a paperweight"), hot and wet climate.

A lot of this sounds like it would match up well with the Welsh and the Irish before their respective conquests by the English. Except that both were largely pre-gunpowder.

Given that the walls are a a temporary advantage that will not, in and of themselves, stop your enemy, I would say your best bet is as much missile fire as you can muster to keep people from getting you your walls, so I would say that the higher rate of fire available to a bowman bets the range and striking power of a crossbowman. Unless armor is widely available that is arrow proof. Interspersed with spear/pole-arm wielders to repel the attempt to storm the wall. The archers will have a sidearm for once you've reached the wall walk, as the close quarters makes archery dangerous.

Just my $0.12 (inflation).

DrewID

[JusticeZero]

So a mix of polearm wielders with slings to add to the volume of fire, and longbowwomen with something like a cutlass, shortsword, or hand axe for backup, maybe?

Next I need to figure out what the matching roving skirmish and siege band would be armed with. I'm thinking a throwaway wicker and cloth tower shield (to cover from range to close), and a battleaxe. Hide under the (flimsy, but better than nothing) portable wall to deal with the incoming fire and crash into the line, then pull the axe from behind the shield, theoretically drop the now burdensome shield, and start wreaking havok. I'm not sure that that would be the best tactic though. I seem to remember hearing that a Chinese general got his start outfitting peasants with wicker shields, but not the tactic used.

[AgentPaper]

I'm sure this will spark a debate, but crossbows don't actually fire much slower than a bow and arrow. The real difference is the time it takes to learn to use one, in which case a crossbow wins out pretty handily. If you get enough people making them, you could fairly easily arm the entire town, and if a bunch of savages are storming your walls, it's pretty easy to convince them to get up on those walls and use them.

Past that, spears are another go-to weapon that's fairly easy to teach how to use, and is great for poking people climbing your walls. You could probably also block streets off pretty well with just a few people, though if the enemy has gotten over your walls, you're probably pretty screwed no matter what.

[Brother Oni]

I'm sure this will spark a debate, but crossbows don't actually fire much slower than a bow and arrow.

You're right. :smalltongue:

While the training time comparison is spot on, the rate of fire is very much dependent on the crossbow's draw.

Something light enough to be spanned by hand (<160lb) should have a comparable ROF to a bow but less range and penetrative power.

Goatsfoot (~300lb) and belt hook (~250lb) methods are about half the ROF with a ratio of 4:9 to 6:10 bolts for every arrow: link 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g-0-RK3cjk), link 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HagCuGXJgUs&feature=grec_index).

Anything heavier would require a crannequin (~550lb) or windlass (1200lb) and have a much lower rate of fire (I believe a 1200lb crossbow only manages something in the region of a bolt every minute or two compared to a longbow's 10 per minute).

I believe a decent military crossbow from the late medieval era starts at about 230lb, so it would have a reasonable rate of fire but clearly slower than a bow's.

A repeating crossbow, such as the Cho Ku Nu, would easily beat a bow in ROF (10 bolts in 15 seconds), but its range (effective 60m, 120m max) and penetrative power was poor (they had to coat the bolts in poison to get any real lethality).

[JusticeZero]

All I could find was this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HagCuGXJgUs), which pegs it at about half of a bow's rate of fire for a light crossbow. I have yet to find anything that shows anyone making the slightest effort to reload a sling quickly.

For their roaming counterpart, the only idea i've had so far is... wicker tower shield and battleaxe, maybe? I'm sure that role is a historically common one.

[Spiryt]

"unless you won the genetic lottery, it's just a paperweight"

I keep reading this and can't figure out the point, to be honest...


Campaign is in wetlands, so the ground isn't stable enough for massive fortifications, but cities and keeps are fortified. The fortification is with earthen and rough stone walls, and not terribly high, maybe 20 feet at most.

Given rich material culture and organized society, rather substantial fortifications on wetland shouldn't really by that much of a problem...

In fact, they would be only big problem for attackers then. Especially, that even on most forsaken swamp there are more solid, usually higher, points. Ideal for fortifications.

If there's no enough, stable ground, they dry it, cover it with solid ground dug from elsewhere, built some solid foundations, etc.

Fortifications of tribal people of Europe pretty universally meant tonnes of dirt being moved from one place to other.


wicker tower shield and battleaxe, maybe? I'm sure that role is a historically common one.

If by 'high quality metallurgy' you also mean generally more high medieval military technology, then wicker items wouldn't probably be very popular anymore.

Tower shields of all kinds, both personal and bigger, 'siege cover' ones would probably be from wood, plywood, some canvas, leather etc.

Battleaxe would be as good weapon as any other, I guess. On a large scale, all kinds of polearms should probably be prevalent, like in reality.

And a lot of missiles, as well, particularly important in sieges.


, I would say your best bet is as much missile fire as you can muster to keep people from getting you your walls, so I would say that the higher rate of fire available to a bowman bets the range and striking power of a crossbowman

Heavy crossbows were generally considered siege weapons in late medieval period though, so their uses probably wouldn't agree.

Crossbow is much easier to use effectively while still enjoying the cover of a blank, palisade etc. Without hitting anything with bow limb, etc.

[Matthew]

The training time is not even that big of a deal. It does not take a very long time to learn to shoot a long bow, but it does to develop the muscles to handle increasingly powerful sorts. Speedily reloading a crossbow strikes me as a very similar problem to drilling men to achieve high rates of musket fire.

[Galloglaich]

It seems that the heavier crossbows (cranequin and windlass, though cranequin was more efficient and seems to have overtaken the windlass by the mid 15th Century) were actually fairly hard to use, because they paid the people who used them quite a bit, as much as a lancer in some cases, or about half as much in other places.

Most of the military marching done in boot camp etc. today is essentially 17th century pike drill (through the Napoleonic filter). Marching and formations are largely derived from pike warfare.

LOWER leg armor was ditched by most infantry that had to walk a long way, Hoplites being perhaps the exception. The reason is that it intefered with movement more than any of the other armor.

G

[Galloglaich]

Cavalry by contrast really needed the lower leg armor because their legs were very exposed on the horse.


Full face helmets were used almost exclusively by cavalry in the Roman, early Migration era... were known in the Viking / Carolingian era for both infantry and cavalry (Sutten Hoo type) but became rare for infantry in the high middle ages, when the cavalry was wearing a great helm over a skull cap like a cervielliere or an early bascinet.

By the 14th Century though when visored helmets (a helmet being a 'small helm) became more common, infantry started wearing them as well. Conversely, cavalry also started wearing modified infantry helmets. The sallet is actually originally in that category I believe, it was originally an open faced infantry helmet which gradually acquired a slit so that you could pull it down over your eyes, and then was used with a bevor to cover the lower face, finally a visor was added. By the 15th Century sallets were used both by infantry and cavalry throughout Central Europe, and in Southern and Western Europe as well to some extent. I think Spyrit is right the long 'tail' is associated with cavalry use (like long pointy shoes or sabatons), but that is not certain. I've seen that particular helmet you linked, it's one of the rare 15th century examples still around (most are 16th century or later copies). It's at the Higgins near Boston, whose collection has sadly been sold. If you want to see it in real life along with a lot of really other cool stuff, act quickly! It's future is uncertain.

You also do see leg armor on 'heavy' infantry who are expected to stand and fight for sustained periods. Along with chevauchée (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevauch%C3%A9e) cavalry raids, the English knightly class was often used this way in the 100 Years War and started to become in some cases a sort of officer position for infantry. In Central and Southern Europe militia and professional mercenaries fulfilled the role. There is a famous stained glass window (now destroyed, but preserved in drawings) from Strasbourg depicting their militia going out to fight in the 14th century, infantry on carts and cavalry on horseback. Both were wearing the full cap-a-pied harness. You also see this a lot in Swiss sources like Schilling which Spyrit posted above. For example, such as the Berne militiamen in the upper left in this painting

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/Laupen_Schilling.jpg/427px-Laupen_Schilling.jpg

G

[Galloglaich]

Need to know what the most likely weapon selection for a certain group is, based on historical stuff.

Campaign is in wetlands, so the ground isn't stable enough for massive fortifications, but cities and keeps are fortified. The fortification is with earthen and rough stone walls, and not terribly high, maybe 20 feet at most. As such, during an attack, the walls WILL be scaled by invaders, but it's a deterrent at least. On the bright side, the unstable ground also makes siege engines impractical.

The walls are patrolled by troops who train specifically for 1: defending the walls from attack, 2: repelling attackers who scale the walls, and 3: urban combat for policing and fallback for the attackers who get past the walls.

If I were to build up a typical unit for that force, what weapons would she most likely be trained to use, and with what standard tactics?

You could probably gain a lot of valuable insight from reading about these guys

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

They were a republic of 'peasants' in the lower Saxony (coastal Northern Germany) region which successfully resisted something like 5 major invasions during the Middle Ages from Danish Kings and German dukes. Among other interesting tactics they used in at least one battle they flooded some fields by breaking levee's and used pole-vaults to go over canals before the trapped enemy could catch them.

Generally they were able to defeat the invaders by using a few key fortifications and bottling them up on roads since they couldn't march in large numbers across the marshes. One of the other advantages of castles in a marsh is that the water table makes it very hard to tunnel underneath them, and tunnneling is one of the main ways they used to 'break' castles before large cannons became available in the 15th Century. This is also why a lot of castles (and towns) situated in islands on rivers were able to persist for so long.

The town of Novgorod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novgorod) probably evaded the Mongols due to being situated in a swamp. Same for the Samogitians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samogitia#History) who were able to resist the Teutonic Knights for 200 years largely due to their swampy, forested environment. Of course those are all rather cold swamps. Venice is in a warmer climate and it too, seems to have benefited enormously from it's swampy, hard to attack environment in the centuries before it became a great city.



high quality metallurgy available, firearms very rare (not because "not many people have them" but because "unless you won the genetic lottery, it's just a paperweight"), .

Like Spyrit, I was a bit baffled by this.

G

[warty goblin]

Like Spyrit, I was a bit baffled by this.

G

Based solely on years of exposure to nerdity, I'm guessing this means guns run on magic, which is inherited. This allows all the cool people to use guns - or things that work like guns and so enable all the tropes of cool gunplay - if they want, but keeps 'em out of the hands of your average lunkhead.

[Thiel]

Winning the genetic lottery means being born to money, serious money. In this setting that probably means nobility.

[Storm Bringer]

It seems that the heavier crossbows (cranequin and windlass, though cranequin was more efficient and seems to have overtaken the windlass by the mid 15th Century) were actually fairly hard to use, because they paid the people who used them quite a bit, as much as a lancer in some cases, or about half as much in other places.

Most of the military marching done in boot camp etc. today is essentially 17th century pike drill (through the Napoleonic filter). Marching and formations are largely derived from pike warfare.

LOWER leg armor was ditched by most infantry that had to walk a long way, Hoplites being perhaps the exception. The reason is that it intefered with movement more than any of the other armor.

G

i have heard put foreward (can't find the scource, but i think it was a Ospery book) that a crossbowman got a higher wage mainly becuase a crossbowman was expected to have about two or three "helpers" who did things like load spare crossbows and move the tower sheild/act as a bodyguard for the crossbow team. Hence, a crossbowman was expected to provide for several retrainers off his wage.

the idea was that the loaders keep the master crossbowman supplied with a steady stream of loaded weapons, which let him keep up a rate of fire about equal to a single bowman (bear in mind unskilled labour was quite cheap, so paying two people for dogsbody work and loading crossbows for one skilled shooter was not as absurd as it sounds now), while another man moved the tower shield and fought in hand to hand to protect the crossbowman and loaders if needed.

[JusticeZero]

No, warty goblin had it. There are guns. There are also the occasional engine-ish powered thing or other such object that seems like it would be much more technological than the rest of the setting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=281695) would indicate. The gunpowder is straight table salt though. All of those things work because there are a small number of people who can only channel psychokinetic power through certain widgets, and those people are a fountain of said power. They built a number of things that are basically engine powered that only work while they're touching the motor. Anyone else, or they let go, it's inert. As such, there's no fear of people mass-producing guns, because you can't mass-produce the people who can use them. As such, everyone else has to settle for the normal gear.

[TinyHippo]

It seems that the heavier crossbows (cranequin and windlass, though cranequin was more efficient and seems to have overtaken the windlass by the mid 15th Century) were actually fairly hard to use, because they paid the people who used them quite a bit, as much as a lancer in some cases, or about half as much in other places.

Most of the military marching done in boot camp etc. today is essentially 17th century pike drill (through the Napoleonic filter). Marching and formations are largely derived from pike warfare.

LOWER leg armor was ditched by most infantry that had to walk a long way, Hoplites being perhaps the exception. The reason is that it intefered with movement more than any of the other armor.

G

The formations were just as vital for single shot muzzle loading musket using armies, although the basic idea was inspired by pikemen.

[scarmiglionne4]

I apologize if this was asked somewhere here before. Were there ancient armor piercing weapons? What kinds of weapons would be good for damaging and getting through armor?

[Frozen_Feet]

Define "ancient".

Various thin daggers were used throughout history to get through weak points in armor. A good bow with proper arrow (such as a needle bodkin) could pierce through most mail. Various spiked clubs, maces and, later, warhammers were made for the task as well.

