Index Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. XIV [Archive] - Page 2

Brother Oni

2014-02-08, 08:15 AM

You're right. Let's say a claymore that used to have a smooth edge, but now:
a) has enough notches and can now be used to saw wood with.
b) the blade is somehow bent.
c) the blade is broken

What other types of damage are there?

First question, the medieval two handed claymore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claymore) or the later basket hilted claymore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_broadsword#Scottish_broadsword)? :smalltongue:

With regard to the repair work, assuming each case is individual:

A)Resharpening a sword was standard work, although in Japan and other places where laminated steel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laminated_steel_blade) was typically used for swords, it could be quite tricky and specialised work (you needed to remove the notches and damage without removing too much of the hardened steel).

B)A bent blade is likely to be made out of very low carbon steel, if not iron, since a too acute bend would just snap the blade instead. Slight bends and softer blades would be fairly easy to hammer out.

C)Rhynn and I have covered the reforging of a snapped blade by different methods and his point of different blade characteristics at the break point is the critical part.
With modern spot welding, I believe the properties at the reweld spot is uniform? In comparison, swords can have different characteristics along the length and width of the blade, laminated steel being an extreme version.

Any part of the sword can be damaged (hilt, quillions, pommel, etc) with varying effects depending on the sword. In some swords, the pommel is important for blade balance, so losing that will significantly affect handling, while losing a quillion may barely affect performance.

What is a tang snapping more of a problem than the blade snapping and how does one snap what's inside his hand without loosing the said hand?

The tang is where the main force from the user is transmitted into the blade, so that being damaged will affect the use of the sword. If the blade snaps, you typically still have a bit of the blade left to defend yourself - if the tang snaps the entire blade can fall off the hilt.
This is far more common with partial tangs than full tangs.

I've seen the tang of sword snap before and it's usually a combination of factors, like wear and tear or external conditions (eg moisture from the user's hand getting through the hilt and corroding the tang) combined with a hard impact being transmitted up the blade (a deflection or a parry for example).

As the tang is within the hilt of the sword, the hilt can protect the hand from damage:

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r169/Rigby1962/RangerSword-tangUC.jpg

Some swords have holes in the tang so it can be cross bolted to the hilt:

http://www.sword-buyers-guide.com/images/Torakami-8.jpg

In both cases, you can see that if the tang snaps beyond the last point where it's secured to the hilt, it can simply fall off.

Rhynn is right though, generally swords were replaced if damaged, unless it was of significant emotional importance to the owner (the family blade for example).

Kaww

2014-02-08, 08:31 AM

I had the Medieval one in mind, Scottish origin I believe.

What about axes and maces? Can a sword be improved by reparation (can it ever be better than the day it was made)?

Thanks for the answer and I hope you don't mind the new questions.

P.S. I'm pretty sure that a weld needs to be stronger than the surrounding material. The machine materials 102 were years ago, but I'm fairly certain about this.

Brother Oni

2014-02-08, 08:52 AM

I had the Medieval one in mind, Scottish origin I believe.

Both types of claymore were Scottish. :smalltongue:

What about axes and maces?

Axes and maces both consist of a metal head on top of a wooden haft. If the haft was damaged, it was replaced - I've never heard of a case where an axe or mace head was significantly damaged enough to require reforging and given the comparatively small amount of metal required, I presume they would be typically replaced instead.

Can a sword be improved by reparation (can it ever be better than the day it was made)?

Maybe.

If the sword is poorly made and unbalanced then by shaving and reshaping the blade, you can fix any existing defects but whether you could 'improve' a perfectly fine sword is subjective and dependent on the wielder's personal preferences.

There's a nice clip from The Thirteenth Warrior where the protagonist is unused to the heavier viking swords and gets one re-forged more to his tastes: link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5ECzAm8vCh4#t=36).
Note that the original sword would have to be of uniform steel throughout - doing that to a laminated steel sword would screw it up significantly.

P.S. I'm pretty sure that a weld needs to be stronger than the surrounding material. The machine materials 102 were years ago, but I'm fairly certain about this.

It doesn't really matter whether it's stronger or weaker, the fact remains that it's different to the non-welded material and may potentially screw up the sword.

endoperez

2014-02-08, 09:26 AM

Broken swords, or swords of types that fell out of fashion, could also be reforged or reworked into daggers or short swords. I believe the Japanese especially have several examples of this. Katanas are shorter than the swords they replaced, and a katana might end up becoming a tanto, or so I've read.

Galloglaich

2014-02-08, 11:28 AM

Well it depends a lot. A spear or axe with a broken haft? Sure you can fix that pretty easily, and it wouldn't be hard to make it as good before, or perhaps even better.

A snapped sword blade? Not as easy... it could be reforged into a smaller weapon though.... or with a lot of work, made back into steel bars and forged into a completely new weapon.

The Scotts famously made backswords out of their claymores when they got too notched up. Then when those got too messed up they made dirks out of them. And when they were past their prime they made skein dubh's out of those. Don't throw away a lot of stuff in Scotland..

G

Galloglaich

2014-02-08, 12:37 PM

In other areas, like Italy where you had city states, expansion wasn't limited by an external ruler, and often you find concentric rings of walls.

Excellent post Fusilier.

This was actually also the same pattern in the Holy Roman Empire, Sweden, Poland, Bohemia, Hungary etc., and the towns had similar maps and growth patterns. They also planned ahead the same way and they also often had open spaces inside the town, often used for agriculture. Danzig had an area called the "long gardens" for example.

If I gave the impression that most towns in Central or Northern Europe were constrained by an external ruler, it should be corrected. Some of them, like Krakow which was a Royal Capitol, were to some extent. Or Cologne, which had forcibly evicted it's Archbishop in the 14th Century, but was surrounded by what was at least nominally his territory (the Archbishopric of Cologne) for generations. But Cologne was militarily stronger than the Archbishop unless he enlisted the support of the other princes so their activities were not restrained, and Cologne expanded it's urban territory as much as it wanted, in fact it was the largest city in the Holy Roman Empire.

Others however had total control of the regions around them including vast rural territories extending sometimes hundreds of miles and encompassing hundreds or even thousands of villages and rural estates. Even relatively small towns, for example Ulm, could control vast areas of land. Lubeck and Hamburg controlled a large zone around their two cities, which included many other smaller cities essentially as subjects. Together with Luneburg they formed the epicenter of the much larger (and looser) Hanseatic League. Cities frequently formed permanent leagues of this type, for example the Lusatian League (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusatian_League), the Pentapolitana (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentapolitana), the Prussian Confederation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Confederation), the Decapole (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9capole) etc.

In some places the towns treated their subjects (the peasants) harshly, notably the Germans in Estonia and Transylvania. The Saxons in Transylvania are an interesting case (and a really cool potential setting for an RPG or computer game) regarding the earlier subject of urban warfare. They were said by some to be part of Tolkein's for his dour and stern dwarves. They were tough mining communities in the hills in Romania near very dangerous borders. In the 13th Century they managed to weather the storm of the Mongol invasion (with a lot of casualties) and resolved to build more heavily fortified towns.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4d/SaxonCitadelCincsor.JPG/640px-SaxonCitadelCincsor.JPG
They created the Septem Castra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transylvanian_saxons#Fortification_of_the_towns), the "Seven Citadels" of heavily fortified towns capable of withstanding the Turks, Tartars and others. The region became a stronghold of Christian civilization amidst the Turkish invasion. They were somewhat cruel themselves though, and repressed the local Wlach peasants. They formed a military alliance in the 15th Century with the Transylvanian nobles and the warlike Szeklers* (local nomadic horse warriors) called the Unio Trium Nationum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unio_Trium_Nationum)

If you ever wondered why Dracula movies seem to be an odd combination of German and Slavic traditions, this is why.

The more common pattern though was as Berenger mentioned regarding the pfahlbürger, towns often extended limited citizenship to some or all the rural population, allowing them to trade in the towns markets, use the towns mills, and conferring legal protection from the courts of the gentry and the Church. Often this was associated with 'cottage industries' in which the towns guilds would set up subcontracting work in the villages and they also brought in villagers as apprentices since the towns had lower birth-rates than the countryside.

The same thing occurred in central to Northern Italy with the Lombard League, and it wasn't unusual at one point for the Italian towns to force out their nobility and free all the serfs and slaves- Bologna is the classic example of this in the later 13th Century. But in Italy the towns started fighting with each other quite a bit in the 14th Century (as the old Guleph vs. Ghibelline - Emperor vs. Pope- feuds hardened into permanent vendettas, and the towns and eventually began enlisting powerful foreign rulers as their allies in internecine wars over economic interests. Eventually of course Italy was overrun by the French, the German emperor, and ultimately the Spanish. By the late 16th Century most Italian towns had been taken over by mercenary captains (signore) and / or foreign rulers, or the Pope. Venice stands out as one of the few which remained not only independent, but extremely powerful and assertive.

In Flanders, the other great industrial / technological center, their cities were huge, independent and rivaled the Italians in sophistication, but they were in a tensely balanced rivalry with their "frenemies", the powerful Dukes of Burgundy, and they fell under foreign domination after the last Duke (Charles the Bold) got himself killed fighting the Swiss (trying unsuccessfully to conquer a bunch of cities in the Rhineland) and lower Flanders came under the domination of the Holy Roman Empire, notably the Spanish side of the family which didn't mix well and amidst the religious wars, the epicenter of culture and technology moved north to Holland.

Regardless, a typical late medieval (14th-16th Century) city would consist of several municipalities, most large towns in Central or Northern Europe had 4 or 5 municipalities. Obviously they would be linked in close military and trade alliances though there could sometimes be tension. Most grew in precisely the same way that Fusilier described and the maps look much the same.

http://www.diercke.de/bilder/omeda/501/100790_010_2.jpg
This is medieval Strasbourg for example. Strasbourg is, incidentally, another very well preserved (http://www.escargotholiday.com/france-travel-blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/strasbourg-petite-france.jpg) medieval town.

G

* you would never know it to listen to him due to his self loathing, self-flagellating humor, but the amusing comedian Louis CK is a descendant of these fierce people ,the Szekelys (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szeklers), whose name he apparently considers unpronounceable to Americans hence the acronym for a name.

Spiryt

2014-02-08, 01:39 PM

You guys seem to be talking specifically about defensive structures and the richer parts of town, such as government buildings and residences, town squares, and so n. The kind of medieval street that I'm talking about is something like The Shambles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shambles), where the streets are very narrow, the buildings overhand the street, and the buildings are made of wood. My impression is that this was by far the more common street in any kind of large medieval town such as London, whereas the large plazas, fortified structures, and so on that you describe would be the exception.

If you look at just the medieval buildings that have survived to the present day, then yeah you're going to see a ton of large stone buildings with not a lot around them, because that's the kind of building that lasts 500 years, whereas the small wood house tends to get torn down eventually because nobody cares as much about "Town Residence #4953" as they do about something significant like a guild house or church.

But you keep giving us excellent examples.

Those 'shambles' look like in some places street is like 15 feet wide.

And still there are at least 3 storeys!

One cart can effectively barricade it, and with some work there's a tonne of places one can shoot from, and lob heavy stuff, that will be deadly just due to gravity, even if it's but an old, rotten barrel.

Edit: And no, you're not going to kick down the walls of most buildings, but give four burly men axes and it's not going to take long to carve yourself a path. Much harder if there's defenders on the other side of the wall trying to poke sticks at you while you do it, but I mostly meant it as a way to get close to the enemy without marching down the street, then once you're close enough you can charge the last 10-20 feet on your own.

Uh, seriously, you will need some sources on that.

You can have 4 000 'burly men' and actually carving way trough the city walls would be madness that would take weeks.

Whole lot of energy to create tiny, forced entrances that are still easily dependable choke points.

At the end of the day, defenders of the city often were themselves burning down outer layer, before the walls, buildings.

Precisely not to give opponent free cover and shooting stands.

Spiryt

2014-02-08, 01:52 PM

I'm not familiar with how forge-welding works, but austenization (heating the steel red-hot), tempering, and cooling changes the composition and characteristics of the steel, including its grain and hardness and flexibility. A sword that had snapped in two and was forge-welded would probably take on different qualities around the weld, and might be more prone to break again.
.

Yes, actual, 'weld' would be pretty much guaranteed place to snap at.