A good crossbow could shoot even through thin (~1.2 mm) plate armor, though bolts and arrows often lost so much energy piercing the metal that they did not injure their target much.

Then there were special weapons like the soliferrum, a solid iron (hence the name) javelin used for breaking shields, or the kabutowari (lit. helmet crusher), which variably refers to several bludgeoning weapons and a heavy throwing dagger intended for, well, crushing helmets.

[scarmiglionne4]

Define "ancient".

Before the crossbow or firearms were commonplace.

[Frozen_Feet]

You realize there's bit of gap between invention of those two? The crossbow was invented in China earlier than 4th century BC. The Art of War by Sunzi, written approx. 2500 years ago, treats crossbows as basic equipment for soldiers, akin to the role assault rifles have in modern warfare.

Many innovations in armor design, especially plate armor, did not come to existence before crossbows and firearms were commonplace. In fact, many of those innovations were a response to better ranged weapons.

[scarmiglionne4]

I was thinking more along the lines of the heavy crossbows that required a mechanism to draw the string back. Were the earlier crossbows capable of piercing armor?

[Frozen_Feet]

I don't know how heavy those crossbows were, but I'm fairly confident they could pierce at least mail, and quite likely were reasonably effective against armor of the time.

[Rhynn]

The crossbow was invented in China earlier than 4th century BC.

They were also known, in some form, in Ancient Greece and Rome.

Are there actual experiments about the ability of crossbows to penetrate mail we can refer to? I know there are some for self bows. Quilt-backed mail is not a cinch to pierce with longbows, so I imagine a weak crossbow isn't going to fare too well. I'm also under the impression that only very heavy crossbows would actually perform better than a high-draw self/long/war bow.

Also, it's important to define terms here: when you say pierce armor, you mean physically punch a hole through it, right? Not get around it, which is what is usually done?

[scarmiglionne4]

They were also known, in some form, in Ancient Greece and Rome.

Also, it's important to define terms here: when you say pierce armor, you mean physically punch a hole through it, right? Not get around it, which is what is usually done?

I had thought crossbows were not commonplace until the late middle-ages.

And yes, I am talking about weapons that could damage the armor as well as the person wearing it. I mentioned crossbows and firearms because I assumed they both did the job so well no one was worried about making a better war-can-opener.

[Frozen_Feet]

Crossbows were not commonplace until middle-ages in Europe. They favored other ranged weapons, such as bows and javelins, though crossbows existed alongside them.

As far as war-can-openers go, late plate armor was made to work against heavy crossbows and firearms. Such armor was countered by halberds, warhammers, and daggers - heavy hafted weapons made to concentrate as much force in a small area as possible, or small, maneuverable weapons that could be used to get around armor or pierce through weak points in mail.

The reason why heavy armor fell out of favor was not ineffectiveness - plate armor saw some use even in World War 1. It was costs - outfitting soldiers with armor of this caliber became prohibitively expensive. Also, with the amount of metal you needed to make one set of armor, you could make a dozen gun barrels and myriad bullets.

[Rhynn]

I had thought crossbows were not commonplace until the late middle-ages.

I didn't say anything about commonplace. They were written about, named, and depicted in art in the Roman period, and references suggest they existed (in some form (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastraphetes)) in Europe as far back as the 5th century BC.

If you want to talk about commonplace in Europe (as opposed to China; you never specified), though, that would be the 12th century AD. That's way before even transitional (pre-plate) armor, in the 14th century, which is what people usually talk about when they talk "piercing armor." Before that, it was all mail.

Crossbows were actually commonplace long before dedicated "armor-piercing" weapons (like warhammers) became common, which was in the late medieval period - 14th or 15th century. That's because crossbows weren't actually "armor-piercing" weapons, as such, and obviously did not do anything to make armor useless (any more than longbows, which have existed for thousands of years, did).

Hand cannons came around ~13th century AD in China and ~14th century AD in Europe, yet the 14th century is only the period of transitional armor. Full plate harness didn't come around until the 15th century - the same century as arquebuses. Yet full plate didn't begin to fall out of use until the 17th century.

Incidentally, I'm not really convinced halberds would pierce plate armor. I don't doubt that pollaxes, pollhammers, and halberds were capable of dealing blows that were capable of injuring someone in full harness, but pierce it? Not with those large blades. A warhammer, bec de corbin, and lucerne hammer (the latter two being a bit dubious, AFAIK) had very small points of contact for punching through plate, and without having access to some tests about their capabilities, I wouldn't declare even those capable of reliably punching through steel plate. Without a doubt, they were better for dealing with heavily armored fighters, though, than many other weapons.

As an aside, I think pollaxes, pollhammers, and halberds were "better" weapons than warhammers because they were more versatile. A warhammer is just a lever you swing with a sharp bit at the end, but the short polearms had three "heads" (the name pollaxe comes from "poll" as in "head"; it's not "poleaxe"), and reinforced shafts, and weren't actually terribly long, making them very versatile, able to block, etc. They no doubt required more skill, but were capable of much more versatile fighting (AFAIK maces and warhammer require very little practice and skill, and were never really accounted weapons one "mastered").

That makes me wonder - do any fechtbuchs or other manuals feature warhammers, maces or axes? (Not pollaxes or pollhammers, which are part of Liechtenauer IIRC.)

[Spiryt]

As an aside, I think pollaxes, pollhammers, and halberds were "better" weapons than warhammers because they were more versatile. A warhammer is just a lever you swing with a sharp bit at the end, but the short polearms had three "heads" (the name pollaxe comes from "poll" as in "head"; it's not "poleaxe"), and reinforced shafts, and weren't actually terribly long, making them very versatile, able to block, etc. They no doubt required more skill, but were capable of much more versatile fighting (AFAIK maces and warhammer require very little practice and skill, and were never really accounted weapons one "mastered").


Vast majority of warhammers also had at least pick head as well, along with the top spike.

Being more 'specialized' isn't also that bad either, allows to really shine at that one thing.

Solid butt on the axe can be very handy striking surface, and yet many, many axes had absolutely minimal to none substance on the other side of the blade, to concentrate full mass on the blade, usually wicked slicing one.

And comparing capabilities of one handed weapon to two handed ones isn't exactly very reasonable, after all, one handed weapon was supposed to be... well, one handed.



Many innovations in armor design, especially plate armor, did not come to existence before crossbows and firearms were commonplace. In fact, many of those innovations were a response to better ranged weapons.

It's being proposed a lot, but I don't think there's really any way to support statement like that.

[Brother Oni]

I don't know how heavy those crossbows were, but I'm fairly confident they could pierce at least mail, and quite likely were reasonably effective against armor of the time.

If we use maximum range as a very rough measure of how much kinetic energy is imparted into the arrow/bolt, then you're looking at a 200lb+ crossbow to match a 110lb longbow.

On more concrete findings, I've read a summary of a test that suggests a late medieval windlass spanned crossbow firing a steel bolt had the same kinetic energy as a 7.62mm NATO round at distances under 100yds (ballistic gel targets).

[Spiryt]

If we use maximum range as a very rough measure of how much kinetic energy is imparted into the arrow/bolt, then you're looking at a 200lb+ crossbow to match a 110lb longbow.

That depends on crossbows draw lenght, obviously. Early crossbows were actually apparently just shortbows on a stick, so it may be possible.

But later one really had effective power stroke at least 3 times shorter than 'average' bow, so something like 300+ crossbow would be probably required.



On more concrete findings, I've read a summary of a test that suggests a late medieval windlass spanned crossbow firing a steel bolt had the same kinetic energy as a 7.62mm NATO round at distances under 100yds (ballistic gel targets).

I'm going to simply say that there's no fornicating way. :smallwink:

Completely different levels of energy in fact.

7.62mm NATO appears to have initial KE of at least 3000 J from 24'' barrel.

Even if someone had used some unrealistically short, pistol barrel, it likely wouldn't get under 1000J, ever.

Even most monstrous and well made arbalests probably didn't get above 200... All steel bolt wasn't very common, at all, AFAIR, so assuming such very heavy bolt, energy could go up to 300, let's say.

Probably completely fantastical overestimation anyway.

[Rhynn]

Vast majority of warhammers also had at least pick head as well, along with the top spike.

Oh, yes. I was rather under the impression the hook/beak head was the "main one" (at least for our discussion), rather than the "hammer" (a lot of them seem to be pronged rather than anything like a "regular" hammer head). The hammer head seems less likely to actualy puncture steel plate? Although it could probably dent it, which, especially on a helmet, might be pretty harmful to tissues/bones...

[Galloglaich]

Like most early polearms, in addition to the cutting blade, Halberds had both a back spike (or 'beak') and a spear - point, this is what made them good at piercing armor. (i.e. not the blade)

http://images.monstermarketplace.com/antique-arms-and-armor/a-swiss-halberd-third-quarter-of-the-17th-century-800x4258.jpg

I don't think crossbows had the same energy in joules as a Nato 7.62, (or any other firearm) but he may be referring to the ability to penetrate which was could be equivalent for more powerful crossbows. Arrows or bolts pierce things much better than bullets do, Alan Williams has a bunch of charts on it.

G

[Janus]

That makes me wonder - do any fechtbuchs or other manuals feature warhammers, maces or axes? (Not pollaxes or pollhammers, which are part of Liechtenauer IIRC.)
http://www.wiktenauer.com/wiki/Main_Page
I didn't find much on a quick search here. Off the top of my head, I've heard there are some axes in fechtbuchs, though I want to say they've only been the single-bladed kind. I don't know about hammers, and as for maces, you might look into the man vs woman judicial duels.
I'd look some more, but I have to be going pretty soon.

[Spiryt]

I don't think crossbows had the same energy in joules as a Nato 7.62, (or any other firearm) but he may be referring to the ability to penetrate which was could be equivalent for more powerful crossbows. Arrows or bolts pierce things much better than bullets do, Alan Williams has a bunch of charts on it.
G

I would guess that it depends on 'things' knowing the characteristics of missile is not telling much without knowing the characteristics of the target.

Anyway, even though more powerful bolts would have been way more substantial than 7.62, and with probably greater momentum than bullet, I don't think it would penetrate most targets quite as well....

Simply has way much more energy to spend.

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/rifle/762mm_ammo.html

Ordinary training 7.62 round can apparently still pierce trough 4mm of 'armor' (probably mean some rolled steel vehicle carapace) at 300m...

Don't think that any ever craziest crossbow could really do something similar.


I apologize if this was asked somewhere here before. Were there ancient armor piercing weapons? What kinds of weapons would be good for damaging and getting through armor?

Generally, if you mean "antiquity" as we define it, pilum and similar long iron shafted, heavy javelins would certainly be potent at armor piercing, compared to most hand held weapons.

Oberaden pila apparently weighted about 2 kg, probably a bit more.

With a bit of running start, and proper body mechanics, human being could transfer quite a bit of energy into such thing.

Short range attack, launching it takes a lot of effort and energy, and amount of ammunition is obviously limited, but potential armor breaching is definite option.

[Fortinbras]

I was looking through one of the Osprey books of Scandinavian Armies and found an equipment list for 13th century Norwegian Hirdmen.

A couple of things jumped out at me.

1. No horse listed. Would it just be assumed that these men had them or did Hirdmen march and fight entirely on foot?

2. In addition to a full-sized shield, Hirdmen were expected to have a buckler. As a sword-and-buckler fencer myself, I was delighted to see the buckler on the list of kit, but I'm at a loss to see when it would be used by a heavily armored, front-line infantry soldier. What chance would a sword-and-buckler fighter have on the front line in a battlefield when faced by opponents with kite shields, spears, and axes?

3. Hirdmen were expected to bring a bow. When did Hirdmen actually use their bows in battle? Did they just start the fight with arrows and then switch to spear and sword as their opponents got closer? How effective an archer can one be when weighed down with a shield, mail coat, coat-of-plates, and spaulders (all of which were also in the Hirdmen's kit list).

4. Finally, what exactly is the difference between Hirdmen and Housecarls?

[Hawkfrost000]

I apologize if this was asked somewhere here before. Were there ancient armor piercing weapons? What kinds of weapons would be good for damaging and getting through armor?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRLmzysg4-BB6-DvH_OMzvwGvR8QK9DSL7OzzK2dKhfAkT1QZQM

The poleaxe was the knights swiss army knife. Good for cutting, piercing and smashing. It was often used in duels between two armored opponents.

http://talhoffer.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/209050_113502182065310_100002165854386_118519_9603 18_o.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQBIKlUJJAF1K6y-hcBrJZfuGUD30yGph7pxE393x9UdK51QDfMWQ

[GraaEminense]

Edit: @Fortinbras
"Vor ære og vor magt, har hvide seil os bragt." (Bjørnstjerne Bjørnsson).
Roughly translated: "Our glory and power was built on white sails."

Norwegians always fought on ships. The vikings depended on their longships, obviously, and the later leidang-system was based around supplying warships with crew and supplies. The horse was never important to Norwegian warfare and we never had a continental-style "knight" class (although they tried to emulate Arthur, of course, like everyone else).

A lot could be said about why, but in short: Geography.

Hirdmen would be expected fight from warships, or at least sail most of the distance to the battlefield. While they would be expected to be able to ride for patrols or raids, keeping a horse for every man would not be cost effective.

Bows are used against enemy ships, while closing to board. Just like artillery.

Bucklers could be useful in boarding actions, but I'm guessing they're more relevant as belt-hangers: a buckler is not terribly cumbersome, so a hirdman can be expected to carry one in situations where a shield would be left behind, like when out patrolling or drinking.

As for hirdman/housecarl, the hird was the King's sworn men and included bodyguards, body servants and his highest administrators and bureaucrats. Housecarls, as far as I know (and here I may be mistaken) were simply the armed men serving a household regardless of that household's status.

[Spiryt]

Buckler would be obviously useful in more 'skirmishing' situations, and that's why they would probably be carried.

As far as archery goes, if your encumbrance allows roughly comfortable fighting, it sure as hell allows comfortable archery. The former obviously requiring much more movement.

Also, Ospreys are obviously very general reviews of period artifacts, so one character will tend to be 'equipped' with any damn thing he 'could have'.

Even if it actually could be from the other side of Norway and rather specific, for example.

[Hawkfrost000]

2. In addition to a full-sized shield, Hirdmen were expected to have a buckler. As a sword-and-buckler fencer myself, I was delighted to see the buckler on the list of kit, but I'm at a loss to see when it would be used by a heavily armored, front-line infantry soldier. What chance would a sword-and-buckler fighter have on the front line in a battlefield when faced by opponents with kite shields, spears, and axes?

I am a student of Marozzo myself. I have found that, at least in Itally, the sword and buckler was a weapon combination that was most often or always used without armor, and as such rarely appeared on the battlefield.

If however i find myself without armor, a buckler would be a lifesaving piece of equipment.

DM

[Fortinbras]

The list of kit provided in the book comes from a document (the book does not include a citation) that outlines what each Hirdman was expected to bring with him when he was called up.

I actually found the lists of kit, one for each social class, to be somewhat reminiscent of the Roman manipular army described by Polybius, but I have no idea how accurate a comparison that is.

[GraaEminense]

The source would be hirdskråa, Norwegian King Magnus Lagabøte's ("Lawmender") book of law on the hird from the mid-1270s.

The comparison to Polybius is not a bad one, both describe armies of citizen-soldiers providing their own equipment and fighting as infantry. That the "level-requirements" (tax levels, that is :smalltongue: ) are quite similar is not surprising.

[Galloglaich]

Most Norse fought as infantry - not just during the pre-Christian Viking era, Vendel era etc., but also for a long time after. They were organized along the lines of boat crews, but they didn't necessarily only fight that way. The boat was mainly transportation, big naval battles weren't that common though they did happen.

These lists of kit that you see come from two general sources, militia, i.e. the Leidang

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leidang

and Royal documents like the Kings Mirror

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konungs_skuggsj%C3%A1

Kings Mirror has a lot of fascinnting (and occasionally somewhat horrifying!) details on things like naval siege warfare for example, you can read it here

http://www.archive.org/stream/kingsmirrorspecu00konuuoft/kingsmirrorspecu00konuuoft_djvu.txt

Even in the ship battles the Norse mostly fought as infantry since they used to chain them together with grapnels and so forth. Bows were indeed used but once a naval fight got serious it came to what you might call shock infantry.

My understanding is that the Huskarl was more of a royal bodyguard, the hirthmen could be considered more like the able bodied men in the village or farm community who were loyal to the jarl or the hersir

However the Norse weren't incapable of cavalry warfare, with the Swedes / Rus in Russia the equivalent of the Huskarl was the Druhzina (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druzhina) who were mounted and fought as cavalry, as were the Normans in Normandy ... in both cases they had adapted to cavalry warfare within a generation I think.

G

[GraaEminense]

The royal hird is pretty clearly described in the Norwegian law as the king's sworn retainers, not just able-bodied men: the hird includes glorified functionaries running the kingdom as well as the royal bodyguard, pages and the "guests" -the "politicals" keeping the subjects in line. Only a fraction of the hird was supposed to be at court at any given time.

In other contexts, however, the word seems to describe the armed retainers of any powerful land-owner. Not just any fighting men he has available, though, the hird are clearly sworn men.

As mentioned, I am less sure about how the Huskarls (house-men) differ from the hird. It may be that the word is used for the hirdmen serving in the bodyguard at any given time.

[scarmiglionne4]

I didn't say anything about commonplace. They were written about, named, and depicted in art in the Roman period, and references suggest they existed (in some form (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastraphetes)) in Europe as far back as the 5th century BC.

If you want to talk about commonplace in Europe (as opposed to China; you never specified), though, that would be the 12th century AD. That's way before even transitional (pre-plate) armor, in the 14th century, which is what people usually talk about when they talk "piercing armor." Before that, it was all mail.

Crossbows were actually commonplace long before dedicated "armor-piercing" weapons (like warhammers) became common, which was in the late medieval period - 14th or 15th century. That's because crossbows weren't actually "armor-piercing" weapons, as such, and obviously did not do anything to make armor useless (any more than longbows, which have existed for thousands of years, did).

Hand cannons came around ~13th century AD in China and ~14th century AD in Europe, yet the 14th century is only the period of transitional armor. Full plate harness didn't come around until the 15th century - the same century as arquebuses. Yet full plate didn't begin to fall out of use until the 17th century.

Incidentally, I'm not really convinced halberds would pierce plate armor. I don't doubt that pollaxes, pollhammers, and halberds were capable of dealing blows that were capable of injuring someone in full harness, but pierce it? Not with those large blades. A warhammer, bec de corbin, and lucerne hammer (the latter two being a bit dubious, AFAIK) had very small points of contact for punching through plate, and without having access to some tests about their capabilities, I wouldn't declare even those capable of reliably punching through steel plate. Without a doubt, they were better for dealing with heavily armored fighters, though, than many other weapons.


Let's leave plate armor out of it for further discussion.

A soldier who could only afford mail is struck by a warhammer, is that going to go right through? If mail was the best you could get, but all the weapons from the transitional period you spoke of are around, what weapons are going to cause the most damage to the armor? Could any weapons strike a person wearing mail and not kill them, but make their armor so damaged as to offer less protection against a second stroke?

I am thinking of a flanged mace as an example of a weapon I would think would be capable of doing this.

[Spiryt]

A soldier who could only afford mail is struck by a warhammer, is that going to go right through? If mail was the best you could get,

Mail was always expensive stuff, even when plate was already flourishing.

It most probably wasn't really going to be 'budget' solution for any soldier.


but all the weapons from the transitional period you spoke of are around, what weapons are going to cause the most damage to the armor? Could any weapons strike a person wearing mail and not kill them, but make their armor so damaged as to offer less protection against a second stroke?

I am thinking of a flanged mace as an example of a weapon I would think would be capable of doing this.

I don't think that anyone had really done testing that detailed, obviously...

Pretty much all kind of heavy impacts could theoretically dent plate, and deform/break mail rings, leaving that area was more vulnerable.

So it' was most certainly possible, but we don't really know how often could this happen.

[AgentPaper]

What kind of things might have happened if the combustion engine, or some similar device, was invented roughly in the Late Medieval period? I have my own ideas about what effects this might have, but I'd like to hear everyone else's opinion, since it's likely to be a major point in a story I'm writing (for a game).

[scarmiglionne4]

If you had to guess, what weapons do you think would be the most likely to damage armor most often? I am thinking battleaxes, a flanged mace, maybe a morningstar, a flamberge possibly, a warhammer...

[Thiel]

What kind of things might have happened if the combustion engine, or some similar device, was invented roughly in the Late Medieval period? I have my own ideas about what effects this might have, but I'd like to hear everyone else's opinion, since it's likely to be a major point in a story I'm writing (for a game).

Not much unless all the other technologies needed to make one are invented similarly early. If that's the case then the industrial revolution would happen that much earlier.

[scarmiglionne4]

What kind of things might have happened if the combustion engine, or some similar device, was invented roughly in the Late Medieval period? I have my own ideas about what effects this might have, but I'd like to hear everyone else's opinion, since it's likely to be a major point in a story I'm writing (for a game).

See Army of Darkness, minus the army of the dead.

Seriously though. I am no expert, but the first thing that comes to mind is siege weapons. Suddenly every siege weapon could be much more mobile. News might travel faster because people can travel faster.

One problem though: the availability of steel. Are people of the period going to see the value in giving up the steel for their weapons and armor to build vehicles? Would they try to build them mostly out of wood?

[JusticeZero]

Steam engine == gas engine == diesel engine.

The reason we drive IC cars instead of steam cars is because it took a lot of doing to figure out how to make any engine small enough and safe enough. By the time they did, there were a lot of safety laws to keep steam engines out of the city.. and gas powered cars lobbied their way in on the coattails of the bicycle revolution following the neumatic tire.

[AgentPaper]

Well, I was mostly using the combustion engine as an analogue to trucks, tanks, and trains. The engine itself could just as easily be a steam engine, or clockwork, or some sort of magitek device, it doesn't really matter (and I haven't actually decided yet). The important thing is that the engine works, is relatively efficient, doesn't break down, and has the power to drive around big trucks and tanks.

It's also worth mentioning that the engine is invented by a government researcher, and the technology is guarded as closely as, say, rocket tech was when it was first invented. So no Model Ts or privately owned railroads, but instead mostly military application.

If an abundance of steel is required for the engine to have any real effect, I can work with that too. Let's assume that effective steel making and forging were invented at roughly the same time, as well as any other tech required for making tanks and trucks and such possible.

[warty goblin]

If you had to guess, what weapons do you think would be the most likely to damage armor most often? I am thinking battleaxes, a flanged mace, maybe a morningstar, a flamberge possibly, a warhammer...

This depends tremendously on the sort of armor in question.

If we're talking chainmail, I'd probably go with none of the above. Even crappy non-period butted mail is absurdly durable, and it only gets tougher if you use riveted or mixed solid and riveted rings. Even if you do hit hard enough to burst a ring or two, so what? The actual hole that leaves in the armor is very small, and the later repair trivial for anybody capable of fabricating the armor in the first place.

The other thing about chainmail is that it's not like the failure of one little piece makes the entire shirt stop working or become impossible to move in or anything. It means one little bit will move a tiny bit differently - if that - until you can get a ring or two replaced. I'd be much more worried about the effect of all that blunt force trauma on the continued mobility of my body parts due to blunt force trauma than I would the sudden catastrophic failure of my entire armor.


In the realm of plate armor, I have very little idea. So here's a vaguely topical anecdote.

Two years ago I made myself a shield boss out of a bit of old 12 or 14 gauge steel we had banging about the place. This was not fantastically high grade material by any means, but it took a lot of determined abuse with a selection of hammers to really alter its shape all that much. And unlike modern live-steel sparring or similar, I was both unconstrained by concerns for the safety of what I was hitting, and worries about getting hit myself. Still took an hour or two of methodical beating to get it into shape, and the first couple hits did basically nothing at all. Even with the big three pound masonry hammer.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

So, this isn't so much a question as it is a shameless plug, and it isn't so much a shameless plug as it is me begging for help, but...

I'm working on a home brew game system, and among my many myriad goals towards giving mundane/martial characters nice things is to make the weapons themselves interesting - in particular, have most weapons have special properties/abilities that are unlocked with weapon focus/specialization (which would be re-trainable.) Unfortunately, apart from my beloved kukri, I know jack all about most weapons (and I really only know my kukri for use as a tool, not a weapon), so I'd appreciate any help/suggestions I could get.

Link to the relevant thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=281587)

Basically, I'm looking for mechanical interpretations of the things that make specific weapons a good choice - reach, precision, armour penetration, ability to be used defensively in terms of parrying, you name it. If nothing else, think of it as a chance to brag up your favourite weapon.

Oh, and if anyone has a really good idea of what the mechanical interpretation of a kukri should be...

[warty goblin]

So, this isn't so much a question as it is a shameless plug, and it isn't so much a shameless plug as it is me begging for help, but...

I'm working on a home brew game system, and among my many myriad goals towards giving mundane/martial characters nice things is to make the weapons themselves interesting - in particular, have most weapons have special properties/abilities that are unlocked with weapon focus/specialization (which would be re-trainable.) Unfortunately, apart from my beloved kukri, I know jack all about most weapons (and I really only know my kukri for use as a tool, not a weapon), so I'd appreciate any help/suggestions I could get.

Link to the relevant thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=15)

Basically, I'm looking for mechanical interpretations of the things that make specific weapons a good choice - reach, precision, armour penetration, ability to be used defensively in terms of parrying, you name it. If nothing else, think of it as a chance to brag up your favourite weapon.

Oh, and if anyone has a really good idea of what the mechanical interpretation of a kukri should be...

Your link just goes to the homebrew forum.

Personally, if I were taking this route, I'd go for a reasonably small number of fairly generic weapon classes that cover a broad range of real-world exemplars, and let them be distinct and fleshed out. There's only so much granularity you can get out of dice without the thing getting nightmarishly complex, or keep a couple things from being the absolutely best options because of minute differences in their abilities.

So for instance polearms, which always get short shrift in RPGs. They've got reach, they can trip people or hook a weapon or shield, and that should about cover it.

Axes? Pretty much the same, except you can get 'em smaller.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Your link just goes to the homebrew forum.

D'oh. Fixed!


Personally, if I were taking this route, I'd go for a reasonably small number of fairly generic weapon classes that cover a broad range of real-world exemplars, and let them be distinct and fleshed out. There's only so much granularity you can get out of dice without the thing getting nightmarishly complex, or keep a couple things from being the absolutely best options because of minute differences in their abilities.