But if the whole are was heated and carefully reforged again, you would get proper structure again.

If it would be actually profitable, is another question, and it would probably depend on 395 things.

Brother Oni

2014-02-08, 02:03 PM

Well it depends a lot. A spear or axe with a broken haft? Sure you can fix that pretty easily, and it wouldn't be hard to make it as good before, or perhaps even better.

Can I ask how without use of modern glues or replacing the haft?

I can find several historical methods on patching wooden shafts, but none on making as good as it was before, especially for combat purposes.

Rhynn

2014-02-08, 02:06 PM

Bit of a problem if the sword is Andúril.

Actually, Andúril wasn't IMO "reforged" as in "broken pieces" (pretty sure it's just snapped in two in the books?) forge-welded together, but more like "take the hilt and other fittings and put it in a new blade." After all, it's not Andúril that is reforged: it's Narsil that is reforged into Andúril.

It's the whole "Ship of Theseus" thing, to me.

What about axes and maces? Can a sword be improved by reparation (can it ever be better than the day it was made)?

I'd say "not really." To make a better sword you start over. The amount of hammering, the heat, annealing, cooling, and tempering are a very complex process, and I don't see any way that beating on an already-made sword is going to help. For one thing, I wouldn't be surprised if it shattered when you heated it and struck it with a hammer - a sword that's been finished is more brittle than the ingot/blank it was forged from, because the forging process has altered its characteristics. Of course, swords need to not be very brittle, but the starting state is more malleable and durable, but softer, than the finishing state. They have to hardened to hold an edge, but that makes them more brittle.

If it was, say, left without a tang or grip or not sharpened right the day it was made, sure, you can fix that, but the actual quality of the steel - I doubt it.

But I'm no smith, I've just read about swords...

A snapped sword blade? Not as easy... it could be reforged into a smaller weapon though.... or with a lot of work, made back into steel bars and forged into a completely new weapon.

Was that done, historically? I wondered, because it seems unlikely anyone would just waste steel if it can be salvaged... I suppose melting the sword down would "re-set" the properties, and if you knew what you were doing, you'd get the carbon content etc. right (at least if you knew the method it was originally forged with) ?

Galloglaich

2014-02-08, 02:11 PM

Can I ask how without use of modern glues or replacing the haft?

I can find several historical methods on patching wooden shafts, but none on making as good as it was before, especially for combat purposes.

No hahah you misunderstood me - if you have a broken haft you put a new haft on the 'head' of the weapon. You don't 'fix' a broken haft! The spear point or axe blade (etc.) is the expensive part anyway.

The Swiss used to have guys in their armies who specialized in doing this.

G

Brother Oni

2014-02-08, 02:24 PM

Was that done, historically? I wondered, because it seems unlikely anyone would just waste steel if it can be salvaged... I suppose melting the sword down would "re-set" the properties, and if you knew what you were doing, you'd get the carbon content etc. right (at least if you knew the method it was originally forged with) ?

I believe it was possible to 'beat' the carbon out of fairly high carbon pig iron to turn it back into iron or a better grade steel, but with medieval methods this was incredible time consuming.

I see no reason why it couldn't be done with the lower carbon steels like that used in swords if you had enough time and patience.

No hahah you misunderstood me - if you have a broken haft you put a new haft on the 'head' of the weapon. You don't 'fix' a broken haft! The spear point or axe blade (etc.) is the expensive part anyway.

Ah, that's what I thought. :smallbiggrin:

Spiryt

2014-02-08, 02:33 PM

Was that done, historically? I wondered, because it seems unlikely anyone would just waste steel if it can be salvaged... I suppose melting the sword down would "re-set" the properties, and if you knew what you were doing, you'd get the carbon content etc. right (at least if you knew the method it was originally forged with) ?

But why melt anything in the first place?

Just heat it to the temperature when it's forge-able again, and carefully bind the meeting surfaces again - probably would include forging them in some kind of two flat "overlaps" and work from there.

Actually melting anything about sword is no-no, cast steel doesn't have proper properties for a large blade.

Cast steel billets produced large scale since about ~ 1600 would have to be thoroughly reforged for proper grain structure - if anyone would want to make a blade out of them.

fusilier

2014-02-08, 04:32 PM

Excellent post Fusilier.

This was actually also the same pattern in the Holy Roman Empire, Sweden, Poland, Bohemia, Hungary etc., and the towns had similar maps and growth patterns. They also planned ahead the same way and they also often had open spaces inside the town, often used for agriculture. Danzig had an area called the "long gardens" for example.

If I gave the impression that most towns in Central or Northern Europe were constrained by an external ruler, it should be corrected.

Ah. I had come away with that impression, thanks for the clarification.

fusilier

2014-02-08, 04:34 PM

But why melt anything in the first place?

Just heat it to the temperature when it's forge-able again, and carefully bind the meeting surfaces again - probably would include forging them in some kind of two flat "overlaps" and work from there.

Actually melting anything about sword is no-no, cast steel doesn't have proper properties for a large blade.

Cast steel billets produced large scale since about ~ 1600 would have to be thoroughly reforged for proper grain structure - if anyone would want to make a blade out of them.

I suppose you could recycle the material and make another sword?

Viringuccio, in Pirotechnia, describes a kind of solder for repairing cracks in swords.

Mr. Mask

2014-02-08, 05:08 PM

Rhynn: I don't remember exactly how it was described, but that seems a reasonable argument. "Here's a sword that looks like the king's sword, to make you seem more... kingy."

Rhynn

2014-02-08, 08:45 PM

Rhynn: I don't remember exactly how it was described, but that seems a reasonable argument. "Here's a sword that looks like the king's sword, to make you seem more... kingy."

It was bugging me and I had to go and look it up. In The Ring Goes South the description is a little ambiguous. It does not read to me like the sword was welded together, but whether a new "blank" (tang & blade) was forged or the old one was melted down into a rod or something and forged from scratch is unclear. The smiths at Rivendell wrote many runes on the blade "for Aragorn son of Arathorn was going to war upon the marches of Mordor."

In The Council of Elrond, we are explicitly told that Narsil was in two pieces. The movie depicts it as shards kept at Rivendell, but in the book, Aragorn carries it in his scabbard.

Mike_G

2014-02-08, 09:50 PM

It was bugging me and I had to go and look it up. In The Ring Goes South the description is a little ambiguous. It does not read to me like the sword was welded together, but whether a new "blank" (tang & blade) was forged or the old one was melted down into a rod or something and forged from scratch is unclear. The smiths at Rivendell wrote many runes on the blade "for Aragorn son of Arathorn was going to war upon the marches of Mordor."

In The Council of Elrond, we are explicitly told that Narsil was in two pieces. The movie depicts it as shards kept at Rivendell, but in the book, Aragorn carries it in his scabbard.

My favorite description is in Bored of the Rings, where the sword has been "hastily reglued."

oudeis

2014-02-09, 12:24 AM

I've always thought it was pretty clear that Narsil was melted down and remade as Anduril. Per The Silmarillion, the blade was made back in the First Age at the height of Dwarven craftsmanship, and passed down from father to son in the line of the Kings of Men until it was broken at the ending of the Second Age, when Aragorn's ancestor used it to deal the final blow to Sauron. It wasn't just a relic of paramount familial and political significance to him, it was a product of techniques lost to the world for several millennia. I think it likely that the blade was made of an alloy whose composition had never been duplicated and so had to be preserved.

Galloglaich

2014-02-09, 12:55 AM

Like wootz steel in the real world, and the so called ulfberht swords.

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

G

Animastryfe

2014-02-09, 12:23 PM

Spiryt

2014-02-09, 12:35 PM

Completely new sword just from the same billet of metal honestly doesn't seem to make sense to me from the symbolic, and practical point of view...

The very point was that it was absolutely exquisite blade, that 'just' had to be made whole and functional again. At least to me.

Very bright was that sword when it was made whole again;the light of the sun shone redly in it, and the light of the moon shone cold, and its edge was hard and keen.

"Made whole again".

Making basically new blade from the iron/steel would be something else, I feel...

oudeis

2014-02-09, 03:43 PM

Does this mean that Anduril is inferior to Narsil? Dwarven craftsmanship with regards to weapons is superior to Elven craftsmanship, correct? Also, the sword was originally made in the First Age with better techniques.
I'm honestly not certain I'm the best person on this board to address these points: While I've read LoTR beginning to end several times (appendices included) as well as the Silmarillion and many articles on various Tolkien sites, I've not read any of The Book of Lost Tales, so there's a lot of lore that I don't know that others here might. With that caveat established, I would say that Anduril was a different blade than Narsil, but neither better nor worse. The elvish smiths who remade the sword etched the symbol of the Sea-Kings and many runes onto the blade. They put their own stamp on the sword, though it's not clear whether these made it any more powerful. It just feels like that would alter whatever mystical character the original had, somehow. That's just my opinion, and not based on anything I can remember reading, so take that for what you think it's worth. As for Dwarven vs Elven weaponsmithing, remember that Glamdring and Orcrist ( which did not look like a machete or bolo knife, thank you very much :smallmad:) were of elvish make. Also, Eol, the great elf-smith of the first age, was trained by the dwarven armorers of Nogrod, perhaps even by Telchar, who forged Narsil; so there wasn't as much of a gulf between the two traditions as you might think.

Completely new sword just from the same billet of metal honestly doesn't seem to make sense to me from the symbolic, and practical point of view...

The very point was that it was absolutely exquisite blade, that 'just' had to be made whole and functional again. At least to me.

Very bright was that sword when it was made whole again;the light of the sun shone redly in it, and the light of the moon shone cold, and its edge was hard and keen.

"Made whole again".

Making basically new blade from the iron/steel would be something else, I feel...
Tolkien also uses 'forged anew' and 'reforged' to describe how the blade was remade; just before your quote above, in fact:

The Sword of Elendil was forged anew by Elvish smiths, and on its blade was traced a device of seven stars set between the crescent Moon and the rayed Sun, and about them was written many runes; for Aragorn son of Arathorn was going to war upon the marches of Mordor.Also,

`But now the world is changing once again. A new hour comes. Isildur's Bane is found. Battle is at hand. The Sword shall be reforged. I will come to Minas Tirith.'

Aragorn threw back his cloak. The elven-sheath glittered as he grasped it, and the bright blade of Andúril shone like a sudden flame as he swept it out. 'Elendil!' he cried. 'I am Aragorn son of Arathorn and am called Elessar, the Elfstone, Dúnadan, the heir of Isildur Elendil's son of Gondor. Here is the Sword that was Broken and is forged again! Will you aid me or thwart me? Choose swiftly!'As a complete aside, and not to throw this thread completely off the rails, but am I the only person here who feels cheated that this was cut out of TTT? :mad:

Getting back to the matter at hand we come to a point that actually pulls this thread back into the realm of real-world questions: how much did Tolkien know about the metallurgy and crafting of historical arms and armor? His knowledge would certainly have influenced the mental picture he had of Narsil's rebirth as Anduril. Given his expertise in Germanic and Anglo-Saxon folklore and history I think it almost certain he knew at least the basics of pattern-welding, perhaps even about this (http://www.vikingsword.com/serpent.html). If he was at least aware of the rudiments of medieval swordmaking he might have envisioned the reforging of Narsil as an exercise in forge-welding, i.e., heating the two pieces of the blade to red heat high temperature then hammering and twisting them together before crafting them into Anduril. To me, that would be little different than melting it down and starting from scratch.

Another possible means would be through Elven 'magic'. Tolkien's elves had what I would call 'the Gift of Making', which allowed them to create things beyond human ken such as the Palantir and of course the Rings of Power. It doesn't strain credulity to imagine they also knew the secret to mending or rebinding things, and they simply rejoined Narsil at the break with a little heat and a little of their inherent Gift. This was my interpretation of the text for a long time before I learned what little I know about swordmaking and ferrous metallurgy. However, I think Tolkien's repeated use of 'forged' is more telling than the poetic 'made whole', which only appears once from what I could find through keyword searches of the e-text. I think Narsil was remade through old-fashioned fire and sinew, though I don't think that 'Anvil of Crom' would sound nearly as impressive on flutes and harps.

/opinion

Mr. Mask

2014-02-09, 04:08 PM

Elves vs. Dwarves (Craftspeoplesship Edition): This is way too interesting a question to pass up...