*Nods* There's certainly something to be said for that - still, I imagine certain differences. Within polearms, for example, I imagine that simple spears would be better throwing weapons, but not so good at the hooking/tripping. (I may be mistaken about that.)


So for instance polearms, which always get short shrift in RPGs. They've got reach, they can trip people or hook a weapon or shield, and that should about cover it.

Hmm... is that all that's needed to bring them up to snuff? I (based on pure and unfounded instinct) feel like one of the core advantages of polearms is that you can attack people at distance, while keeping them from closing. That second part seems to fail in 3.5, to me. I could be wrong, of course.


Axes? Pretty much the same, except you can get 'em smaller.

Huh. I'd always been under the impression that the advantage of axes was force concentration... so you're saying a key benefit is that they can be used to hook and pull on things?

ALso, thanks, this is exactly the sort of thing I need.

[scarmiglionne4]

I totally agree with you about polearms. Advancing to be adjacent with a warrior with a longspear should be very dangerous. If you get stuck, you shouldn't be able to continue towards the spear-wielder.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

...it occurs to me that I don't even know how you hold a spear.

...Do you hold it.. what's the term, pointy-end-toward-the-thumb, like a sword, or pointy-end-towards-the-pinky, like you were gonna throw it?

Also, I'd like to work in some bonus things for Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization... almost tricks people could pull off once they got really good with a certain weapon. Any thoughts?

[warty goblin]

*Nods* There's certainly something to be said for that - still, I imagine certain differences. Within polearms, for example, I imagine that simple spears would be better throwing weapons, but not so good at the hooking/tripping. (I may be mistaken about that.)

The sorts of spear you throw are, I believe, fairly distinct from the sorts you fight with at close quarters for the most part. I mean you can throw a six or eight foot long fighting spear if you're feeling all Homeric, but it isn't going all that far.

And there's probably enough differences between spears and various other medieval polearms to model them separately. I'm less convinced of the utility of different rules for say glaives and bills though.


Hmm... is that all that's needed to bring them up to snuff? I (based on pure and unfounded instinct) feel like one of the core advantages of polearms is that you can attack people at distance, while keeping them from closing. That second part seems to fail in 3.5, to me. I could be wrong, of course.
Based solely on my limited sparring experience, spears and other long weapons are really, really hard to fight because of the reach thing. Thrusts with a big, powerful weapon are hard to turn aside, and because of their length, it takes very little work for a spearman to attack quite a number of different openings and targets on a person very quickly.


Huh. I'd always been under the impression that the advantage of axes was force concentration... so you're saying a key benefit is that they can be used to hook and pull on things?
They do concentrate force nicely, but that's not exactly an interesting special ability. And you absolutely can hook things with 'em; it's always fun to screw with shields like that.

ALso, thanks, this is exactly the sort of thing I need.[/QUOTE]


I totally agree with you about polearms. Advancing to be adjacent with a warrior with a longspear should be very dangerous. If you get stuck, you shouldn't be able to continue towards the spear-wielder.
One of the difficulties imposed by turn-based combat is that it deprives the spear fighter of that greatest of defenses; the short step backwards.


...it occurs to me that I don't even know how you hold a spear.

...Do you hold it.. what's the term, pointy-end-toward-the-thumb, like a sword, or pointy-end-towards-the-pinky, like you were gonna throw it?

There are various schools of thought on this. The more sword-like grip has its proponents and advantages, as does holding the spear high beside your head in a throwing grasp and thrusting to an enemy's face. Advocates of the first school point out that their grip allows better capitalization of the spear's length, and facilitates a wider range of strikes. The other generally argues that stabbing people in the face has never wanted for effectiveness, and there's a lot of art from antiquity that suggests theirs was the preferred method. It also has the advantage of being a descending thrust, which makes it easier to stick in over the top of a shield rim.


Also, I'd like to work in some bonus things for Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization... almost tricks people could pull off once they got really good with a certain weapon. Any thoughts?
Most of the advantages that come from being really good with a weapon in my limited experience is that you can control the fight. Everything else is really just an expression of that.

That said:

Spears: With a bit of practice (and by a bit I mean about three minutes) you can learn to make a lot of very fast thrusts to a wide range of targets on an enemy's body. If your foe neglected to bring a shield or a weapon of similar length, this can be really, really hard to defend against.

Axes: With a horned axe, you can stab people. You can also bind a weapon between the blade and the haft and try to pull it away from its wielder. Hooking shields and limbs is, as previously mentioned, also possible. When using a two-handed axe against somebody with sword and shield there's a fun trick where you switch your stance from cutting from right to left, leading with the right hand to the other side. This shifts your most natural target from their shielded to unshielded side.

Swords: If you have a longsword, the only reason you can't do something is that you haven't tried hard enough yet. Hooking a leg? Use the crossguard. Need to bludgeon somebody? Try the hilt. Their continued hold on their weapon bumming you out? Try stealing it. A shield annoying you? Use a false edge cut to work around behind it. Tired of your opponent having all those pesky fingers? There's a move to solve that problem. How do you feel about the continued and uninterrupted residence of their brain in their skull? Choose from a plethora of ways to to deal with that!

Hammers: There's often a hook on the back, with which to pull and trip. Otherwise you hit things with it; I don't think there's a lot of subtlety to these. Ditto maces. Although apparently you can throw those.

Daggers: Combine with wrestling for fun stabbing people in joints, groins, eyes, and other uncomfortable places.

Shields: Shields allow for a lot of tricky things. Not only can you hit people with them, but you can also bind their weapons so they can't use them. Not easy to do, but a lot of fun. Additional possibilities involve gaining a leverage advantage and knocking somebody over, or ramming their own shield out of the way. Also you can use them to conceal how and where you're holding your own weapon, making it harder for an enemy to divine your next strike. Shields also make dealing with spear users substantially easier.

You can also partner a big shield with a short, stabby type sword ala a Roman legionary. Despite looking highly defensive, I've found this to work better when employed with nearly crazed aggression. You don't want to hide behind the shield and weather a storm of blows; you want to weather at most one blow, then bowl the other dude over with a rush and stab them in the abdomen.

[Mr Beer]

If you had to guess, what weapons do you think would be the most likely to damage armor most often? I am thinking battleaxes, a flanged mace, maybe a morningstar, a flamberge possibly, a warhammer...

Surely depends but in terms of a) puncturing it and b) platemail, then a combination of a small impact zone and lots of momentum would be a safe bet. So some kind of spike on the end on a long pole that was swung with both arms from the other end, I would imagine.

[JusticeZero]

...Do you hold it.. what's the term, pointy-end-toward-the-thumb, like a sword, or pointy-end-towards-the-pinky, like you were gonna throw it?For fighting, hold it along your forearm. It doesn't get rendered useless by someone waving their weapon at it that way and there is a lot more usability for it and reach. If you want to throw it dramatically, or you get in position to stab someone in the face, it's easy enough to switch your grip on the fly. It's normally used in conjunction with a shield, kind've like in 300, by pretty much every culture that fights with a spear that i've ever heard of. This is in part because spear and shield needs you to be much more active with the shield so that you can use it to put things into the right range for you and stuff like that.

[Knaight]

It's normally used in conjunction with a shield, kind've like in 300, by pretty much every culture that fights with a spear that i've ever heard of. This is in part because spear and shield needs you to be much more active with the shield so that you can use it to put things into the right range for you and stuff like that.

It's a little more complicated than that. Pike blocks* of some sort are very old - the late middle ages to early modern period in Europe are disproportionately famous for having them, but China and Japan have had pike blocks for far longer. Moreover, using a shield with your spear is much more useful in tight formations than when on your own, at which point putting the second hand on your weapon is probably the best idea, which is worth observing in the context of the smaller conflicts that are more relevant to most RPGs. As for how they are used, the basics involve lots of stabbing to lots of places, staying out of reach of shorter weapons as much as possible, and being willing to move your hands on the shaft (particularly the one closer to the tip).

*I'd also include non-pike polearms in this category.

[Seharvepernfan]

In certain helmets of the romans/greek, imperial city guards in the game Oblivion, and elves in the lotr's movies, there is a horn-like protrusion above the forehead the points in front of the soldier. Do these have names?

[Thiel]

Well, I was mostly using the combustion engine as an analogue to trucks, tanks, and trains. The engine itself could just as easily be a steam engine, or clockwork, or some sort of magitek device, it doesn't really matter (and I haven't actually decided yet). The important thing is that the engine works, is relatively efficient, doesn't break down, and has the power to drive around big trucks and tanks.

It's also worth mentioning that the engine is invented by a government researcher, and the technology is guarded as closely as, say, rocket tech was when it was first invented. So no Model Ts or privately owned railroads, but instead mostly military application.

If an abundance of steel is required for the engine to have any real effect, I can work with that too. Let's assume that effective steel making and forging were invented at roughly the same time, as well as any other tech required for making tanks and trucks and such possible.

Thing is, except for the magiteck, they all require a number of complex technologies to exist. Chemistry, mechanics, metallurgy, machining, thermodynamics, etc will all have to be advanced considerably before you can invent a working engine. The repercussions of this are simply too large to accurately speculate about, but one thing we can be sure of is that it'll be impossible for any government (another thing that'll have to be invented btw) to keep under control.

[Brother Oni]

Ordinary training 7.62 round can apparently still pierce trough 4mm of 'armor' (probably mean some rolled steel vehicle carapace) at 300m...

Don't think that any ever craziest crossbow could really do something similar.


The people doing the study may have fallen into the fallacy of equating penetration to KE with regard to effectiveness.

As I recall, the summary said that the crossbow was equivalent at under 100 yards. The flight characteristics of a bolt result in a KE drop off very rapidly after 100 yds (a standard 7.62mm round apparently still has 90% KE at 1000m in comparison), so I agree that a crossbow isn't going to penetrate 4mm at 300m.

However 4mm of armour is just 2mm of armour at a 45 degree impact angle, so categorically stating that a 1200lb crossbow with a steel bolt can't penetrate that at under 100 yds is something I certainly wouldn't guarantee especially if I'm on the receiving end.



Based solely on my limited sparring experience, spears and other long weapons are really, really hard to fight because of the reach thing.

Within western fighting techniques, not as hard as you think. Swordsman deflects the spearpoint, grabs hold of the haft with his off hand: dead spearman.
It's the main reason why we two handed spearman usually carry a scram or knife in our rear hand.

Eastern spear techniques are a very different story, but I don't have any personal experience in that.



There are various schools of thought on this. The more sword-like grip has its proponents and advantages, as does holding the spear high beside your head in a throwing grasp and thrusting to an enemy's face. Advocates of the first school point out that their grip allows better capitalization of the spear's length, and facilitates a wider range of strikes. The other generally argues that stabbing people in the face has never wanted for effectiveness, and there's a lot of art from antiquity that suggests theirs was the preferred method. It also has the advantage of being a descending thrust, which makes it easier to stick in over the top of a shield rim.


To clarify warty's post a little, within Western traditions, it depends on whether you're using a spear one handed or two handed and with or without a shield.

Two handed, no shield: doesn't really matter, although at re-enactment we were taught both palms down for safety reasons.

Two handed with shield: Your front hand needs to be palm up so you can hook your shield strap around your thumb, which necessitates your rear hand be palm down.

One handed, no shield: warty's covered this.

One handed with shield: As warty said, the majority of historical sources suggest that the overhand grip is the norm (the Bayeux Tapestry has plenty examples of this). One important advantage of this method is that you can fight in line formation with your shield interlinked with your neighbours' shields.

[Galloglaich]

So, this isn't so much a question as it is a shameless plug, and it isn't so much a shameless plug as it is me begging for help, but...

I'm working on a home brew game system, and among my many myriad goals towards giving mundane/martial characters nice things is to make the weapons themselves interesting - in particular, have most weapons have special properties/abilities that are unlocked with weapon focus/specialization (which would be re-trainable.) Unfortunately, apart from my beloved kukri, I know jack all about most weapons (and I really only know my kukri for use as a tool, not a weapon), so I'd appreciate any help/suggestions I could get.

Link to the relevant thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=281587)

Basically, I'm looking for mechanical interpretations of the things that make specific weapons a good choice - reach, precision, armour penetration, ability to be used defensively in terms of parrying, you name it. If nothing else, think of it as a chance to brag up your favourite weapon.

Oh, and if anyone has a really good idea of what the mechanical interpretation of a kukri should be...

I have a book which has been out for a few years on this exact subject, which includes real-world analysis of weapons (including photos of actual antiques instead of fantasy versions) and basic parameters for reach, speed, defensive value piercing vs. chopping vs. slicing vs. bashing ability, armor piercing ability, fragility, and the ability to hook things (or people) as you mentioned. This makes the various weapons come to life a lot more than typical RPG's, since in real life they all had different characteristics for a reason.

It does require a bit more granuarity if you want to use these in a game, but not actually any complexity, the system I use isn't any more complex than regular 3.5 DnD or Pathfinder, it just puts the emphasis more on real fighting than magic and supernatural effects. It's actually somewhat similar to the homebrew system you were describing.

If you PM me I'll send you a PDF copy for free, if you will just give me a review in exchange (privately or publically - your choice).