My thoughts were that the elves made the finest blades, but the dwarves made the finest armour.

Other systems are possible. It might be elves have the best craftspersons, but dwarves have a better average.

It seems pretty definite that dwarves should have better metallurgy, but elves might be better with enchanted blades (whatever an enchanted blade can be considered in LotR)--though that falls under the question of who has the best craftspersons/enchanters.

There's also the question of design philosophies. Asia went with a lot of lamellar, Europe with a lot of mail and then plate, both are good designs. So there may be cases of apples and oranges with the elves and dwarves arms.

Spiryt

2014-02-09, 05:12 PM

Tolkien also uses 'forged anew' and 'reforged' to describe how the blade was remade; just before your quote above, in fact:
Also,

As a complete aside, and not to throw this thread completely off the rails, but am I the only person here who feels cheated that this was cut out of TTT? :mad:
Getting back to the matter at hand we come to a point that actually pulls this thread back into the realm of real-world questions: how much did Tolkien know about the metallurgy and crafting of historical arms and armor? His knowledge would certainly have influenced the mental picture he had of Narsil's rebirth as Anduril. Given his expertise in Germanic and Anglo-Saxon folklore and history I think it almost certain he knew at least the basics of pattern-welding, perhaps even about this (http://www.vikingsword.com/serpent.html). If he was at least aware of the rudiments of medieval swordmaking he might have envisioned the reforging of Narsil as an exercise in forge-welding, i.e., heating the two pieces of the blade to red heat high temperature then hammering and twisting them together before crafting them into Anduril. To me, that would be little different than melting it down and starting from scratch.

Another possible means would be through Elven 'magic'. Tolkien's elves had what I would call 'the Gift of Making', which allowed them to create things beyond human ken such as the Palantir and of course the Rings of Power. It doesn't strain credulity to imagine they also knew the secret to mending or rebinding things, and they simply rejoined Narsil at the break with a little heat and a little of their inherent Gift.

This pretty much sums up what I would imagine about it :

- twist, flatten, add few bits of 'fresh metal' patches, twist again, and generally hammer it into smooth, continuous, flawless grain of metal. Add in few 'magic/elven/mysterious' techniques etc.

So "forge anew", "reforge", nothing about melting or ruining a blade in general!

Just reforging it at the point of break to connect it again. With some extra kick, perhaps. :smallwink:

oudeis

2014-02-09, 05:23 PM

Not rejoining at the break: hammering the two pieces together, flat to flat, twisting and hammering them until they are functionally one piece, then working the joined billet until it's the correct length and width for the blade you want. This would destroy any of the mechanical characteristics of Narsil in the process, however, so I'm not certain what the benefit would be.

Spiryt

2014-02-09, 05:28 PM

Not rejoining at the break: hammering the two pieces together, flat to flat, twisting and hammering them until they are functionally one piece, then working the joined billet until it's the correct length and width for the blade you want.

Well, with description that vague, imagining it that way is also perfectly possible, one could probably come up with few slightly different ones as well.

Telok

2014-02-09, 05:29 PM

Given his expertise in Germanic and Anglo-Saxon folklore and history I think it almost certain he knew at least the basics of pattern-welding, perhaps even about this (http://www.vikingsword.com/serpent.html). If he was at least aware of the rudiments of medieval swordmaking he might have envisioned the reforging of Narsil as an exercise in forge-welding, i.e., heating the two pieces of the blade to red heat high temperature then hammering and twisting them together before crafting them into Anduril. To me, that would be little different than melting it down and starting from scratch.

On considering that, it occurs to me that he may also have been pulling from the legends of Sigmund (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund) and Sigurd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigurd) as to the breaking and reforging of the magic sword Gram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gram_%28mythology%29).

oudeis

2014-02-09, 05:43 PM

Well, with description that vague, imagining it that way is also perfectly possible, one could probably come up with few slightly different ones as well.Sorry- what I wrote wasn't as clear as my own mental image of the scene.

On considering that, it occurs to me that he may also have been pulling from the legends of Sigmund (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund) and Sigurd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigurd) as to the breaking and reforging of the magic sword Gram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gram_%28mythology%29).
*snaps fingers*
I knew there was something I was forgetting!

Lin Carter's book on Tolkien (http://www.amazon.com/Tolkien-Look-Behind-Lord-Rings/dp/B000J0LLH2/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1391985407&sr=8-2&keywords=lin+carter+tolkien) goes into great depth about Tolkien's extensive use of Germanic Folklore. One of my older brothers had it when I was growing up and I remember reading it not long after I read the trilogy in 6th grade.

So it's probable that he didn't think through the mechanics of it, since the source legend was itself vague on the point.

Galloglaich

2014-02-09, 10:26 PM

Yeah I think most of the tropes in the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, including the cursed ring and the dragon and so on, (and the Orcs), comes from the medieval German Ring of the Nibelungenleid (the story of dwarves who made wonderful treasures which were stolen by a Dragon and ended up cursing the hero's who sought it), and more specifically the much harsher original pagan version the Völsunga Saga before it (though these are a bit more grown up than Tolkein and rather dark) and the rest comes from mostly Norse mythology - that's were he gets all the names like Gandolf and Frodo (well, Frodi), Elves, Dwarves, Trolls, were-bears and somebody wormtongue and so on. Plus a little bit from the Kalevala.

The sense of ominous doom comes from the background real life historical event of the story which was the destruction of the Burgundian tribal federation at the hands of the Huns (who were, in turn, acting at the behest of the Romans under the very general who later defeated them in an grand alliance with the Gauls and the Visigoths)

Tolkein was mainly a linguist, not a historian and certainly not a blacksmith. His books (esp. Simlarillion) derived from an exercise in inventing languages (elvish first and foremost I think). He knew the primary sources well, and they were based in and written for the real people and real times they came out of. So they are in the ball park at least of plausibility for the real world in a way that modern fantasy usually isn't, even though today in our pop culture our understanding of this history is so weak we find it more or less equally incredible.

Tolkein was not a great writer, but he was a great messenger. I think it is this link to our actual ancestral mythology which makes his work so powerful - he brought back to us something very important which had been largely forgotten. The real thing is even more powerful though it's much less accessible than Tolkein is and the really good bits are kind of hidden here in there in fragments amidst a lot of much more confusing and / or prosaic stuff, where he aggregated a lot of the most interesting stuff together in one nice package.

Tolkein did also change or bend the stories from the original though, in a way which better suited his own sensibilities (and maybe makes it easier to tell a certain kind of story). He took out most of the Viking stuff, making Gandalf a wise wizard instead of a half-elf Viking chieftain, and his characters -with a few exceptions- mostly either very evil or very good (whereas in the original they are mostly very grey!). He took out most of the romances (later added rather artificially by Peter Jackson) and he made the elves (especially in the Lord of the Rings) more angelic and chaste rather than rowdy and bawdy like they are in the Viking Sagas.

The dwarves though are kind of similar to the originals, in that they are greedy and capricious, but he makes them more prosaic and not really magical the way his elves are. In the original sagas he was drawing from, especially the Norse sagas, the dwarves are the ones who are really the most magical and strange, whereas the Norse elves are more human-like and less strange and frightening than the Gaelic fey are. They are really just the "best of" the Norse ancestors, they actually come from a physical place still in Sweden and Norway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81lfheimr_(region)), where the real Gandalf lived. You can visit and see the strange Bronze Age monuments associated with them (https://encrypted.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=%C3%A4lvkvarnar&tbs=imgo:1) which the Scandinavians don't like talking about too much with outsiders. I suspect people still put butter and beer on them certain times a year ;). It's good to show respect to the ancestors.

G

Kaww

2014-02-10, 03:17 AM

I just wanted to thank Brother Oni, Rhynn, TuggyNE, endoperez, Galloglaich, Spiryt and fusilier for answering my question and giving me a few ideas.

Thiel

2014-02-10, 11:55 AM

Spiryt

2014-02-10, 01:07 PM

Sorry- what I wrote wasn't as clear as my own mental image of the scene.

No, I mean, it's Tolkien's description that is as concise as it can get, mostly.

Anyway, in the vein, of all that talk about fighting in town, there's, apparently new, this one cool little site about recent archaeology project in Nieszawa:

http://staranieszawa.wordpress.com/medieval-nieszawa/

Mostly polish town basically erected by the order of Władysław Jogaila/Jagiełło as a competition for Toruń/Thorn, on the other side of the river. Which was obviously still controlled by verfluchten Teutonen back then.

Project was apparently surprisingly succesfull, as Torun had been trying to destroy it, and after it had finally became subject of Polish Crown, Nieszawa had been relocated, 32 kilometres upriver away.

Their English version seems nice enough, and they have cool renderings and drawings of their proposed city look. They're methodology seems bit magical to me :smallbiggrin: but apparently they found the buildings were mostly wattle and daub, some of them very tall for period standards.

And are showing the defence system, including river creek and castle.

Brother Oni

2014-02-10, 01:10 PM

I just finished watching The Sovereign's Servant, a Russian film set during the Great Northern War and especially the Battle of Poltava. Aside from being a fairly good, if somewhat hard to follow, film I thought the fighting looked above average for a film. So I was wondering how accurate the sword fights are.
I'm also very interested in the small mortars used by the Russian infantry. I've never seen or heard of it before.

Is this a duel from it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGL1YD3qYg8)?
I don't fence, so I can't say, but it was over fairly quickly, which is always a good sign towards authenticity, and it highlighted the danger of over extending to get a comparatively minor hit as it leaves you vulnerable to your opponent.

On the battle side (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24gQKRF9aJ0&list=PLVwbkU2P4ThRaeHEJwFwN0ZWSUmg4VScB), only comment I have is that they appear to be using explosive shells from cannons rather than mortars; that innovation happened a few decades after the Battle of Poltava as they had trouble with the timing fuses, I believe.

Mortars were very common - they pre-date cannons by a good few centuries and there's a fair bit of history regarding their use. Hand mortars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_mortar) appears to be the precursor to grenade launchers, although apparently their shells were significantly more difficult to handle.

GraaEminense

2014-02-10, 01:58 PM

Is this a duel from it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGL1YD3qYg8)?
I don't fence, so I can't say, but it was over fairly quickly, which is always a good sign towards authenticity, and it highlighted the danger of over extending to get a comparatively minor hit as it leaves you vulnerable to your opponent
I have little experience with smallswords (correct term?) but the fighting is very plausible: Lots of nervous waiting and short bouts of desperate fighting. The acrobatics at the end were a bit surprising, but not exactly unreasonable.

Mike_G

2014-02-10, 02:46 PM

I have little experience with smallswords (correct term?) but the fighting is very plausible: Lots of nervous waiting and short bouts of desperate fighting. The acrobatics at the end were a bit surprising, but not exactly unreasonable.

I thought it was very good by movie standards. It shows how the smallsword is very quick, but how a man could take a bad wound and keep going.

Galloglaich

2014-02-10, 04:44 PM

No, I mean, it's Tolkien's description that is as concise as it can get, mostly.

Anyway, in the vein, of all that talk about fighting in town, there's, apparently new, this one cool little site about recent archaeology project in Nieszawa:

http://staranieszawa.wordpress.com/medieval-nieszawa/

This is brilliant, very very interesting. So glad to see this kind of work being done in that area, thanks for posting this. I knew they were doing some fascinating stuff at some Teutonic sites but wasn't aware of this.

I should note, this town (at the time it was abandoned) was a very small town and apparently not chartered / surveyed in precisely the normal manner. Toruń, it's rival, was comparatively huge at this time, about 10,000 people (or 10 times bigger).

It's another good example of the King making a rival to an existing town. I wasn't aware Nieszawa eventually came to eclipse Toruń economically either that's quite interesting. Do you know of other mostly Polish towns in Poland from this era? I know of a few mixed and a couple of mostly Polish ones but the list is pretty small.

For perspective on the images, this is Toruń's town hall (Rathaus / Ratusz) from the same time (actually built 1399):

http://images.fotocommunity.de/bilder/poland/torun/rathaus-von-thorn-7d30dfd2-2c2d-463c-a4bd-0250d51318e8.jpg

and the St. George guild hall

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/82802493.jpg

G

No brains

2014-02-10, 05:47 PM

Spiryt

2014-02-10, 05:57 PM

It's another good example of the King making a rival to an existing town. I wasn't aware Nieszawa eventually came to eclipse Toruń economically either that's quite interesting. Do you know of other mostly Polish towns in Poland from this era? I know of a few mixed and a couple of mostly Polish ones but the list is pretty small.

Oh, it sure as hell wasn't going to eclipse anything anytime for sure, as far as I understand it.

It was 'just' quite obviously robbing Toruń out off enough potential profits that their patriciate didn't enjoy the situation at all.

As far as the second part - well, I don't know were your list is from, but in 15th century vast majority of 'heartland' towns were 'mostly polish'....

On territories close to borders, from Western Greater Poland to Red Rus, there was huge amount, of 'outlanders'.

Lwów was still for most part Germanic/Italian as far as 'upper classes' went for example, ordiary folk were Ruthenian and in lesser extent, Polish.

'Core land' were mostly Polish populated, obviously, from Kościan trough Poznań, Bydgoszcz, Gniezno, Radom, Biecz etc.

Some important exemption (save Kraków, of course) included Sandomierz, for example, with a lot of Germans and Italians AFAIR, for example.

In Eastern areas population was often strongly mixed Polish/lechitic in general and Ruthenian element. Though dialects still, even in 15th century, could prove to be remarkably similar, even trough coming from completely different branches of Slavic.

There was great table about it in "Dzieje miast i mieszczaństwa w Polsce" by Bogucka M. Samsonowicz H. - important cities listed by 15th century equivalent of nationality, divided into categories like : "merchants", "city patriciate", "land owners", "people dealing with long-distance trade". etc.

And here it is, on page 266 (http://bon.edu.pl/media/book/pdf/Dzieje_miast_i_mieszczanstwa-MB.pdf)

Parts of it most probably won't be intuitive enough, so I'll translate, but tomorrow.

Maybe I'll even find a way to make in On Topic. :smalltongue::smallwink:

spineyrequiem

2014-02-10, 06:14 PM

Thanks awfully for all the help last time guys, really appreciate it. Currently I'm veering towards a mixture of (adapted for better air-dropping) grenades and torso-line SMGs for my harpies.

My next question, for something entirely unrelated; with the best of modern alloys, how thick would you need to make a suit of plate armour to provide complete protection from anything up to 7.62x51mm NATO (including armour-piercing rounds) and be somewhat resistant to rounds up to .50 BMG (as in, able to take hits from long-range with denting and minimal injuries to the wearer)? Spalling shouldn't be too much of an issue since the character in question wears a kevlar (or similar) bodyglove beneath her plate armour for exactly that reason. The armour does not need to protect against HEAT warheads; they're so difficult to get hold of in the criminal underworld that it's not worth the bother to armour superheroes against them.

As well as this, where could you physically not protect without hugely impeding mobility? Note that I'm not talking about weight here (hooray for super-strength!) but rather mechanical problems. For instance, if the fingers of the gauntlets were too thick, would she be unable to move her hands effectively? And can you make decent protection for the armpits?

Also, as much as possible this suit of armour shouldn't be ablative; it needs to be able to withstand large amounts of small arms fire before its protection or mobility is severely impeded. I don't know if this is physically possible for the flexible bits, but I imagine the cuirass and helmet could probably be made like that. But please do correct me if I'm wrong!

Brother Oni

2014-02-10, 06:17 PM

We've passed this topic by a little, but I wanted to bring something up about living decapitation. If I remember right, drops in blood pressure for one second or less can make someone lose consciousness and start inflicting brain damage. Since decapitation can reduce blood pressure to zero pretty quickly, it seems like the most someone can experience as their head falls off is an odd tilt but not fully experience the view of their head falling from their body.

Do we have information on blood pressure and consciousness to add to this?

According to this page (http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/extrasensory-perceptions/lucid-decapitation3.htm), death from decapitation can be delayed for up to 25 to 30 seconds.

The execution mentioned has a translated quote I've found below. For context, a convicted murderer, Languille, was sentenced to death by guillotine in France and executed at 05:30, 28th June 1905 and observed by Dr. Beaurieux.

Here, then, is what I was able to note immediately after the decapitation: the eyelids and lips of the guillotined man worked in irregularly rhythmic contractions for about five or six seconds ... I waited for several seconds. The spasmodic movements ceased.The face relaxed, the lids half closed on the eyeballs, leaving only the white of the conjunctiva visible, exactly as in the dying whom we have occasion to see every day in the exercise of our profession, or as in those just dead.It was then that I called in a strong, sharp voice: 'Languille!' I saw the eyelids slowly lift up, without any spasmodic contractions ... Next Languille's eyes very definitely fixed themselves on mine and the pupils focused themselves ... After several seconds, the eyelids closed again, slowly and evenly, and the head took on the same appearance as it had had before I called out.It was at that point that I called out again and, once more, without any spasm, slowly, the eyelids lifted and undeniably living eyes fixed themselves on mine with perhaps even more penetration than the first time. Then there was a further closing of the eyelids, but now less complete. I attempted the effect of a third call; there was no further movement and the eyes took on the glazed look which they have in the dead.

I have just recounted to you with rigorous exactness what I was able to observe. The whole thing had lasted twenty-five to thirty seconds.

warty goblin

2014-02-10, 07:06 PM

Thanks awfully for all the help last time guys, really appreciate it. Currently I'm veering towards a mixture of (adapted for better air-dropping) grenades and torso-line SMGs for my harpies.

My next question, for something entirely unrelated; with the best of modern alloys, how thick would you need to make a suit of plate armour to provide complete protection from anything up to 7.62mm (including armour-piercing rounds) and be somewhat resistant to rounds up to .50 BMG (as in, able to take hits from long-range with denting and minimal injuries to the wearer)? Spalling shouldn't be too much of an issue since the character in question wears a kevlar (or similar) bodyglove beneath her plate armour for exactly that reason. The armour does not need to protect against HEAT warheads; they're so difficult to get hold of in the criminal underworld that it's not worth the bother to armour superheroes against them.

.50 BMG can punch through three quarters of an inch of steel at 500 meters. At this point, pretty much no matter what you make your armor out of the bulk will make movement difficult, and you start running into the never-mentioned handicaps on superstrength: traction and balance.

Pretty much standard modern military body armor should work pretty well against 7.62 or similar rounds though.

As well as this, where could you physically not protect without hugely impeding mobility? Note that I'm not talking about weight here (hooray for super-strength!) but rather mechanical problems. For instance, if the fingers of the gauntlets were too thick, would she be unable to move her hands effectively? And can you make decent protection for the armpits?
Against bullets? So far as I know, nobody has figured out a way to armor the inside of an armpit, since there's no bullet-resistant equivalent to mail.

Pretty much anything you wear on your hands compromises their mobility, depending on stiffness and thickness. The question is how much impediment your current task can tolerate. Really, this goes for the entire body; good armor won't compromise your mobility... much. But there's no way to strap large pieces of rigid material to yourself without losing flexibility.

fusilier

2014-02-10, 07:11 PM

, only comment I have is that they appear to be using explosive shells from cannons rather than mortars; that innovation happened a few decades after the Battle of Poltava as they had trouble with the timing fuses, I believe.

Mortars were very common - they pre-date cannons by a good few centuries and there's a fair bit of history regarding their use. Hand mortars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_mortar) appears to be the precursor to grenade launchers, although apparently their shells were significantly more difficult to handle.

Mortars don't actually pre-date cannons, but what I think you meant to say is that they used explosive shells for a couple of centuries before cannons did.

Mortars, and mortar-like cannons, date to the 14th century, but it wasn't until sometime in the late 16th century that they started using explosive shells. Until the development of howitzers in the 18th century they were the only artillery to fire explosive shells (barring the light "hand-mortars").

Typically the shell was loaded into the mortar, the shell's fuze was lit, and then the mortar was fired. This wouldn't have been practical in a cannon, because the long barrel would prevent lighting the fuze quickly. It had been known since around 1600 that the action of firing the mortar would usually light the fuze, but for some reason it wasn't very common (perhaps they didn't trust it).

The other issue had to do with the metallurgy of the day: when fired from a cannon the shell tended to rupture from the force and explode in the gun. A shorter barreled weapon using a light charge was the only way to safely launch a shell. The early howitzers were chambered weapons with very short barrels. Not until the mid 19th century were they confident enough with the metallurgy that shells could be fired from regular cannons (usually called "gun-howitzers", although nothing about their construction would indicate that they were howitzers).

Movies often use explosions, because they look cool, but also it's hard to simulate a solid cannonball crashing to the ground (although I think they at least made an attempt at it in the video you linked).

Mike_G

2014-02-10, 10:07 PM

Mr. Mask

2014-02-10, 10:28 PM

Oni: Well... I guess I'll never sleep again.

Thank you for that nightmarish source. I had wondered how a decapitation worked in those ways.

spiney: If you want to stop assault rifle rounds, dragonskin and some of the other heavy body armours out there do a pretty good job. Anything beyond assault rifle rounds would require materials we don't currently have.

Matthew

2014-02-10, 11:08 PM

Yeah I think most of the tropes in the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, including the cursed ring and the dragon and so on, (and the Orcs), comes from the medieval German Ring of the Nibelungenleid ...

There are no orcs in the Ring of the Nibelungenleid, as best I recall. The word itself is a misunderstanding on Tolkien's part, apparently.

- that's were he gets all the names like Gandolf and Frodo (well, Frodi),

Maybe, but it is complicated ("Gand Alf" or Alf Gand was also famously one of his favourite football players, but that is likely just coincidental). Additionally Gandolf is a character in William Morris' 1896 fantasy novel: The Well at the World's End, which is supposed to have been a big influence on Tolkien. The form of the name "Frodo" can be found in medieval French personages, not to forget Pippin, of course!

Tolkein was not a great writer

We will have to disagree about that, but more importantly it is spelled "Tolkien". :smallwink:

Rhynn

2014-02-11, 02:26 AM

The form of the name "Frodo" can be found in medieval French personages, not to forget Pippin, of course!

Hobbits basically use Frankish names, don't they? Frodo, Drogo, Pippin, etc. I always figured these were old Hobbitish names, while Sam, Tom, etc. are "modern" Westronish names, given that they are common in Bree and even Trolls apparently use them.

Matthew

2014-02-11, 02:32 AM

Right, and Tolkien goes on in the appendix about how the names have been changed from their actual form for ease of reading in English.

No brains

2014-02-11, 02:49 AM

Thank you both, Oni and Mike_G, for your perspectives on decapitation and correction on terms. Having neither medical training, nor brains, I had a lot of blanks to fill in here.:smalltongue:

Spiryt

2014-02-11, 05:24 AM

Rhynn

2014-02-11, 07:22 AM

Right, and Tolkien goes on in the appendix about how the names have been changed from their actual form for ease of reading in English.

I can never stop wondering, with the poems and songs, "Wait... if it's been translated from Westron/Elvish to have meter and rhyme, does it still retain the exact meanings of the original? What meter and rhyming schemes do Elves use anyway!?" ...

Brother Oni

2014-02-11, 07:47 AM

Cutting your head off will obviously prevent any more blood flow to the brain. What people report about the head "living" is just the nerves conducting sporadic impulses, so the eyes move, the mouth moves and so on. The brain is not inside screaming.

I'm not disagreeing with you as you have more knowledge on the subject but there's considerable anecdotal evidence that says otherwise.

In addition to the execution above, there was another case of a freshly guillotined head unmistakably grimacing as the doctor poked about the cranial canal (sorry Mr Mask).

While it could just be reflex reactions to stimuli and the nerves firing sporadically as the brain dies, it's very hard to say for certain since nobody's recovered from a decapitation to report back on the experience. :smalltongue:

Mike_G

2014-02-11, 08:22 AM

I'm not disagreeing with you as you have more knowledge on the subject but there's considerable anecdotal evidence that says otherwise.

In addition to the execution above, there was another case of a freshly guillotined head unmistakably grimacing as the doctor poked about the cranial canal (sorry Mr Mask).

While it could just be reflex reactions to stimuli and the nerves firing sporadically as the brain dies, it's very hard to say for certain since nobody's recovered from a decapitation to report back on the experience. :smalltongue:

But lots of people have been choked out and come back. If you cut off blood flow to the brain, people pass out. In seconds.

Death isn't an event, it's a process.