In addition to my book, there is also The Flower of Battle for The Riddle of Steel, which you can find floating around online if you look hard enough (I actually wrote the weapons section on that too) and there is a book called Gurps Low-Tech, for the GURPS system which was done in consultance with a guy who is something of a weapons expert, and a book called Stone to Steel which has a pretty good overview of weapons from the Stone age to the Enlightenment.


G

[Storm Bringer]

In certain helmets of the romans/greek, imperial city guards in the game Oblivion, and elves in the lotr's movies, there is a horn-like protrusion above the forehead the points in front of the soldier. Do these have names?

for those looking for some images to match to his somewhat vague discription;

roman helmet (http://www.valiantarms.com/medieval-armor-images/imperial-roman-helmet-8112.jpg)

Greek helmet (http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs26/f/2008/034/9/8/Greek_Helmet_by_LaGoderre.png)

LotR Elven helmet. (http://www.collecttolkien.com/images/Helmets/Helm%20FOTR%20High%20Elven%20UC%20Jan2005%20$400.j pg)



i think the word your are looking for is "crest", and the big fluffly plumes on the greek and roman helmets are made out of horsehair.

[Rhynn]

In addition to my book, there is also The Flower of Battle for The Riddle of Steel, which you can find floating around online if you look hard enough (I actually wrote the weapons section on that too) and there is a book called Gurps Low-Tech, for the GURPS system which was done in consultance with a guy who is something of a weapons expert, and a book called Stone to Steel which has a pretty good overview of weapons from the Stone age to the Enlightenment.

This explains many things!

The Flower of Battle, and the weapons specifically, is one of my favorite things in any RPG ever.

[AgentPaper]

Thing is, except for the magiteck, they all require a number of complex technologies to exist. Chemistry, mechanics, metallurgy, machining, thermodynamics, etc will all have to be advanced considerably before you can invent a working engine. The repercussions of this are simply too large to accurately speculate about, but one thing we can be sure of is that it'll be impossible for any government (another thing that'll have to be invented btw) to keep under control.

Fair enough. I guess then a more pertinent question would be, rather than an early invention of the engine, what effects would a late invention of gunpowder and electricity have? (Both exist, but are at pre industrial revolution levels and nobody is really doing anything special with them)

[Thiel]

Fair enough. I guess then a more pertinent question would be, rather than an early invention of the engine, what effects would a late invention of gunpowder and electricity have? (Both exist, but are at pre industrial revolution levels and nobody is really doing anything special with them)
The lack of gunpowder is going to be a bit of an issue since gun makers were a major driving force behind the development of the metal casting necessary to make engines.
Anyway, if gunpowder exist then it's unlikely to remain unexplored for long if for no other reason than someone is going to try to use it as a fuel (This actually happened IRL with predictable results)

[AgentPaper]

The lack of gunpowder is going to be a bit of an issue since gun makers were a major driving force behind the development of the metal casting necessary to make engines.
Anyway, if gunpowder exist then it's unlikely to remain unexplored for long if for no other reason than someone is going to try to use it as a fuel (This actually happened IRL with predictable results)

That's fine. What I'm mostly concerned with is how the engines would affect the battlefield. Obviously trucks would be great for improving supply lines, since that's independent of guns, but would tanks still be useful? Or would you be better off with lightly armored vehicles filled with crossbowmen? What about some sort of high-speed bulldozer with spikes and such on the front, meant to simply ram right through enemy formations? Would it make artillery more useful even without rifled barrels and modern ammunition?

[Dead_Jester]

That's fine. What I'm mostly concerned with is how the engines would affect the battlefield. Obviously trucks would be great for improving supply lines, since that's independent of guns, but would tanks still be useful? Or would you be better off with lightly armored vehicles filled with crossbowmen? What about some sort of high-speed bulldozer with spikes and such on the front, meant to simply ram right through enemy formations? Would it make artillery more useful even without rifled barrels and modern ammunition?

As far as using armored vehicle on the battlefield, their effectiveness will depend on how easily they can be proofed against most field artillery, which, incidently, could also be motorized. Indeed, although most stone throwers would be largely ineffective against mobile targets, the arrival of armored vehicles will probably result in the production of very heavy torsion/tension based bolt throwers (ballistas and super heavy crossbows) in an attempt to penetrate the armor of lighter vehicles. If guns are available, than this should trigger a rapid development of large caliber field pieces, optimized for accuracy (as they are firing at moving targets), probably towed or carried by motorized vehicles, to take down the armor, which then results in an arms race between tank armor and cannons.

If the tank armor can be proofed against physical powered projectiles, than it is likely that the vehicles will be used for both roles, with the lighter ones, optimized for speed and harassing, used as scout vehicles and to chase down fleeing enemies (like APC's are currently used today), and heavier ones used to destroy enemy formations, although the later should still be carrying a complement of troops equipped to keep the enemy at bay, probably a mix of crossbows and polearms or flails, like the Hussite war wagons. Again, if cannons are available, placing some on the vehicles (normally scaled to deal with threats of similar scale or slightly larger) themselves is always good, giving anti-armor capabilities to your vehicles to counter the enemy's (because this technology will be copied, it is only a matter of time).

The arrival of tanks will also result in the rapid disappearance of field battles, as the common soldier would be all but useless against one, and deploying on the field would simply be suicidal. Moreover, the vehicles, by allowing much heavier artillery to be moved around (and repositioned much faster) make siege warfare easier, although don't actually help all that much for urban warfare. This results in a dramatic increase in the necessary size of fortifications to provide adequate defense, possibly making large scale fortification inefficient, resulting in a in reduction in the scale of primary fortification in favor of smaller, stronger strongholds and tank proof obstacles (think tank traps, made all the easier with the ease of access to steel and improved moving capabilities).

Finally, if guns don't exist, then your primary method of dealing with very heavy armor is fire (Greek fire, Molotov cocktails, etc.), which tends to shamelessly disregard most armor, and urban warfare/difficult terrain, which make the tanks useless as anything but immobile strongholds, which are all the more susceptible to fire and more conventional forms of attack.

[AgentPaper]

As far as using armored vehicle on the battlefield, their effectiveness will depend on how easily they can be proofed against most field artillery, which, incidently, could also be motorized. Indeed, although most stone throwers would be largely ineffective against mobile targets, the arrival of armored vehicles will probably result in the production of very heavy torsion/tension based bolt throwers (ballistas and super heavy crossbows) in an attempt to penetrate the armor of lighter vehicles. If guns are available, than this should trigger a rapid development of large caliber field pieces, optimized for accuracy (as they are firing at moving targets), probably towed or carried by motorized vehicles, to take down the armor, which then results in an arms race between tank armor and cannons.

If the tank armor can be proofed against physical powered projectiles, than it is likely that the vehicles will be used for both roles, with the lighter ones, optimized for speed and harassing, used as scout vehicles and to chase down fleeing enemies (like APC's are currently used today), and heavier ones used to destroy enemy formations, although the later should still be carrying a complement of troops equipped to keep the enemy at bay, probably a mix of crossbows and polearms or flails, like the Hussite war wagons. Again, if cannons are available, placing some on the vehicles (normally scaled to deal with threats of similar scale or slightly larger) themselves is always good, giving anti-armor capabilities to your vehicles to counter the enemy's (because this technology will be copied, it is only a matter of time).

The arrival of tanks will also result in the rapid disappearance of field battles, as the common soldier would be all but useless against one, and deploying on the field would simply be suicidal. Moreover, the vehicles, by allowing much heavier artillery to be moved around (and repositioned much faster) make siege warfare easier, although don't actually help all that much for urban warfare. This results in a dramatic increase in the necessary size of fortifications to provide adequate defense, possibly making large scale fortification inefficient, resulting in a in reduction in the scale of primary fortification in favor of smaller, stronger strongholds and tank proof obstacles (think tank traps, made all the easier with the ease of access to steel and improved moving capabilities).

Finally, if guns don't exist, then your primary method of dealing with very heavy armor is fire (Greek fire, Molotov cocktails, etc.), which tends to shamelessly disregard most armor, and urban warfare/difficult terrain, which make the tanks useless as anything but immobile strongholds, which are all the more susceptible to fire and more conventional forms of attack.

Thank you, this is exactly what I was hoping for. I'd completely forgotten about ballista in this context, which would probably be the only thing anyone else would have to deal with the tanks at the start.

The game itself takes place just as this technology is coming into play, so everyone still has medieval style armies, but that will quickly change as the game goes on and the main antagonist starts wrecking other nations with his new toys.

The progression I'm seeing is:

1) Complete Domination
At the beginning, nobody knows how to deal with these tanks. They try to fight in the same way they always have, only learn just how ineffective they are. The main antagonist is able to very quickly attack and destroy the armies of basically all of his neighbors, securing a powerful position.

2) Desperate Tactics
As stories of the tanks spread, and people start to realize what a threat they are, everyone scrambles to figure out how to deal with them. Already existing technologies, such as Ballista, Greek Fire, and Bombards start to be produced in much higher quantities. Tactics start to change, with everyone becoming much more defensive, using terrain and tactics to mitigate the effectiveness of Tanks. Despite all of this, they still aren't able to hold off the main antagonist's armies, but they give him enough trouble that he's forced to slow his advance considerably.

3) Reverse Engineering
With some time to breathe, and a few disabled tanks to examine, everyone else starts to produce new technologies to fight against tanks, including more refined and mobile field artillery, anti-tank fortifications, and their own tanks. The main antagonist still has a distinct advantage, but his tanks are no longer invincible on the battlefield, and he's forced to take things seriously and develop new tactics and weapons in an arms race.

4) Counterattack
After some fighting, both sides now have fully developed, if not fully refined, technology and tactics for this new age of warfare, and now fight as equals. The arms race continues as each side tries to gain or re-gain an advantage over the other.

[Dead_Jester]

4) Counterattack
After some fighting, both sides now have fully developed, if not fully refined, technology and tactics for this new age of warfare, and now fight as equals. The arms race continues as each side tries to gain or re-gain an advantage over the other.

An interesting side effect of the development of tanks before the popularization of man portable firearms is that the later may never be developed (or at least, delayed quite a bit) unless they can be made powerful enough to pierce the tanks' armor, even if the resources to do so are available, as there is little inclination to make guns that can't do anything against the enemy's vehicles, and the primary benefit of firearms (ease of use and especially ease of training) lose a lot of their value when warfare consists heavily of ambush/guerrilla warfare where the loudness of guns is not beneficial (the lack of horses to scare with the noise and smoke also doesn't help the guns). Combined with a probable reduction in the armor worn by the tank crews and skirmishing force, the importance of armor piercing weaponry for the infantry is greatly reduced, further reducing the importance of man-portable firearms.

[Galloglaich]

This explains many things!

The Flower of Battle, and the weapons specifically, is one of my favorite things in any RPG ever.

Thank you :)

You might like my weapons book too then. PM me if you want a copy, same conditions as the other guy.

G

[Galloglaich]

If the tank armor can be proofed against physical powered projectiles, than it is likely that the vehicles will be used for both roles, with the lighter ones, optimized for speed and harassing, used as scout vehicles and to chase down fleeing enemies (like APC's are currently used today), and heavier ones used to destroy enemy formations, although the later should still be carrying a complement of troops equipped to keep the enemy at bay, probably a mix of crossbows and polearms or flails, like the Hussite war wagons. Again, if cannons are available, placing some on the vehicles (normally scaled to deal with threats of similar scale or slightly larger) themselves is always good, giving anti-armor capabilities to your vehicles to counter the enemy's (because this technology will be copied, it is only a matter of time).


As Dead Jester alludes here, it's not such a leap to something like an armored APC, since they already had some very similar technology to that in the Hussite war wagon. These were used with guns, of course, but also the most powerful crossbows available (which were pretty powerful) more or less interchangably. They had wooden panels for extra protection and apparently, (though I don't know of proof of this yet) iron plates as well.

You can also look at armored river boats with and without guns mounted, which were also quite common in the Medieval period. If they had a way to enhance the mobility and put it on land, you have something a lot like a tank or an APC. They even had pretty fast-firing cannons because they had invented multi-barrel guns and quick-change breaches.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTws0lqMk8GzDUVG6UamaqfxdbitEM4y PzIk5m1JGhmLkN6VBaw
Like this breach-loading pintle-mounted cannon from 1470 which was sold on Ebay. It was probably mounted on a ship.

http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/25200/25214/cannon_25214_lg.gif
Here you can see some of the removable 'beer mug' breeches around cannon, I think this is early 16th Century.

You can see an example of a river boat with a pintle mounted cannon in the bow at the very top, in the middle, of this map by Olaus Magnus

https://www.lib.umn.edu/apps/bell/map/OLAUS/SEC/fsect.html

These were actually centuries ahead of their time because each chamber could be pre-loaded with gunpowder, the gun fired, the chamber put back into the gun, and so on. Put some of those on a war wagon (and they did) and you have a pretty dangerous weapon not that far off from an early tank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breech-loading_swivel_gun

All this technology though pioneered by the Czechs was gradually adapted by the Germans, the Cossacks, the Poles, the Russians, and even the Turks to some extent.