First, something interrupts the flow of oxygen and nutrients to the cells, whether that's you heart stopping or running out of blood or being choked or whatever.

Your cells, deprived of oxygen for aerobic metabolism rapidly shift to anaerobic metabolism and shut down higher function to conserve what they have. The brain is very vulnerable and shuts down very quickly.

Anaerobic metabolism produces a lot of acid. Your body normally gets rid of that acid by breathing (blowing off carbonic acid) or excreting it (uric acid) but with no circulation, the acid stays there, throwing off the pH.

So the cells are starving and bathed in acid and start to die. This takes time, and if we reverse the issue before organ death, people can recover. During both the losing consciousness phase and the return of consciousness phase, we see tremors and spasm that laypeople often report as seizures. That's what you're seeing in a decapitated body.

I've seen a lot of death, and a lot of near death. I've seen men shot in the head who were still gasping and twitching when we got to them, but I know for a fact they had no higher brain function.

And the reason I know, not believe that fact, is that after the call, I had to hose their brains off my boots from walking through the puddle to get to them.

Trust me. It's residual spasms.

Thiel

2014-02-11, 09:00 AM

Well, again, this is quite imprecise - very light, thin plate can protect from 7.62, or .50 - provided, they're fired with small enough KE - from short firearm, for example.

Though obviously .50 BMG is from obvious reason particularly unheard of as far as feeding anything short of carbine, IIUC.

Bigger calibre is obviously actually detrimental to penetration, all other things equal.
Assuming a properly designed barrel the .50 BMG M33 Ball ammunition is supposed to be able to penetrate 8mm armour at 500m. The M2 Armour Piercing round goes through 19mm at that distance and M903 SLAP will go through 34mm.
7.62mm will go through 3mm (M80 Ball) and 7mm (M993 Armour Piercing)

I'm not sure a Kevlar body suit would have the effect you think it will. As sturdy as it is you still need quite a few layers to stop anything which is why it's incorporated into the protective gear rather than worn separately.
I'd incorporate it into the padding since you're going to need it anyway to make the plate work.

Mr. Mask

2014-02-11, 09:27 AM

Mike_G

2014-02-11, 09:54 AM

Mike: Thank you for the relief of knowing decapitation victims do not suffer the way it seemed. And I could rest easy now.... except, it seems wrong to feel better from learning your experiences.

As well as thanking you for giving me relief, I would like to express respect. Talking about these experiences isn't easy...

No problem, and thanks.

There are lots of folktales about death that get passed down, and plenty of anecdotes. But we understand a lot of that now, and as men of science we should educate people about them.

Fingernails do not grow after death. Corpses look like they have long nails because the flesh dehydrates and pulls back, exposing more of the nail. Gas bubble produced by decomposition in the chest cavity can move and bodies can shift or groan.

The whole "tunnel with light at the end" experienced by people near death is simply the narrowing of field of vision that happens as your brain goes hypoxic and you lose consciousness. Hearing fades last, so you hear people talking about you "after you died." We can replicate all this by talking to people who have been choked or nearly drowned. Cut off the air supply and you get the tunnel, the hallucinations, the feeling of floating, and you still hear voices after you lose the ability to talk or see or move or feel pain.

To an observer, it does look like the dead can sometimes move or moan, and that their nails grow. That formed a lot of the basis for the undead superstitions. And to somebody who was resuscitated, they often take a lot of the impressions from their oxygen starved fading consciousness and use those as "proof" of heaven with grandma beckoning.

Anecdotal evidence is nice and all, but evidence based science trumps it.

Thiel

2014-02-11, 09:58 AM

Thanks awfully for all the help last time guys, really appreciate it. Currently I'm veering towards a mixture of (adapted for better air-dropping) grenades and torso-line SMGs for my harpies.

I still don't see the argument for torso mounted guns unless they're physically incapable of holding one, in which case they won't be able to load one, let alone manufacture them. Shooting while flying not going to be of any use for the same reason why soldiers don't shoot while running, they only have a very vague idea where their bullets are going.
On the ground a chest mounted gun is going to be extremely awkward and inaccurate to boot.

Mr. Mask

2014-02-11, 10:19 AM

Mike: "Proof of Heaven"... never got to read that book.

The stuff you describe is something I look forward to using in fiction and games. Much scarier than a CR 1 skeleton.

One one is when blood oozes out of the body's mouth/nose due to gasses and decomposition. Instant vampire myth.

Heck, get a bunch of modern persons to go to a graveyard, and they'll swear they saw vampires and zombies if they don't know the reasons for this stuff when they see it.

Thiel: Theoretically, they could still get manufactured weapons through alliances with or slavery of those capable.

Rhynn

2014-02-11, 10:27 AM

To an observer, it does look like the dead can sometimes move or moan, and that their nails grow. That formed a lot of the basis for the undead superstitions. And to somebody who was resuscitated, they often take a lot of the impressions from their oxygen starved fading consciousness and use those as "proof" of heaven with grandma beckoning.

I recall reading some amazing stories over at the Something Awful forums by a guy who worked for the coroner, picking up bodies. It was basically an initiation ritual to be freaked out by a moaning corpse (air escaping lungs/stomach), but the one where a corpse sat up (because of rigor) was probably the best scare... IIRC a family member was actually in the room for that.

Anecdotal evidence is nice and all, but evidence based science trumps it.

Yeah, I buy none of the "guillotine victim stared at me" etc. stories, especially given that they mostly sound like interpretations of events that could be explained just fine (no, he didn't focus his eyes at you, they were just towards you and you recall or interpret the event dramatically).

People often make terrible observers, especially under uncontrolled conditions.

Spiryt

2014-02-11, 04:18 PM

Assuming a properly designed barrel the .50 BMG M33 Ball ammunition is supposed to be able to penetrate 8mm armour at 500m. The M2 Armour Piercing round goes through 19mm at that distance and M903 SLAP will go through 34mm.
7.62mm will go through 3mm (M80 Ball) and 7mm (M993 Armour Piercing)

Well, what 'proper' barrel length though? Any serious data should have this listed.

Rifling details, chamber quality etc. will probably have a lot to say as well, but barrel length is obviously most important.

Same, popular 5.56×45mm NATO fired from this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kbk_wz._1996_Mini-Beryl) will have drastically different performance than one fired from this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAR-21).

Huge difference in velocity, and resulting almost 70% of difference in KE will make impacts about completely different.

For simple and not very extreme example. And that was the point.

Thiel

2014-02-11, 04:29 PM

Well, what 'proper' barrel length though? Any serious data should have this listed.

Rifling details, chamber quality etc. will probably have a lot to say as well, but barrel length is obviously most important.

Same, popular 5.56×45mm NATO fired from this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kbk_wz._1996_Mini-Beryl) will have drastically different performance than one fired from this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAR-21).

Huge difference in velocity, and resulting almost 70% of difference in KE will make impacts about completely different.

For simple and not very extreme example. And that was the point.

It's from a US Army manual and it doesn't say. That said since it's the US Army it's probably 45in for the .50 and 22in for the 7.62mm (M2HB and M14)

Fortinbras

2014-02-11, 06:39 PM

Knaight

2014-02-11, 06:51 PM

Shooting while flying not going to be of any use for the same reason why soldiers don't shoot while running, they only have a very vague idea where their bullets are going.

Gliding is a much smoother process than running is, so this doesn't really hold. Running introduces a lot of motion that shakes whatever is held, and this is as much a reason not to try and shoot mid run as the speed. Added to that is how there is no way you're getting in a proper firing position.

Raum

2014-02-11, 07:53 PM

oudeis

2014-02-11, 08:30 PM

Galleys simply aren't as seaworthy as most ships sailing the Atlantic.

*snip*

The Mediterranean isn't as prone to heavy seas as the Atlantic (or Pacific), always has shore and a port (relatively) nearby
*snip*I thought this might be the answer but wanted to read what more knowledgeable people had to say on the subject. Cool.

fusilier

2014-02-11, 11:04 PM

So I recall reading somewhere that the Genoese occasionally used large sailing ships to ram and sink war galleys. What advantages did war galleys have over sailing ships that made them so much more popular in the Mediterranean. Why didn't they ever catch on in quite the same way in the Atlantic?

Hmm. Do you remember where you read that? In usual circumstances a galley should be able to avoid a sailing ship fairly easily, although accidents may have happened. However, a competently armed, mid-sized sailing ship could use it's high sides to hold off a galley in a boarding fight.

Galleys simply aren't as seaworthy as most ships sailing the Atlantic. They combine holes near the sea for oars with a top heavy build and simply can't take storms and heavy seas. They're also manpower intensive - expensive for anything other than war.

Yes, although a medieval galley had the oarsmen on the deck, so there were no holes in the hull to take on water. Nevertheless, they were lightly built, for speed, had low freeboard, etc., so in rough seas they were particularly vulnerable. Even in the Mediterranean, they typically didn't operate during the fall and winter as that was the stormy season there.

Nevertheless, galleys did operate in the Atlantic! Since the 14th century (if not earlier), Italian galleys (usually Genoese in French service) regularly raided in the English Channel. A galley may have sunk the Mary Rose at the battle of the Solent in 1545.

http://www.myoldmap.com/dominic/maryrose/mrsinking700.jpg

In the 1580s the Spanish used galleys during amphibious assaults in the Azores (something galleys were actually very well adapted for).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Desembarcoislasterceiras.jpg/640px-Desembarcoislasterceiras.jpg

The Spanish sent a squadron of galleys to Flanders in the late 1500s, where they successfully curbed the Dutch "freebooters" who were using light sailing vessels for coastal piracy. Starting in the 1560s they sent some galleys to Caribbean for anti-piracy duties (again the reports were that they were well suited). However, in both cases, around 1600, the ships were used up or lost, and weren't replaced.

The reasons for why the use of galleys in the Mediterranean was so consistent, whereas their use elsewhere was sporadic, wasn't just because of the weather (although that was a factor). Galleys required a lot of support: a huge manpower requirement, which was constantly needing to be replenished, a water and food requirements were also huge, and galleys couldn't carry much on board, the ships themselves needed repair facilities, etc.

A few factors came together to conspire against the more widespread use of the galley. Skilled oarsmen were needed prior to the 16th century, and outside of the mediterranean they weren't that common. The switch from alla sensile rowing (in which each man had his own oar), to the alla scallacio method (where multiple men pulled on one oar), did reduce the requirement for skilled oarsmen. However, this switch allowed galleys to easily add more and more oarsmen to increase speed -- this increased the food/water requirements and reduced the effective range (to about a week by the 17th century).

In short, in order to support a fleet of war galleys a large logistical system was necessary, and that logistical system rarely existed outside of the Mediterranean.

(Starting in the 16th century, several of the Baltic states adopted mediterranean style galleys, primarily used in coastal areas. They were used into the 19th century. There doesn't seem to be much study into these fleets, but the last major galley vs. galley battles occurred in the Baltic and not the Mediterranean)

Also, there were the large merchant galleys:
http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/6329/venetianmerchantgalley.jpg

These ships began under Venetian initiative. They were larger and beamier than the war galleys, and could carry a small, but significant, amount of cargo. Usually high valued stuff, or pilgrims. They weren't terribly fast under oars, although they could maneuver when the winds were unfavorable (sometimes sailing ships got stuck right outside of port waiting for the winds to change). All the extra oarsman were expected to defend the ship (they weren't slaves/prisoners at this point), combined with higher-sides, they didn't require the expensive galley escorts that sailing ships carrying high value cargo required. So they were a cost saving measure.

During the 15th century, Genoa, Venice, and, to a lesser extent, Florence, ran merchant galleys from the Mediterranean to England (making various stops along the way). They fell out of favor in the 16th century: sailing ships were getting better, but also I think there were political-economic changes that made them less useful for trade.

Finally, the merchant galleys formed the base to make the galleass,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/One_of_the_Venetian_Galleasses_at_Lepanto_-_Pg_74.jpg/640px-One_of_the_Venetian_Galleasses_at_Lepanto_-_Pg_74.jpg

These were large, heavily armed galleys developed in the middle of the 16th century. They were slow and unwieldy under oars, but were just able to participate with large galley fleets. They played an important role in the Battle of Lepanto among the Christian forces. A squadron of four were included with the Spanish Armada in 1588. I would argue that they gave decent service. One was destroyed in a storm off Ireland, two weathered the storms and returned to the Mediterranean. The fourth was beached of the coast of France, but held off a good a chunk of the English fleet on it's own for hours before surrendering (and even then the French claimed it and eventually returned it to the Spanish).