All these images are from the 15th Century:

http://i41.tinypic.com/bg3cx.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Hausbuch_Wolfegg_52v_Kampfwagen.jpg/800px-Hausbuch_Wolfegg_52v_Kampfwagen.jpg

http://www.humanist.de/rome/housebook/hausbu2.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Konrad_Kyeser,_Bellifortis,_Clm_30150,_Tafel_01,_B latt_01v_(Ausschnitt).jpg/676px-Konrad_Kyeser,_Bellifortis,_Clm_30150,_Tafel_01,_B latt_01v_(Ausschnitt).jpg

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

This is a depiction from a modern video game

http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/7198/wagon4.jpg

I think the principle limitation to the spread of the technology, however, would not just be the engine, but all the other related "locomotive" technologies; rubber tyres are a huge bonus for vehicles, tracks even more so. A transmission is really important (and complicated). Even with all that technology, today in 2013, armored vehicles are pretty limited in their mobility to the extent that they are almost useless in areas like heavy forests, swamps, steep valleys, and mountains all of which were farily common in Europe (and were already posing the principle limitation to heavy cavalry). That is why they are developing creepy new technologies like military walking robots and drones.

Effectively, to be honest, I'm not sure an engine really enhances the abilities of the war wagons by an order of magnitude, even 500 years ago they are not all that far off in terms of tactical capability from a WW I era tank if you really think about it, except that they lacked an internal propulsion source, machine guns and tracks. But conversely, since the other side also lacked machine guns (and indirect fire artillery, and high explosives) the extra armor and 'horseless' mobility wasn't really needed.

There is a passage in Jan Dlugosz which describes a stand off between George of Podeibrady, the elected King of the Hussite Bohemians, and Matthias Corvinus, the very powerful warlord / King of Hungary, which sheds some light on the strengths and limitations of the war wagon:

Jan Długosz , 1470

"It now looks as if George Poděbrady is gaining the upper hand. He has equipped his troops with battle wagons and sent them against Matthias in Moravia; but, when the latter does not dare risk a pitched battle, for he has lost many men by desertion, Poděbrady withdraws his army and tries to put an end to the protracted siege. Having captured three of the bastions and supplied the hungry townspeople with provisions, he is planning to go to Trnava, but then Matthias’ army of mercenaries arrives on the scene and it looks like they are going to have to fight it out; but the two armies avoid each other: the Hungarians as they cannot attack Poděbrady because of his wagons fitted with scythes, the Czechs because they cannot pursue the Hungarians in such precipitous, awkward places. In the end Poděbrady sends to Matthias suggesting that the two of them fight"

In other words, Matthias' cavalry was sticking to the steep areas and the high ground, whrereas George of Podeibrady's tanks had control of the flat areas, so it was a stand off. Sadly

Source: Długosz, Jan (author), Michael, Maurice (translator), 1480 / 1997, The Annals of Jan Długosz IM Publications p 575

As with most things, I suspect you don't really have to introduce the internal combustion engine or the steam engine to take your quasi-medieval setting to that really intense, 'other level' of complexity and dynamism. If you look hard enough it's right there. Finding it obviously isn't very easy but we do have the internet these days, and threads like this.

G

[AgentPaper]

Mm, more excellent information. The lack of hand-held gun development especially is interesting, and something I may use as well.


As with most things, I suspect you don't really have to introduce the internal combustion engine or the steam engine to take your quasi-medieval setting to that really intense, 'other level' of complexity and dynamism. If you look hard enough it's right there. Finding it obviously isn't very easy but we do have the internet these days, and threads like this.

Well, in this case it's an RPG, and the wars happen mostly in the background. The engine is mostly a plot element to explain why the antagonist is so powerful, and to provide some drama as the other nations scramble to defend themselves. I'm willing to handwave some stuff, such as just how much innovation would be needed to create such devices (the antagonist actually stole them from someone else, to be fair), but anything that helps make it all more believable, and especially clever stuff such as tactics that can be used to counter it (everyone loves an underdog), will add to the appeal, which is why I'm here. It's less about complexity or dynamism, and more about telling a good story.

[Galloglaich]

Mm, more excellent information. The lack of hand-held gun development especially is interesting, and something I may use as well.

Not quite sure what you mean, they did have hand-held guns....?



... to provide some drama as the other nations scramble to defend themselves. I'm willing to handwave some stuff, such as just how much innovation would be needed to create such devices (the antagonist actually stole them from someone else, to be fair), but anything that helps make it all more believable, and especially clever stuff such as tactics that can be used to counter it (everyone loves an underdog), will add to the appeal, which is why I'm here.

Kind of what I was getting at; the Hussite War wagons created a near total panic among their neighbors at the time, who thought it was the end of the world. It started with the 'neighbors' (along with most of the rest of Christian Europe) launching a Crusade to crush the Hussites (and instead getting crushed in turn), but then after 5 failed Crusades, it developed into the Czechs (probably Czechs, Germans, and various others.. but anyway the Hussite heretics) realizing that their fighting system was pretty much unbeatable, and therefore going on brutal raids called "beautiful rides' (Spanilé jízdy) which involved deep penetration invasions into 7 or 8 neighboring countries, that went very far indeed (in Poland for example, they went all the way to the Baltic Sea, partly because the Polish King wanted to use them to punish the Teutonic Knights).

During these raids they sacked mulitple towns, raped, pillaged, burned, depopulated the countryside and generally wrought destruction to the Catholics all around them. The strategic goal of this however was limited, historically, and after a certain period of what you might think of as retaliation or punishment of their neighbors (for refusing to make peace with them), and an internal civil war which saw the radical Hussites defeated by the moderates, the Czechs more or less settled back down to minding their own business. Which was really their original goal.

But all you would have to do to create a fantasy RPG setting which involved something a lot like tanks, and was extremey scary, is just give your Czech Hussites a powerful, charismatic and fanatic war-leader who actually wanted to permanently destroy and / or conquer all of their neighbors. Something a bit more like the Ayatolah of Iran. Other than that you could have all the dramatic story arcs you could ever want just from the real story. Just get a book like this one

http://www.amazon.com/Hussite-Wars-1419-36-Men-at-Arms/dp/1841766658

Or to ramp up the drama a bit more, just give the technology to somebody like the Ottomans, for example. Which again wouldn't be that far off the mark since they were introducing all sorts of dangerous technological innovations to their massive and incredibly cruel invasions of Europe (they definitely put Orcs from any fantasy game, movie, computer game or genre fiction I ever heard of completely to shame in terms of how they terrorized the populations of the lands they invaded).

Or if you really want to take it to an even more intense, total apocalypse Mad Max kind of level, give your tanks to the Mongols under someone like Tamarlane, who made the Ottomans look like angels of mercy. The Mongols were the first ones who brought firearms technology to Europe (the hard way) way back in the 13th Century and like the Turks, they had a long history of bringing devastating new military technology and tactics with them in their invasions.


It's less about complexity or dynamism, and more about telling a good story.

Well, obviously I think the former is the actual source of the latter, 9 times out of 10. This was the path trod by the likes of Tolkein, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Lovecraft, Robert E Howard, Fritz Leiber etc., i.e. the people who invented the modern fantasy genre, all of whom were basically experts on ancient history and mythology.

Which is where they got the dynamism and complexity that they were able to, in turn, simplify or change in whatever way made the story work best.

By the way, when speaking of armored gunboats before, I forgot to post these awesome images, Swiss 15th Century... a little lagniappe

http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/thumbnail/198044/1/Soldiers-Armed-With-Guns-In-A-Vessel-With-Cannons,-From-The-Berner-Chronik,-By-Diebold-Schilling-The-Elder-C.1445-85-1483.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Diebold_schilling_pikemen_from_zurich.jpg

G

[AgentPaper]

That's all very nice (and the no hand guns comment was directed at the fellow above you), but it doesn't really fit the story I'm trying to tell. First off, it's a fantasy story, in an original setting, with it's own unique cultures and races and magic and gods and history. I'm sure giving war wagons to Ottomans could make for an interesting story, but it's simply not what I want to do.

Second, I want to use tanks rather than war wagons because, regardless of how effective war wagons might have been, tanks are something very well ingrained upon the modern consciousness, as being invincible, powerful, and very very cool. If war wagons were meant to be the main focus of the story, then I'm sure I could work to make them as mean and scary as to the reader as they were to 15th century Bohemians, but since it's only a part of a larger story, having the already established respect for the tank is a major boon and saves a lot of time and storytelling resources.

TL;DR: I mean, cmon, tanks. Tanks.

[Galloglaich]

That's all very nice (and the no hand guns comment was directed at the fellow above you), but it doesn't really fit the story I'm trying to tell. First off, it's a fantasy story, in an original setting, with it's own unique cultures and races and magic and gods and history. I'm sure giving war wagons to Ottomans could make for an interesting story, but it's simply not what I want to do.

You are kind of missing the point. Tolkein's Orcs... were basically the Huns from the Saga of the Volsungs. The Uruk - Hai were essentially Ottoman Janissaries or Egyptian Mameluks. In Game of Thrones, the Starks and the Lannisters are basically the Yorks and Lancasters of the War of the Roses. Etc. You change a few names, costumes, etc, simplify a bit, and you have the ingredients for your fantasy story with a lot more richness and plausible internal consistency than you would otherwise put together.



Second, I want to use tanks rather than war wagons because, regardless of how effective war wagons might have been, tanks are something very well ingrained upon the modern consciousness, as being invincible, powerful, and very very cool. If war wagons were meant to be the main focus of the story, then I'm sure I could work to make them as mean and scary as to the reader as they were to 15th century Bohemians, but since it's only a part of a larger story, having the already established respect for the tank is a major boon and saves a lot of time and storytelling resources.

TL;DR: I mean, cmon, tanks. Tanks.

Again, see the above.. you are kind of missing my point. If you are trying to fit tanks into a pre-industrial society, you can look at the war wagons to get the basic template. How they worked, how they were defeated (or not) what their limitations were and so on.

Or not, either way it's fine with me.

In terms of the end result, I already mentioned the orignal fantasy authors, but a simpler analogy I usually give is in terms of modern cartoons. You have something like "He Man \ Masters of the Universe" which was made by MATTEL to sell some action figures, puts in all the more or less typical elements of a fantasy genre (swords, castles, monsters and so on) and just sort of randomly puts them out there. Or you can have something like Johnny Quest or the Star Wars Clone Wars show, which were based on a thought out, detailed world with some level of internal consistency.

Similarly, Buggs Bunny vs. say, The Smurfs. Both were wacky cartoon shows with impossible physics and silly plots. One borrows from mythology, politics, history, and current events (of it's own day) for most of it's plot ideas, the other is pretty much just made up out of thin air.

It's up to you of course which type you think works best.

Of course for your own specific purposes, just single homebrew game or setting, it really probably doesn't matter at all either way. I'm really just putting out these resources for other folks who might want to dig a bit deeper into the kind of things that this thread is intended for (i.e. Real World Weapons and Armor) which is also what I personally find interesting. Absolutely no interest whatsoever in HE-Mans "sword", by contrast. (damn that sounds a little funny... :P

G

[AgentPaper]

Ah, sorry, I did miss your point I suppose. I thought you were suggesting using literally 15th century Poland/Czechoslovakia as my setting, rather than using it as inspiration, which is something I absolutely want to do. I also want to take inspiration from WW2 Germany, Norse legend, the Grand City of Venice, King Arthur's round table, Sengoku period Japan, the city-states of Greece, the Sultans of Arabia, Aztec and Incan temples, and many, many more that I'm either not remembering right now or haven't tapped yet.

The world and the story that takes place in it are absolutely complex and often dynamic, and while some stuff is drawn from thin air (gotta keep things interesting, after all) most of it is inspired by one source or another.

[Berenger]

Short question: In an RPG, I want to buy a heavy warhorse (called destrier in the equipment guide, as opposed to rounsey or courser - if this is important). Should this horse be a stallion, a gelding or a mare? What is the pro / con for each?

Thanks in advance...

[Telok]

There is a way to make a lower-tech version of a transmission.

A transmission is just a box with bunch of different gears to switch between to get different ratios. You can get the same effect by having a set of separate gear boxes that you manually swap out. A good design could have a system as simple as a lever to disengage the dive shaft and a gear box held in place by several bolts. Disengage the drive shaft, unscrew the bolts, lift out gear box A, insert gear box B, rebolt and engage the drive shaft.

It's not pretty but it could work to make your 'tank' idea a bit more plausable.

[Galloglaich]

There is a way to make a lower-tech version of a transmission.

A transmission is just a box with bunch of different gears to switch between to get different ratios. You can get the same effect by having a set of separate gear boxes that you manually swap out. A good design could have a system as simple as a lever to disengage the dive shaft and a gear box held in place by several bolts. Disengage the drive shaft, unscrew the bolts, lift out gear box A, insert gear box B, rebolt and engage the drive shaft.

It's not pretty but it could work to make your 'tank' idea a bit more plausable.

Yeah, true good point. It's not out of the reach of technology from the era, as they knew about gears and so on, they had all kinds of machines powered by water wheels and wind mills. Not to mention huge clocks, automata 'robots' and so on. The issue is more that there is a whole cluster of technologies which would have to be created to make an actual useful, functional tank. I mean they understood the idea of steam engines going back to the 16th Century, but it was centuries of development before they had something which could haul freight down a train track (late 18th Century) or propell a boat through the water (early 19th), another few decades after that (circa 1850) before they had something which could move over a farmers field (i.e. a tractor), and another fifty years after that (1890's) before they had a vehicle which could propell itself down a cobblestone street.

Petroleum based engines are a whole 'nother cluster of technologies. First you have to have a drilling industry that can pull fuel oil out of the ground (or at least, mine bitumen from where it collects on the surface) then you have to work out how to refine that into something you could use for fuel. This is again... something they knew about pretty far back (9th Century) but to do it on a large scale...

All that to get you to something like a World War I tank (which I think actually did have a transmission something like what you described, or at least equally crude). Then from there it's a rather mind boggling series of technological leaps just to get to your entry level WW II tank, circa 1934

http://worldwartwozone.com/gallery.old/500/medium/Panzer_1.png

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee274/Bodston/19Hus.jpg




...to the state of the art (of what they actually needed) 10 years later in 1944

http://www.badassoftheweek.com/panther-ausfg1.jpg

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/tanks-heavy/is-2-heavy-tank/is-2-heavy-tank-04.png


G

[Galloglaich]

Continuing the thought experiment, lets say you had everything you needed to make a 1935 era tank (with machine guns) in say, 1450. A Pz 1 would be a pretty amazing super weapon... for a little while at least. But on the other hand, even in 1450, they already had the technology to make an IED, bury it on the side of the road, and blow it up when the enemy convoy is coming by, just like the Taliban does today... They already had something like molatov cocktails. So maybe it wouldn't be so invincible after all.

G

[bobthehero]

Can you half-sword effectively with an arming sword?

[Deffers]

So, guys... I was reading about how they make swords in Japan. One thing I really noticed, and was intrigued about, was how they had hard steel for the blade, with soft steel behind it (and maybe medium-hardness steel in some spots if you were being fancy adequate).

As I recall, this is to reinforce and support the edge, because it's so brittle. Now, I don't exactly know much about the precise mechanisms behind how this works, but I was thinking-- could this principle be used outside of steelworking? Like, say you decided to go crazy and made a blade out of tungsten carbide or some other ceramic. Could you support this knife edge with some sorta softer material? If so, how? How far could you go with this? Could you do it with, say, obsidian (though that'd still lose its edge)?

[Storm Bringer]

So, guys... I was reading about how they make swords in Japan. One thing I really noticed, and was intrigued about, was how they had hard steel for the blade, with soft steel behind it (and maybe medium-hardness steel in some spots if you were being fancy adequate).

As I recall, this is to reinforce and support the edge, because it's so brittle. Now, I don't exactly know much about the precise mechanisms behind how this works, but I was thinking-- could this principle be used outside of steelworking? Like, say you decided to go crazy and made a blade out of tungsten carbide or some other ceramic. Could you support this knife edge with some sorta softer material? If so, how? How far could you go with this? Could you do it with, say, obsidian (though that'd still lose its edge)?

err. very short answer, yes, you can, thier are such things a ceramic knives in real life, thought i doubt they make good combat weapons.


(note: european swords also used the "hard edge/softer center" construction method, its not exclusive to the japs. nor is the "folding the steel"/Pattern welding" thing they did)

[Spiryt]

Short question: In an RPG, I want to buy a heavy warhorse (called destrier in the equipment guide, as opposed to rounsey or courser - if this is important). Should this horse be a stallion, a gelding or a mare? What is the pro / con for each?

Thanks in advance...

I'm pretty sure destriers would be stallions in most cases.

They were very expensive breeds, used for very demanding 'athletic' tasks, so high level of testosterone and it's derivative steroids would be needed.

My knowledge about horses is generally limited to 'don't approach them from behind' though.


Can you half-sword effectively with an arming sword?

Can't see why not. Would be usually awkward, I guess, with short lenght, and all, but very plausible.

[Xuc Xac]

Petroleum based engines are a whole 'nother cluster of technologies. First you have to have a drilling industry that can pull fuel oil out of the ground (or at least, mine bitumen from where it collects on the surface) then you have to work out how to refine that into something you could use for fuel.


No, you don't. Before Prohibition, cars in America ran on ethanol. They switched to gasoline when ethanol production was banned.

[warty goblin]

So, guys... I was reading about how they make swords in Japan. One thing I really noticed, and was intrigued about, was how they had hard steel for the blade, with soft steel behind it (and maybe medium-hardness steel in some spots if you were being fancy adequate).

As I recall, this is to reinforce and support the edge, because it's so brittle. Now, I don't exactly know much about the precise mechanisms behind how this works, but I was thinking-- could this principle be used outside of steelworking? Like, say you decided to go crazy and made a blade out of tungsten carbide or some other ceramic. Could you support this knife edge with some sorta softer material? If so, how? How far could you go with this? Could you do it with, say, obsidian (though that'd still lose its edge)?
The Aztecs fought with a large paddle-shaped wooden sword (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macuahuitl), with obsidian blades set into the edge. If you poke around you can find some videos of dubious quality (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBa1G12KyTM) showing test cuts with the thing. (Just skip the first couple minutes to get past the weird rap part).

The interesting bit of that video is the exchange of blows between the steel and wooden/stone weapon. The European sword is completely undamaged, while the Macuahuitl is pretty much destroyed.


err. very short answer, yes, you can, thier are such things a ceramic knives in real life, thought i doubt they make good combat weapons.

Ceramic knives are a thing, and they can be crazy sharp. They're also crazy brittle. Back when I worked in restaurants, I knew a guy who broke a chip about an inch deep and half that wide out of the blade of a ceramic chef's knife. All he did was chop the edge into a cutting board and twist the blade a little bit.

I suspect the degree of brittleness you get in ceramics of sufficient hardness to take an edge is just so great putting a soft back on it doesn't help all that much. Even hard and brittle steel still has some flexibility to it; it can deform and carry the energy through to the soft core. At least with the ceramic knives I've seen (and this is not a large number mind) there just isn't that flexibility.

Which is why I still use steel in my kitchen. I never have to worry that my cleaver will shatter when I whack open a squash.

[Deffers]

Well, I did know about those ceramic knives, though as far as I understand that doesn't use variable hardness, or more than one material, in any way.

And, yunno, for some reason, I never figured that the paddle-sword thingy counted. I guess it does! But from the looks of it, it doesn't seem to be enough to keep the obsidian shards from breaking. Huh. Would using a material other than wood allow it to be more effective?

[Zovc]

I want to say I've seen combat/hunting knives made with especially sharp, (maybe not ceramic), edges and carbon fiber 'bodies' for the blades.

I'll see if I can find some images of what I'm talking about. I could be wrong about its construction.

Edit: most of the pictures I'm seeing are knives made of steel with black finishes on the 'bodies' of the blades. I'm fairly certain I've seen a knife like I was describing in person, but it was a very long time ago. Its 'body' was made of something more grainy and brittle-looking that steel.

This is a picture of a steel knife, though, whose edge is not blackened for whatever reason.
http://www.knife-planet.com/ka-bar-knives/ka-bar-1273-kbd1-combat-knife-2.jpg

[warty goblin]

Well, I did know about those ceramic knives, though as far as I understand that doesn't use variable hardness, or more than one material, in any way.

To the best of my knowledge, they don't. On the other hand nobody's trying to design them for combat or other high-stress applications, and I have no idea if such a thing is possible. (Note that ceramic knives always say to avoid cutting frozen food or meat with bones in it. Most people contain bones.)


And, yunno, for some reason, I never figured that the paddle-sword thingy counted. I guess it does! But from the looks of it, it doesn't seem to be enough to keep the obsidian shards from breaking. Huh. Would using a material other than wood allow it to be more effective?
I don't think the point of the wooden portion of the macuahuitl is to keep the obsidian from breaking, but to provide a way to mount the blades. After all if you don't have to contend with metallic armor or weapons, and avoid hammering your weapon into your adversary's, the blades aren't going to break that rapidly. And they seem to have been double edged, so losing the blades on one side wouldn't cripple the weapon.

More fundamentally though, I doubt what the blades are mounted on will make that much difference to how well they survived impact with hard materials. Obsidian is glass, and glass tends to fail catastrophically and very, very rapidly. See for instance bullets hitting glass at a million frames per second (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QfDoQwIAaXg#t=269s), and note how fast the glass cracks apart.

(You should totally watch the whole video, it's quite amazing.)

My guess is it doesn't matter what you mount the obsidian in, because by the time the backing medium can start to flex, the blades will already have shattered. Even when its fairly brittle, steel still has some give to it, and can therefore transmit the shock into the softer spine before it fails horribly. Glass, at least any glass I know of, will just break too fast.

[Deffers]

Hrm. I wonder if a material that's less brittle, but still harder than steel could work, though?

Mostly, I'm just trying to think of what, if anything, would make for a better sword than wootz steel in terms of both sharpness and durability, even if you have to get exotic about it. But, yeah, I think I remember something about the failure methods of extremely brittle materials, so you might be right about the "it already shattered" thing.

[warty goblin]

Hrm. I wonder if a material that's less brittle, but still harder than steel could work, though?

Mostly, I'm just trying to think of what, if anything, would make for a better sword than wootz steel in terms of both sharpness and durability, even if you have to get exotic about it. But, yeah, I think I remember something about the failure methods of extremely brittle materials, so you might be right about the "it already shattered" thing.

I think this topic has come up before, and the general consensus is that getting a harder, sharper edge doesn't make that much of a difference. You still won't be able to slice through metallic armor - baring outright magical weaponry - any better than what you can do with a steel weapon. Against unarmored enemies, the extra edge doesn't really matter all that much, because a blow from a sword designed to cut will already cause massive trauma.


If you want gradations of weapons with some degree of realism, I suggest having much harsher penalties for poorer quality weapons, and larger bonuses for those of higher quality. The difference between a weapon of good steel, and a blade of low quality wrought iron should be way more than the measly +1 attack D&D gives for Masterwork. A warrior can have faith in the first, the second could fail in any number of unfortunate and unpleasant ways. You can also make higher quality weapons rare, and expensive. This is a fun little documentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXbLyVpWsVM) that, although of slightly dubious accuracy, nevertheless is delightfully flavorful. A blade forged by a master smith from a metal brought halfway across the known world? What warrior wouldn't want one?

[Galloglaich]

They did something like tempering as well as differential hardening with Bronze swords back in the Qin dynasty era in China (2000+ years ago), and from what I understand it's been done with glass, plastic and some carbon fiber materials in modern times. I think however as the others mentioned, the really unique quality about steel (and some bronze alloys too) is that you get that springiness. Hard to find that in a lot of other materials.

G

[Deffers]

Hrm. So basically, what you're saying is that the best blades for combat are, for the forseeable future, going to be made of steel? With stuff added in, of course, but basically steel at the end of the day, yes?

So then, the only real way to get a "better" sword beyond, say, Wootz steel is to have it be exquisitely crafted and maintained?

[warty goblin]

They did something like tempering as well as differential hardening with Bronze swords back in the Qin dynasty era in China (2000+ years ago), and from what I understand it's been done with glass, plastic and some carbon fiber materials in modern times. I think however as the others mentioned, the really unique quality about steel (and some bronze alloys too) is that you get that springiness. Hard to find that in a lot of other materials.

G
Bronze has the neat property that, as a non-ferrous metal, it work-hardens very easily. My understanding is that in the European bronze age, weapons were deferentially hardened by hammering the edges using precision guides of some kind to produce a very thin, very hard sort of wafer. This could take a good edge, but leave the body of the sword fairly springy.


Hrm. So basically, what you're saying is that the best blades for combat are, for the forseeable future, going to be made of steel? With stuff added in, of course, but basically steel at the end of the day, yes?

So then, the only real way to get a "better" sword beyond, say, Wootz steel is to have it be exquisitely crafted and maintained?
For the most part, probably yes. But the advantage of a well made weapon is substantial. Swords are tools, and having a high quality tool makes an enormous difference in its usability. Particularly when failure to function properly means you die.

[Galloglaich]

Steel is a rather amazing substance.

Modern technology gives us some new alloys which have some extraordinary properties (tungsten, vanadium, molybenum, irridium, tantalum and so on) ... interestingly wootz apparently had vanadium and some others in it, and modern steel has very nice homogenius properties.

But the ancient techniques for creating swords are very hard to emulate to the same level of quality let alone surpass; in fact I don't think anyone has been able to surpass them yet and only a small handful can emulate the pre-industrial swordmaking techniques in either Europe or Japan, (or the Middle East or South Asia).

So if you got someone like Petter Johnsson and gave him a ton of money and convinced him to try to make swords with some kind of super alloy and tasked him to make some 'super swords', maybe he could. Angus Trim has been trying to do this for a long time, but it's arguable if he succeeded in improving upon what was around before (I don't think he has but some people would disagree with me)

G

[Fortinbras]

Couple of questions about medieval infantry.

1. How much of a problem did infantry have with spears getting stuck in their opponents. I know that bayonets getting stuck was enough of a problem that soldiers and Marines were trained to fire their rifles to help dislodge them. A rifle is fairly short and gripped with both hands, unlike most infantry spears in Middle Ages.

2. When did billmen and halberdiers really supplant spear-and-shield infantry? Did these men abandon shields in favor of two-handed weapons because they themselves were well armored enough to make a shield redundant or simply because the were facing men-at-arms who were to well armored to injure with a single-handed spear.

3. Finally, when would you say the real "hay-day" of the sword as an infantry weapon was? When did it get the most battlefield use by medieval infantry?