Stephen_E

2014-02-12, 12:59 AM

That brings to mind a question, were galleys used extensively anywhere outside of southern Europe and Northern Africa?

My understanding is that they were used in the Baltic as well.

My guess regarding their advantage is that they might have been cheaper to build. Also for short periods rowing was faster in many situations to sailing.

Duh.
Didn't see Fusiller had done his usual through job answering the question. :-)

fusilier

2014-02-12, 01:20 AM

My understanding is that they were used in the Baltic as well.

My guess regarding their advantage is that they might have been cheaper to build. Also for short periods rowing was faster in many situations to sailing.

Duh.
Didn't see Fusiller had done his usual through job answering the question. :-)

Yeah, the use of galleys in the Baltic doesn't appear to have been well researched. They were usually manned by the "army" rather than the "navy" -- often with large number of conscripts. They seem to have been useful in shallow coastal waters (fjords, etc.), while the navy fleets operated out in the ocean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Svensksund_(1790)

Brother Oni

2014-02-12, 06:08 AM

Duh.
Didn't see Fusiller had done his usual through job answering the question. :-)

Just don't get him started on cannons on boats. :smalltongue:

Stephen_E

2014-02-12, 06:29 AM

Just don't get him started on cannons on boats. :smalltongue:

I don't know. I thought it was a very interesting discussion with valid points made on both sides. :smallsmile:

It was one of many discussions that made me wish we had a way of directly viewing the past. And then I think how much it would be used to view the recent past and am thankful that we don't.:smalleek:

Fortinbras

2014-02-12, 01:52 PM

Hmm. Do you remember where you read that? In usual circumstances a galley should be able to avoid a sailing ship fairly easily, although accidents may have happened. However, a competently armed, mid-sized sailing ship could use it's high sides to hold off a galley in a boarding fight.

Also, there were the large merchant galleys:
http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/6329/venetianmerchantgalley.jpg

These ships began under Venetian initiative. They were larger and beamier than the war galleys, and could carry a small, but significant, amount of cargo. Usually high valued stuff, or pilgrims. They weren't terribly fast under oars, although they could maneuver when the winds were unfavorable (sometimes sailing ships got stuck right outside of port waiting for the winds to change). All the extra oarsman were expected to defend the ship (they weren't slaves/prisoners at this point), combined with higher-sides, they didn't require the expensive galley escorts that sailing ships carrying high value cargo required. So they were a cost saving measure.

I read the bit about the sailing ships sinking galleys in Naval Warfare Under Wars by William Ledyard Rogers. He mentions it at the end of his chapter on Italian naval warfare, but unfortunately I have returned the book to the library and can't look up the details. All I remember is that the battle occurred in the 14th century and the sailing ships were used by one city to break the other's like of battle by ramming and sinking some of their galleys.

As usual, research only seems to yield more questions.

What is it about galleys that made them better for naval warfare in the Mediterranean than sailing ships? Is it maneuverability? When did big merchant galleys start to emerge?

Also, did medieval galleys have to be dry docked and have their hulls scrapped as frequently as the Greek triremes did? What other regular maintenance had to happen to keep the galleys sailing?

Finally, from what I can tell, the fighting deck on a galley is in between the two outriggers where the oarsmen sit. How were soldiers able to repel boarders when the oarsmen were in between them and the enemy ship? Did all boarding take place after one ship had "rammed" the other and created a bridge for men to run across, if not, how did ships get close enough to board without their oars getting in the way?

AgentPaper

2014-02-12, 02:04 PM

What is it about galleys that made them better for naval warfare in the Mediterranean than sailing ships? Is it maneuverability? When did big merchant galleys start to emerge?

From what Fusilier wrote, it sounds like Galleys were just better than sailing ships in battle overall. The only reason they were typically (but not always) limited to the Mediterranean was logistical issues.

Fortinbras

2014-02-12, 02:33 PM

From what Fusilier wrote, it sounds like Galleys were just better than sailing ships in battle overall. The only reason they were typically (but not always) limited to the Mediterranean was logistical issues.

Right, logistical issues and problems of seaworthiness. My question is what advantages did galleys have that made them better than sailing ships in battle?

fusilier

2014-02-12, 03:02 PM

Right, logistical issues and problems of seaworthiness. My question is what advantages did galleys have that made them better than sailing ships in battle?

I'm working on a long, detailed response. I'll briefly state that they didn't always have the advantage over sailing ships.

Raum

2014-02-12, 03:05 PM

The short version is they had more men, were more maneuverable (didn't have to rely on wind, could go upwind) for short periods, and tended to have more freeboard (the sides of the ship above water) which gave missile armed troops a higher platform. This lasted roughly until cannon became useful / cheap / common enough to mount numbers of then along the sides of the ship replacing the rowers.

Edit: I'm sure fulilier's response will be far more complete.

fusilier

2014-02-12, 03:21 PM

I read the bit about the sailing ships sinking galleys in Naval Warfare Under Wars by William Ledyard Rogers. He mentions it at the end of his chapter on Italian naval warfare, but unfortunately I have returned the book to the library and can't look up the details. All I remember is that the battle occurred in the 14th century and the sailing ships were used by one city to break the other's like of battle by ramming and sinking some of their galleys.

I'll look for that. So far most of what I've found about galleys has concentrated on the 16th century (or the 15th century in the case of the merchant galleys), and I'm looking for more sources on medieval galleys.

As usual, research only seems to yield more questions.

I'm going to break up my responses as this is getting rather long.

Merchant galleys were developed by Venice at the end of the 13th century. At first they usually had two masts, as they got larger a third was added, but (as in the picture above), the foremast seems to have been very light, and perhaps not often used.

What is it about galleys that made them better for naval warfare in the Mediterranean than sailing ships? Is it maneuverability? When did big merchant galleys start to emerge?

I didn't mean to understate it, but the climate was certainly a factor (I was just trying to point out that there were other factors too -- don't forget the vikings rowed around in longships in northern waters). The Mediterranean also had more beaches that the galleys could back up against -- a classic galley tactic, it kept the crews rested, while the prows pointed out to sea. Attacking galleys arrayed in such a fashion was very dangerous.

Galleys were, first, and foremost, warships. While they could, and sometimes did, carry cargo, excepting the merchant galleys, they were intended as fighting vessels. Roundships (the generic name for sailing vessels) were primarily cargo vessels, and warships only as a secondary function.

Galleys cost money to maintain, and the trade going on in the Mediterranean required the use of galleys, and justified the expense. As a result, certain logistical structures developed over time -- sea fortresses and at the very least friendly overseas stations where food and water can quickly be replenished were necessary to operate a significant galley force. Along with recruiting grounds for oarsman, until about the mid-16th century.

In northern waters, the medieval states rarely maintained a navy. Usually when needed, they pressed merchant vessels into service, perhaps adding fighting platforms to them, and used those. Most of the Cogs used at the Battle Sluys in 1340 were of that nature. This approach wasn't necessarily a bad one, as they didn't have to pay for the cost of a warfleet in peace time, and could put together rather large fleets of sailing vessels when needed.

Just to be clear, galleys weren't always better than a sailing ship in a fight -- but the way in which they fought were fundamentally different and that needs to be explored.

Galleys were by their nature aggressive. In a fight with roundships, galleys would hold the initiative, they could pull away if they didn't want to fight. A sailing ship hounded by galleys didn't have that option -- assuming a relatively calm sea. It is true that the high sides of a roundships made them difficult targets for galleys in boarding fights, but this should not be overstated.

The natural prey for galleys were light sailing ships -- they had neither the crews nor the height to hold off galleys. Medium sized sailing ships posed more of a challenge, and a competently armed large-sailing ship was practically invulnerable (in this context "armed" means filled with soldiers).

The battle involving the Roccaforte is a good example. The Roccaforte was a very large Venetian roundship of the mid 13th century. In 1264, it and a multitude of smaller sailing ships were attacked by a Genovese galley fleet. The galleys quickly overwhelmed the small vessels, but took more time attacking the medium sized vessels. These, however, were eventually forced to retreat to the Roccaforte, which successfully held off the galleys attempts to board her, and the Genovese eventually gave up.

Sailing ships only got larger from then on, to the point where large ones were basically immune to attack from galleys. See the battle of Zonchio in 1499. Two Venetian carracks grappled with an Turkish carrack. They fought for hours with nobody getting the advantage in the boarding fight, even though the Turks were supported by numerous galleys. Eventually the turks turned to burning pitch, and all three ships ended up burning and sinking:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8e/Battle_of_Zonchio_1499.jpg/640px-Battle_of_Zonchio_1499.jpg

It would have seemed that galleys were on the way out at this point, but a few years later they made a big come back. The reason for this was the adoption of a heavy centerline cannon. The centerline cannon was mounted at the front of the galley facing forward, on the "centerline." When galleys first started to do this is not entirely clear. There are some depictions of bombards mounted on the prows of galleys dating to the 1480s. I recently saw some pictures made in the 1460s that show galleys with bombards on the prows -- but they couldn't technically have been on the centerline, because of the shape of the prow.

Anyway, the centerline cannon on a galley in the 16th century was usually a fifty-pounder or more. To attack an opponent with them the galley merely needed to point itself towards the enemy. The confident manner in which the fleet of Genovese galleys engaged the cream of the English carrack fleet in 1513 at Brest, is evidence of the change between Zonchio and that time.

This also made galleys rather adept at bombarding shore positions, as mentioned above they were very useful in amphibious operations in the Azores.

A galley with a centerline cannon, in sea conditions favorable to it, was a dangerous creature! While boarding tactics were still preferred, if necessary it could stand off and bombard from a long range. This is what the galleys at the Battle of the Solent appear to be doing. It wasn't until 1596 (Battle of Cadiz), that cannon-armed galleys were defeated by sailing vessels (galleons), in conditions favorable to galleys (i.e. a calm sea). They managed to hold their own in the mediterranean into the early 1600s, but by the mid 1600s sailing warships definitely had the upper hand in the Mediterranean.

Part Two will answer the other questions.

fusilier

2014-02-12, 04:16 PM

As usual, research only seems to yield more questions.

Continuing with my long answer to these questions.

What is it about galleys that made them better for naval warfare in the Mediterranean than sailing ships? Is it maneuverability? When did big merchant galleys start to emerge?

In my previous post, I mainly focused on tactical considerations, but galleys also filled a strategic role that should also be investigated.

In brief, or as brief as I can be, Galleys were used to rush soldiers and supplies around the Mediterranean. Their large crews could also be counted as fighters, or at least as laborers if they were conscripts/slaves/prisoners. Laborers were very useful during a siege. The speed of galleys allowed them to slip through blockades bringing supplies or reinforcements to besieged fortresses.

Maintaining a blockade with a galley force had problems -- if maintained at sea the rowers fatigued, and a rested force could slip past them. It seems that the ideal galley blockade was to station the galleys at some point where they could watch the approaches to the blockaded port, rather than keeping them at sea. However, even this ran into problems, as the supply conditions for the besiegers were often not ideal, the health of the oarsmen suffered and their effectiveness dwindled. The galleys blockading Naples during the siege of 1528, suffered in this manner, so much so that when the winds blew in the right direction, they couldn't even intercept light cargo ships running into port. Relief/reinforcements from a Venetian squadron improved the blockade however.

This strategic use of galleys, however, requires the logistical network I've been referring too. Lots of stations to refuel the galleys with biscuit and water. A lot of fighting in the Mediterranean revolves controlling those points, and therefore seems odd when looked at with a modern perspective.

Also, did medieval galleys have to be dry docked and have their hulls scrapped as frequently as the Greek triremes did? What other regular maintenance had to happen to keep the galleys sailing?

Off the top of my head, I would say probably, although they were constructed differently. Medieval galleys would have been more strongly built than the Ancient triremes, so they may not have required as much maintenance, I imagine the maintenance needed to keep the vessel seaworthy was pretty similar to most other ships of the period.