[warty goblin]

So if you got someone like Petter Johnsson and gave him a ton of money and convinced him to try to make swords with some kind of super alloy and tasked him to make some 'super swords', maybe he could. Angus Trim has been trying to do this for a long time, but it's arguable if he succeeded in improving upon what was around before (I don't think he has but some people would disagree with me)

G

I'd be skeptical about modern swordsmiths making substantial improvements over their ancient predecessors, simply because people aren't routinely killing each other with swords anymore. Without that, any new design can't really be reasonably tested; nor can the maker observe what worked.

[Galloglaich]

Couple of questions about medieval infantry.

1. How much of a problem did infantry have with spears getting stuck in their opponents. I know that bayonets getting stuck was enough of a problem that soldiers and Marines were trained to fire their rifles to help dislodge them. A rifle is fairly short and gripped with both hands, unlike most infantry spears in Middle Ages.

It's a pretty good question. I'm not sure about how it was dealt with in all eras but in a late Migration era to Medieval context, spears often had crossbars, like the type you see on a boars -spear and somewhat for the same reason. But in general, I think spears getting stuck in opponents is just one of the many reasons why the sword was so important.

Lances, similarly, often have tassels on them or little clumps of feathers or fur just under the stabbing point; this is mainly to prevent blood running down the lance but also I think the help make shallower thrusts that you can pull back out again.



2. When did billmen and halberdiers really supplant spear-and-shield infantry? Did these men abandon shields in favor of two-handed weapons because they themselves were well armored enough to make a shield redundant or simply because the were facing men-at-arms who were to well armored to injure with a single-handed spear.

The halberd, in an early version, was invented sometime around the late 13th Century, though some similar weapons as well as 'hewing spears' are mentioned in the Icelandic sagas and show up in the archeological record before that.

There does seems to be a decline in use of shields, particularly by infantry, around that same time. Nobody is certain why. Armor was getting better. My personal theory is that it had to do with the more powerful long-range missile weapons such as longbows, crossbows, and firearms which were becomming much more common by that time. Early medieval (and earlier) shields were, with a few exceptions like the Hoplite shield, of quite light construction and I don't think sufficient to deal with something like a longbow, IMO. My 175 lb hunting crossbow will shoot a bolt all the way through a 1/2" plywood shield and it's not even nearly as powerful as say, a Mongol recurve.

But all that said, neither spears nor shields ever really went away. You still see both in period art all the way through the medieval era. Their composition and shape changed, but they were definietely still around, especially during sieges. Matt Easton at Schola Gladiatoria collected dozens of paintings which prove this point. By the late medieval era a smaller version of the pavise appeared which started to become very common again, especially among infantry. It was derived from what was originally a Lithuanian design, and you see lots of them in period art in the 15th and 16th Centuries ... like the ones these guys are carrying in the Triumph of Maximillian below.

http://www.therionarms.com/reenact/com339j.jpg

or these Turks

http://bp3.blogger.com/_qTDAEasFLtU/RcdNfmRUumI/AAAAAAAAA28/GGp_XPApeRc/s400/Burgkmair,+Hans,+the+elder+1493+-+1531++Gefecht+(Hungarian+Men)++39+from+series+The +Triumph+of+Maximillian+luna.bucknell.edu.jpg

You tend to see a lot more smaller metal bucklers in the 13th-15th century, but by the end of that period you also see the larger steel shields, rotella et al, which seem to derived from some bullet proof Ottoman roundshields.

Spear and shield as such is not something you see all that much in the art, let alone the fencing manuals, though we know it was practiced of course. Some of the best examples are in Greek art, on vases and so on.



3. Finally, when would you say the real "hay-day" of the sword as an infantry weapon was? When did it get the most battlefield use by medieval infantry?

Swords were sidearms, through most of history. The only real exception I can think of off-hand are the really big 'true' two handed swords (zweihander et al) of the 16th century, or the cavalry swords and sabers used by some troops in the 18th and 19th.

But the sword was always a really valuable and crucial battlefield sidearm and as such, probably saw several peaks of use, among the Romans and their Gallic and Germanic opponents, and in the medieval era well into the Early - Modern period are just two examples.

The sword was also a very important personal protection sidearm in several eras; Edo Japan of course with the katana. In Ming Dynasty China the Gim or Jian sword was the symbol of a scholar. But also Baroque Europe, and late Medieval Europe just to name a few. The sword was the symbol of a knight's status, along with his belt and spurs. In the free towns of late Medieval into Early Modern Germany the sword was such an important symbol of civic virtue you could actually be arrrested for not owning one. In Switzerland you had to bring a sword to vote, in some Cantons this continued well into the 20th Cenutry. The importance of swords to students in Germany continued into the infamous mensur era which continues today. And so on.

In Spain and Italy, and later France, the rapier became the symbol of the right of self-defense for the aristocracy and the patrician classes during the Early Modern era, by the 18th Century, carrying a sword (usually a smallsword) was restricted to the nobility in most of Europe (except a few of those German towns) among whom it remained a crucial symbol of authority and rank. In all those cases, carrying a sword was associated with a culture of dueling of course, with everything good and bad that went with that.

G

[Spiryt]

I would say that the decline of shield among infantry indeed would have much to do with missile weapons, but in quite different way - simply, infantry would have more and more missile character.

Particularly communal militia would eagerly consist of bands of crossbowmen.

In 15th century Poland and Baltic, infantry 'squads' would tend to generally consists in like 75% of shooters, with some pavise and pikemen to shield them.


My 175 lb hunting crossbow will shoot a bolt all the way through a 1/2" plywood shield and it's not even nearly as powerful as say, a Mongol recurve

Well, what kind of plywood, and based on what shield?

I once put a carpenters hammer trough quite solid plywood with a throw. :smallbiggrin:

This is obviously very exaggerated example, but it really usually makes all the difference in the world. Sadly, shields tend to be relatively un-researched, because they anyway are 'expendable' in all kinds of reenacting activities.

Anyway, wooden shields I've seen seem perfectly able against arrow/spear heads.

http://dagomearcheo.blogspot.com/2009/03/crashtesty-tarcz-czesc2-ta-wasciwa.html

Apparently, missiles penetrated places that were previously destroyed by blunt axes and stuff, otherwise they were generally letting only head trough.

[Galloglaich]

This was definitely a cheap, unhistorical low quality replica, Indian made, just commercial plywood with some linen on top, but it was quite thick, at least 15mm which is a lot thicker than most period types that have been found, and ... to my surprise (and annoyance, since it ruined the bolts) the bolts when all the way through the whole damn thing, and through some 3/4" press board under that and through some pine-straw 'hay bales' behind that.

Later it still penetrated the same "shield" about 5" or 6" with 3mm leather on top, and with an oven mitt on top of the leather, and even with some (cheap, low quality) indian riveted mail I had on top of all that. It also put a pretty good hole in some 16 guage mild steel plate but it didn't go all the way through.

I'll post some photos later when I can figure out how to get the images off my new phone.

Anyway I just mentioned it because it was a bit surprising to me how good the pentration from the crossbow was (from about 20 meters, using very cheap target arrows), and how inadequate the (admittedly substandard) shield seemed to be as protection. I would love to test it with some limewood if I had any but it aint easy to come by around here.

Nice video with the seax grab, just like the sagas :)

G

[Galloglaich]

That said I would be honestly AMAZED if you could find an accurate replica of say, a Viking shield, or a Roman scutum, which would hold up against a 120 lb longbow, a 1000 crossbow, or a 110 lb composite recurve at that same distance, let alone a handgonne.

G

[rrgg]

Generally the shield isn't just wood though. A layer of thick rawhide can add a pretty surprising amount of protection.

I don't really buy into the "missiles got too powerful" theory, partly because I doubt that the kind of power produced by a powerful crossbow or longbow would be something completely unheard of, even during the dark ages. A hefty spear, for example, thrown by strong individual might achieve up to 200-300 joules of KE. And vikings really did love throwing spears.

[Galloglaich]

Granted, but in my little (totally nonscientific) experiment, about 3/8" of leather did absolutely nothing to help as far as I could tell.

http://www.codexmartialis.com/download/file.php?id=77

Here you can see the arrow (it's really an arrow not a bolt) which went through the mail, an oven mitt, and the leather, it also went about 4" through the shield on this shot. You can also see the holes from the other shots and another arrow which went into the leather and through the shield about 10", (it was too stuck for us to pull out).

Regarding the mail, it wasn't really a good test since the arrows were narrow enough to fit inside the rings, I only ever broke one ring. But I don't think that mail would have held up.

This is the crossbow I was using and the cheap aluminum arrows.


http://www.codexmartialis.com/download/file.php?id=78

G

[Fortinbras]

Swords were sidearms, through most of history. The only real exception I can think of off-hand are the really big 'true' two handed swords (zweihander et al) of the 16th century, or the cavalry swords and sabers used by some troops in the 18th and 19th.
G

I guess what I meant was that there is a lot of talk about a decline in the use of swords as a knightly side-arm in favor of maces and hammers and similar weapons. Vikings also seem to have not made a whole lot of use of swords, due to cost. I was wondering at what point in the evolution of the medieval infantryman would the sword have had the greatest importance as part of his kit (in addition to an two-handed axe or polearm of some kind, of course.)

[warty goblin]

I'd be surprised if lime did much better than plywood. At least the American varieties of Basswood are very, very soft. The real appeal of the stuff is that it is fairly light and does not tend to break along the grain , so you really do have to cut it. But plywood doesn't split particularly readily either - even the cheap crap - and is probably made out of a harder wood. It's difficult to find stuff significantly softer than Basswood.

What probably would make more of a difference is really fixing the covering down onto the wood. I suspect the sort of leather used also makes a lot of difference. Rawhide for instance can be very hard; to the point of being brittle, so long as you keep it dry.

[rrgg]

I guess what I meant was that there is a lot of talk about a decline in the use of swords as a knightly side-arm in favor of maces and hammers and similar weapons. Vikings also seem to have not made a whole lot of use of swords, due to cost. I was wondering at what point in the evolution of the medieval infantryman would the sword have had the greatest importance as part of his kit (in addition to an two-handed axe or polearm of some kind, of course.)
Hey, a chance to link to a lindybeige video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boEWMlWuzuI

Swords seem to have been pretty popular throughout history. I guess at least until the final decline of cavalry in the 1800s. At the very least a wealthy man would probably want a sword and be familiar with its use for personal defense when not on the battlefield.
The vikings in particular seem to be known for trying carry as many weapons as they could into battle. So if you were poor then you might only have an axe, but if you could afford it you might be hauling around your axe, your sword, your dagger, a shield, a spear, more spears, etc.

[Galloglaich]

You got to remember, the Viking era lasts a pretty long time, in the early Viking era (circa 800 AD) you see probably a lot more axes as sidearms, and also very little body armor, by around 900 AD the Vikings are richer, due in part to Danegeld and a lot of plundering as well as expanded trade, and iron in general and swords in particular have gotten cheaper mainly due to Frankish manufacturing, so both swords and armor are a lot more common. I don't think a sword was that rare in a Viking army circa 1066.

Swords similarly seem to retain a lot of importance all through the medieval period. If you look at knightly effigies they almost all have a sword, right on through the 16th Century. Swords show up in period artwork and in just about every county or parish muster list, feudal code of arms for vassals to bring, militia rosters and so forth.

As I mentioned upthread, the sword at the same time became a symbol of personal honor - which extended to the fact that getting in a swordfight in Central Europe anyway, was something you could get away with sometimes so long as it was conducted in an honorable fashion - in some cases you could actually get in less trouble for killing someone with a sword than for injuring them by say breaking a beer mug over their head or stabbing them with a knitting needle.

Knightly prisoners would even sometimes be allowed to retain their swords while captured, which seems crazy by today's standards.

I think the sword remained a really important sidearm all through this period, even though it's efficacy against fully armored opponents was clearly limited. Hammers, maces, axes and various other weapons also clearly increased in popularity during the heyday of armor, (very roughly 1400-1520) and other weapons (lances, two handed poll hammers, poll axes and so on) were always the primary weapon for knights, just as (halberds, morgensterns, pikes, flails) were for infantry, but in both cases the sword never even went close to going away on the battlefield as far as I can tell.

There is a pretty good thread here where you can see a ton of period artwork depicting longswords in particular still in use and being carried as sidearms on the battlefield all the way into the 17th Century

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

by that time (17th C) the saber (for cavalry) and the rapier were in ascendance which had as much to do with social / political changes as anything else, but a saber or a rapier is still a sword, and it still obviously had an important role.

G

[Galloglaich]

Basically I think the sword continued to be really important for anybody above the status of cannon fodder until the primary weapon became a multi-use, high kill probablity / low failure rate weapon (i.e. rifle or carbine with cartridges) and the sidearm also became equally effective and reliable (revolver)

G

[Fortinbras]

In terms of organization and training, how were High Medieval Scandinavian armies different from German armies of the same period. The Osprey books seem to imply that German armies were more "knight-heavy" while the Scandinavians relied more on militias made up of wealthy, well trained peasants who fought as infantry.

That said, I know that German peasant communities had a very strong tradition of self-defense and often fielded well-equipped militias. At the same time, Scandinavians had a proud, professional (to the extent that anybody was a professional soldier in the middle ages) warrior tradition going back to Viking huskarls.

[Brother Oni]

Whoops, page 50.

New thread time (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15188540#post15188540).