It's not uncommon to see "galley sheds" in images of the major galley ports of the 16th century. I think they could be put up on blocks there for maintenance. I'll see if I can track down a small picture of them. I couldn't so here's a link to a large picture of Messina in the 1570s, showing the galley sheds.
http://historic-cities.huji.ac.il/italy/messina/maps/braun_hogenberg_I_49.html

Finally, from what I can tell, the fighting deck on a galley is in between the two outriggers where the oarsmen sit. How were soldiers able to repel boarders when the oarsmen were in between them and the enemy ship? Did all boarding take place after one ship had "rammed" the other and created a bridge for men to run across, if not, how did ships get close enough to board without their oars getting in the way?

Let's see if I can find a good picture of a galley, then explain the parts --

This is the best I can do at the moment:
http://www.syropoulos.co.uk/images/ships2.jpg

I'm going from memory here, so I might get some of the names wrong. They are usually of Venetian origin, although sometimes Spanish names are used for the components.

First the rowing arrangements. From that picture you can see the rowing benches, the oars pivot on the Aspostis, an outrigger, giving them proper leverage. The gap between the benches and the aspostis is decked over and troops can be placed there (although it's hard to tell with all those oars in the way). There was a railing above the aspostis from which shields could be hung, although on later ships it looks like wooden sides were common. Missile troops could take cover behind this structure, but it would be low enough for them to shoot over.

At the rear of the ship the poop deck was raised. The rear was something of a vulnerable area, and this gave it a bit more height to fight off boarding attempts, and also provided a command deck.

At the front of the ship was a prow with a "beak" (it's not technically a ram, because it's above the water line). A galley attacked with the front of the ship, the beak forming a boarding ramp. Galleys often probably ended up in a head-to-head fight, but, if I remember correctly, ideally they wanted to ram the side of another galley, the aspostis. (Another function of the aspostis is that it protected the side of the ship somewhat) The beak pointed upwards slightly, and would ideally travel up, and over the aspostis, then the weight of the galley would "pin" the other ship in place. Any oars that got in the way would be broken. Although there is at least one painting showing oars being held up at a surprisingly steep angle, so they may have been able to lift them high-enough to prevent damage.

In a ship where the oarsmen weren't slaves or prisoners, they would be expected to join into the fight. How exactly the soldiers fought in and around the benches with oarsmen chained to them isn't known, but it must have been hellacious.

Behind the prow are the cannons (if the galley is so armed). These were usually underneath a raised fighting platform, called an arumbada. Here history gets a bit tricky. These fighting platforms may have existed as temporary structures before the use of cannon. The Venetians seem to have kept them temporary well into the 16th century. On the other hand, they may not have existed at all until about the middle of the 16th century.

The arumbada provides a raised platform for missile troops during an assault, and also provides some cover for the main battery. The use of the main battery was primarily to discharge just before boarding, to sweep the enemy deck of as many defenders as possible. The weight of the artillery generally increased over time. Next to a single centerline gun, two 12-16 pounder cannons would be added as flanking pieces, then around the middle of the 16th century two more lighter guns (around 6-9 pounders) were added. Swivel guns were in various places all over the vessel.

Finally, the corsia is the raised platform in between the benches running from poop to prow (or the main battery). It provided a command area and an elevated defensive position in a boarding fight. However, note how narrow it is.

The galley above is an "ordinary" galley of the mid-16th century. There were smaller and larger galleys. Smaller ones include Galiots, Fustas, Fregates, Bergantines, etc. Larger galleys included the merchant galleys pressed into service, but also a more handy galley, perhaps with two masts, referred to as a capitana. A lanterna, was a command galley with fancy lanterns to denote it's status -- they were usually bigger than an ordinary galley, but didn't have to be.

This is a galley of the 16th century in profile:
(Ok, I'm having a lot of trouble with these images).

Earlier galleys were similar, but without the artillery at the front. The beak may have raised a bit higher on older galleys (galley from early 15th century manuscript:
http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/michaelofrhodes/manuscript/images/145b_o_small.png

snowblizz

2014-02-12, 04:24 PM

Yeah, the use of galleys in the Baltic doesn't appear to have been well researched. They were usually manned by the "army" rather than the "navy" -- often with large number of conscripts. They seem to have been useful in shallow coastal waters (fjords, etc.), while the navy fleets operated out in the ocean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Svensksund_(1790)
I get a feeling that when you say not well researched, you meant to add "in English". Seeing how around here it's not exactly unknown.
Just pointing out, a fjord is usually very deep. That's one reason why the Germans were able to relocate their surface warships there in WW2.
And only exist in Norway where there were no galleys.

If you look at the map on the wiki page it should be clear why small manoeuvrable ships were so useful. To get to most port cities along the Finnish and Swedish coastlines you have to run the gauntlet of narrow shallow water ways and usually there's only one or two major lanes available for shipping. And god help you if you don't know where that one is. In these conditions a major roundship fleet would be sailing in a single line with your cannons point towards shore. Which incidentally is where you can place supporting forces. And quite literally you could have small ships duck behind the nearest island for cover and then pop out again to shoot.
The Swedish purpose built a fleet for this area, I want to say terrain but it sounds odd, even though quite true. With shallow draft ships of the line even. Though emphasis on the smaller boats. Took a lot of manpower, which is probably one reason why it's not the navy (even semi-trained seamen would be in short supply after a few fights with cannons raking the open-boarded smallest vessels), although it was actually thought of as a combined arms operation for the defence of the eastern half against Russia. Ie army was in charge of the defence of the realm and this navy was used closely, and solely for the purpose of coordinating this defence.

fusilier

2014-02-12, 04:49 PM

I get a feeling that when you say not well researched, you meant to add "in English". Seeing how around here it's not exactly unknown.

Touche. :-) When I wrote that, I did consider adding a qualifier, but as my responses tend to be rather verbose, I decided against it. At least in English, there doesn't seem to have been any comprehensive study of galleys in the Baltic. The fact that they were used, and the battles they were used in is known. But what kind of logistical structures were in place, etc., hasn't been well researched in English sources -- and I'm not sure about other languages.

snowblizz

2014-02-13, 03:55 AM

Touche. :-) When I wrote that, I did consider adding a qualifier, but as my responses tend to be rather verbose, I decided against it. At least in English, there doesn't seem to have been any comprehensive study of galleys in the Baltic. The fact that they were used, and the battles they were used in is known. But what kind of logistical structures were in place, etc., hasn't been well researched in English sources -- and I'm not sure about other languages.

At least for the Swedish archipelago fleet there is some, I'm not sure what qualifies "well researched" however. Looking at the English wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archipelago_fleet most references are Swedish and Finnish, unsurprisingly.
I would *think* most of that information is out there. The Swedish bureaucracy kept excellent records and most of those should be intact still today. If anything I think there's more a lack of researchers than data. Military history being somewhat of a sensitive issue in Sweden.

Haruspex_Pariah

2014-02-13, 09:45 AM

Spiryt

2014-02-13, 11:36 AM

This thread series is really long so forgive me if this has been addressed elsewhere.

I'm having trouble picturing how mounted combat works with a spear-like weapon. With a "swinging" weapon like a sabre or mace I can imagine that the wielder uses the speed of the horse and a higher position to increase the force of the blow. In essence performing a kind of melee drive-by.

But with a long thrusting weapon (spear, lance) that seems a bit awkward. You're not looking to swing a spear at the enemy, you're looking to stick it into them. But if you stick a spear at the enemy, and it hits, and you're trundling along at full horse-speed won't that create a sudden obstacle? Even if you one-shot an infantryman you'll still have 120 lbs of corpse stuck to the end of your spear as you ride along. Were mounted spears one-use weapons?

Yes, spears if mounted were often 'one hit' weapons. Knights, hussars etc. would often require to pick up new ones from pages/wagons before next charge.

In actual 'higher' speed collision, successful hit would very often mean shattered haft.

Skilful use could very well prevent this.

But you should also remember that 'direct' 90 degrees collision wouldn't be all that common, angle that still benefits from horse speed, but allows easier retraction would occur.

Finally, charging, or even fighting at any higher horse speeds wouldn't be only option. In fact it would be obviously something meant to be decisive clash.

And anyway, even potential 'worst' possibility, of completely and utterly one time weapon actually seem only bad to us.

Who are, at least to some degree invariably influenced by movies, books, and video games - where hero kills one mook, and then must have his weapon prepared to face another waves of nameless servants of Evil Mr. Insert. :smallwink::smallwink:

While in reality, properly shattered lance would mean one* gruesomely impaled man, so mission successful.

*or way more, if we believe those (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17373) mentions.

Which are completely believable - human flesh offer little resistance to good spear thrust, and heavy lance charge hit is immense impact. So if only there are enough poor folk standing behind each other, they can get skewered.

Incanur

2014-02-13, 12:38 PM

The 16th-century sources I'm familiar with do generally consider the heavy lance a one-shot weapon. The man-at-arms was supposed to break his lance and then wield the sword, estoc, or mace/axe/hammer. This comes out most clearly in contests between men-at-arms or men-at-arms against pike formation. Other types of horse under different circumstances struck repeatedly with their lances. Spanish cavalry in Mesoamerica, for example, did everything they could keep hold of their lances; these obviously weren't one-shot weapons. In a manual published 1594, Sir John Smythe described how a light horsemen in semicircle formation would have the advantage against lancers. He wrote the light horsemen - either renown English borderers with spears used as punching staves or stradiots with 18ft (!) double-headed lances - would use the semicircle to attack the lancers from various sides, thereby preventing them from having the space to properly charge or put their lances in their rests, thus being unable to use their lances and forced to take to their swords against the stabbing spears of the light horsemen. This description shows a clear difference between what I might call the heavy lance - used with a rest and require a horse in motion - and the light lance. The details of the weapons Smythe want are quite specific, especially the great length of the light lances he wanted, but I think basic difference between heavy and light lances has some merit. Overall, light lances, by which I mean lances intended for repeated use, strike me as the most common across history. In at least parts of the Middle East, China, and Japanese, cavalry often used both thrusting and cutting staff weapons with two hands from the saddle. Western Europeans did this two, even in the 16th century - see Mair's martial arts manual - but tended to prefer the power of the couched position over the versatility over grips.

As far as single use goes, Bernardino de Mendoza (http://www.investigationsofadog.co.uk/2012/08/13/cavalry-tactics-lances/) wrote that broken lances could still often be used to unhorse an opponent, making the lance good for two or three charges.

Fortinbras

2014-02-13, 01:33 PM

fusilier

2014-02-13, 10:44 PM

Great response, thanks a bunch Fusilier. Would you mind pointing me to some of your sources so I can do a little more of my own research. I'm in the process of researching a seafaring tale set in a fantasy world based off the late 13th century Mediterranean.

I meant to add my sources earlier, but I was rushing, so I'm glad you asked.

One of the best appraisals available is by John F. Guilmartin, Gunpowder and Galleys, the original is from the 1970s, and there is an updated version from sometime in the early 2000s (the dates vary).

Not only is this book notoriously difficult to find (my university library had a copy), it's focus is on the 16th century, so it's not necessarily what you want. I still recommend it if you can find it. The Osprey book on Renaissance War Galleys, made a lot more sense after reading Gunpowder and Galleys.

Another book by Guilmartin, is Galleys and Galleons. While it's easier to find, it's still not that easy. It's put together more like a popular history, has lots of nice color pictures. Despite it's title, it covers a lot more history than you might expect, culminating in the 16th century, but it's got some good info on the earlier periods, so you may want to consider it.

The most detailed account of merchant galleys I've read is Michael Mallett's book on the subject, The Florentine Galleys in the Fifteenth Century. However, as the title notes, its focus in the Florentine Merchant galleys (which was only during the 15th century). Also, I think the book was developed from a PhD dissertation, and the footnotes are so numerous as to be distracting. He doesn't bother translating a lot of Italian phrases, and a very large appendix contains the journal of a commander(?) of one of the galley fleets -- all in renaissance Tuscan. Again, not an easy book to find, but I took some notes on it if you are interested (he documents what the galleys carried with great detail).

The Age of the Galley: Mediterranean Oared Vessels Since Pre-Classical Times (Conway's History of the Ship) -- this is a collection of articles about galleys (including the merchant galleys). I recommend it for some of the interesting technical details.

Frederic Lane, Venetian Ships and Shipbuilders of the Renaissance. This is an old work from the 1930s, yet it's pretty comprehensive, and covers not only galleys but Mediterranean roundships, which are often ignored. Terminology makes it almost impossible to find out information about Mediterranean roundships on the internet. Historically, they referred to them as "nave" -- but that simply means ship (or vessel). Lane uses the term "buss", which was used historically, but the same term was used for a very different Dutch ship. Googling "Mediterranean Cog", will bring up some images, but is offensive to the intellect, because most of the ships aren't cogs!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__Xovjfdjneg/TUiMczYx0HI/AAAAAAAABEs/cFoSdzzfKmA/s400/Mandu%2Band%2BShips%2B005.JPG

The cog was introduced to the Mediterranean in the 14th century (I think, I would need to double check). In Italian it's called a "Coccha", but that term can also be applied to a carrack. :-/

Finally, Michael of Rhodes wrote a nicely illustrated manuscript on Mediterranean ship building in the early 1400s. While later than your time period I think it would still be useful for your work. I think there's a new translation/reprint of his work, but much of the information can be found on line:

http://brunelleschi.imss.fi.it/michaelofrhodes/

Some of the drawings may have been unfinished, for example, his drawing of a "Coccha" shows a single masted, square-rigged, vessel, but his text mentions that it has a second latin rigged mizzen mast (in the context of circa 1400 Mediterranean).

I'm sure I'm forgetting some sources -- I'll add them if I remember. One thing I do remember is that the system of rowing galleys developed over the 13th century. I think by 1200, two men on a bench, with their own oar, rowing in the alla sensile method was common. By 1300, I think, it had expanded to three men.

Smaller vessels (galiots, and fustas), usually had two men on the same oar -- bergantines had only one man per bank.

Galloglaich

2014-02-13, 11:28 PM

From what Fusilier wrote, it sounds like Galleys were just better than sailing ships in battle overall. The only reason they were typically (but not always) limited to the Mediterranean was logistical issues.

That is what he's saying but in spite of his excellent posts on this subject full of useful information and sources, this is wrong. The limitation on galleys mostly to the Med, and to a lesser extent to the Atlantic coast of France and a little bit in the English channel, was due mainly to weather favoring the galley less and larger sailing vessels more.

The larger sailing vessels and galleys had different advantages and disadvantages. The principle advantage of sailing bots, starting with cogs, hulks and later carracks and caravels and galleons, is that they were higher in the water, had higher freeboard, and made better fighting platforms for the same reason that defenders had an advantage in urban combat.

There are many well documented cases where this proved to be decisive, including IN the Mediterranean. For example during the siege of Constantinople in 1453, a Genoese ship arrived with reinforcements and supplies, and virtually the entire Ottoman fleet (consisting of large and small galleys, as well as barges and other types of vessels) struggled for nearly a day to destroy it, suffering severe casualties. Twice they almost had it when the wind came back up and it was able to move.

Sailing vessels could also move around with much less crew (even huge sailing ships could have positively tiny crews compared to galleys) thus requiring far less supplies. This also meant that they could carry vast crews of soldiers or marines who could shoot (bows, crossbows, guns), sometimes as many as 200 or 300 on a single ship, and do boarding actions on other ships. Most galleys used convicts or slaves to do the rowing anyway, so they couldn't fight, though some like those of Venice were populated by paid crew who could fight - but if they had just been rowing hard for an hour before a fight, they would be exhausted. And they couldn't shoot while rowing.

Sailing ships like cogs were vastly more seaworthy in the sense that they could handle big waves and weather. Galleys had very low freeboard, barely above the waves, if caught in a storm were typically doomed - that's why they tended to stay close to shore AND to known harbors (with certain exceptions like that impressive trip to the Azores and a few down the African coast). Sailing ships by contrast could more often ride storms out or evade them (this gradually got better and better over time).

They were also faster for a longer time, a galley could only go at maximum speed (i.e. under oars) for a limited amount of time. And sailing ships being stronger could often come out the winner in collisions with galleys.

Galleys had the advantage of being able to move much more predictably than sailing vessels, and without worrying nearly as much about the wind- they could make a steady pace in a dead calm, whereas a sailing ship was useless. Dead calms were not unusual in the Mediterranean. Galleys were also a bit more stable as gun platforms which proved useful in some of the early implementations of the all important naval cannon, though sailing ships also carried them just as early (don't worry, I'm NOT going to argue about this issue of cannons on ships again, I'll just stipulate right here and now that Fusilier and I disagree on that issue and I'm ok with it- readers can decide whatever they want to)

G

AgentPaper

2014-02-13, 11:51 PM

While we're on the topic, how expensive to build and maintain were galleys compared to sailing ships?

Galloglaich

2014-02-14, 12:00 AM

AgentPaper

2014-02-14, 12:09 AM

Good question, I'm not really sure (Fusilier might know) but I do know the cost couldn't have been too prohibitive a factor, since the city of Venice alone had such a huge production capacity that they could build a galley every day. They had a 3,000 ship navy in the late Medieval period and those were mostly galleys I believe.

These of course, were spread out over a very wide area since Venice did business all over the entire Mediterranean, much of the rest of Europe and into the Middle East and even beyond into the Indian Ocean and down the coast of Africa.

G

Interesting. And how large was, say, England's navy during the same period? Or Denmark, or Spain, or any of the other major "large sailing ship" powers.

Galloglaich

2014-02-14, 01:10 AM

It varied enormously from year to year but, nowhere near that size.

The Kingdoms (or powerful prelates, like the Pope) would mount campaigns, making a huge effort, marshalling support, pledges of loyalty, allies, and push for a war. Sometimes they didn't put together and it petered out before it even started. Sometimes they did put it together but ended up with insufficient resources and it failed or worse still, got diverted into something completely unintended (like the IVth Crusade - diverted by Venice away from their Egyptian trading partners and into sacking the Byzantine Empire instead)

But sometimes, particularly with a very strong leader, the Kingdoms would put together the force to win really important battles. This was usually a combination of assembling a very large force and the effect of their leadership abilities.

The city-states and free cities tended to be more steady in their resources, Venice being probably the single most impressive though there were many others, but they were also usually more conservative and less willing to risk their forces in battle.

Venice, accordingly, despite being very powerful, did most of her fighting through proxies. Her intelligence service was probably unmatched until the appearance of the KGB. Her principle rival, Genoa, wasn't far behind on that level. They were so good they even managed to be effective at interfering with the Mongols when they wanted to.

Up north, Denmark was badly defeated in a war against about 10 cities from the Hanseatic League in the 14th Century.

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

England was defeated by the Hanse as well, basically just by Lubeck and Danzig, in the 1470's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Hanseatic_War

This led to the establishment of a whole neighborhood in London (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steelyard) allocated to the (mostly) German Hanseatic towns, they even defended one of London's gates. Some of those famous Hans Holbein portraits of medieval merchants are of German Hanse merchants from this place. It lasted until the reign of Queen Elizabeth.

G

Galloglaich

2014-02-14, 01:18 AM

Of course all that changed when the Atlantic opened up and the Atlantic facing Monarchies, France, England, Spain, Portugal - as well as the Republic of the Netherlands, became enormously powerful sea powers with huge military and mercantile fleets.

Venice, and towns like Lubeck and Danzig remained strong for centuries but the economic weight of Europe shifted hard to the West, and they gradually declined in power relatively speaking. Venice was particularly hard hit due to their location.

G

fusilier

2014-02-14, 02:23 AM

That is what he's saying but in spite of his excellent posts on this subject full of useful information and sources, this is wrong.

Uh. What? Did you read my follow up posts? I attempted to make it pretty clear that that was *not* what I was saying. Giving as examples, the Roccaforte, and the Battle of Zonchio. I specifically mention that galleys and roundships had different advantages in fights, and what the various issues were.

Fortinbras

2014-02-14, 02:37 AM

Thanks again, Fusilier. I'd love to look at your notes if you want to PM me.

fusilier

2014-02-14, 02:44 AM

. . . (with certain exceptions like that impressive trip to the Azores and a few down the African coast). . . .

The most impressive were the galleys that sailed from Spain to the Caribbean! It's assumed that they sailed with a skeleton crew.

fusilier

2014-02-14, 03:30 AM

While we're on the topic, how expensive to build and maintain were galleys compared to sailing ships?

I can't recall seeing any sort of a comparison, but in theory good ones should be available. Spain and Venice operated both sailing ships and galleys at the same time, so finding a direct comparison is theoretically possible. (Lane's book might have something like that).

I have seen contracts, detailing how much money was paid per galley per month. Many of the Mediterranean states *hired* galleys during peacetime, and kept the state fleets small (not Venice). I've seen some details of contracts with Andrea (or perhaps Gianandrea?) Doria. But the amount paid would include a kind of bonus for the commander, and also there were certain perquisites that were part of the contract, that might sound odd to modern ears. Such as the right to purchase X bushels, per galley, of Sicilian wheat at half-price and duty-free. Also, they operated something like privateers, and could augment their pay with captured goods and vessels. Long story short, the contracted pay could be greater, or less, than that required to keep the galleys running (usually the commanders fronted the money or got loans when funds ran short).

In Gunpowder and Galleys, Guilmartin spends some time graphing the various operating costs of galleys, and how they changed over the course of the 16th century. The increasing price of ship's biscuit, the larger crews, etc, all conspired to make galleys more expensive, while at the same time they were becoming less strategically useful. One of his figures shows the costs per bank, per month to operate Spanish galleys over the coarse of the 16th century. Converting this to the cost for a galley as a whole:

In around 1520, it would have cost 240 ducats a month to operate an average galley, by 1595 it was around 960 ducats (a ducat is about the equivalent of florin). This includes the costs for all the oarsmen, sailors, and soldiers. The trend was linear, and upwards, even after the conversion to using slaves/prisoners for oarsmen. There were probably other incidental costs, but these figures are probably pretty close to the total operating cost.

[Note: these costs do not merely reflect wages. Old military regulations almost always specified an amount of money to be paid per man, but then food, weapons, clothing, etc., were taken out of that amount, whatever was left over was paid as wages.]

Also the amount varied depending upon whether or not they were on campaign or the more usual "peacetime" duties. (Peacetime duties included lots of raiding and small scale warfare). While campaigning they tended to add extra oarsmen and soldiers to ensure the best performance out of the ships, and the operating costs went up.

--EDIT-- This probably doesn't include the overhead of operating a significant sized galley fleet. Small fleets of around four galleys could probably show up to a friendly port and expect to be able to resupply. Large fleets however would have to plan ahead. So not only did bases have to be secured, they had to be well stocked with grain etc., in case, a large fleet of galleys had to set to sea. --EDIT--

fusilier

2014-02-14, 04:15 AM

Good question, I'm not really sure (Fusilier might know) but I do know the cost couldn't have been too prohibitive a factor, since the city of Venice alone had such a huge production capacity that they could build a galley every day. They had a 3,000 ship navy in the late Medieval period and those were mostly galleys I believe.

That number shows up on the wikipedia page about Venice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Venice

3,300 ships crewed by 36,000 men in 1410. The wikipedia page doesn't provide any other details. This can't be their war fleet, instead it's probably all their ships which were mostly merchants. Only a small number of those could have been galleys. They were just too expensive in terms of manpower to crew, and as you pointed out they could build galleys rapidly when needed.

I'd bet that the vast majority of the 3,300 were small sailing cargo ships, which carried most of the trade, but not the fancy goods that everybody likes to write about. ;-)

fusilier

2014-02-14, 04:22 AM

Thanks again, Fusilier. I'd love to look at your notes if you want to PM me.

PM sent. If anybody else is interested I can repost it here. It's really just a couple long lists of everything the Florentines decided to put on their merchant galleys. :-)

fusilier

2014-02-14, 04:46 AM

While we're on the topic, how expensive to build and maintain were galleys compared to sailing ships?

It looks like Osprey came through with specific numbers --

A Spanish galley of the 1530s cost 2,300 ducats to build, and 577 ducats a month to operate. Annual operating costs (assuming it was kept in service the whole year, which was probably not the case see edit), it would be 6,924 ducats. So in a year it would have cost about three-times as much to operate the vessel as it cost to build it.

Now, if the Osprey book on Spanish Galleys Galleons had similar data . . .

--EDIT-- I double checked this info against Guilmartin's chart, which shows some above average data points in the 1530s. They square very well with the specific number listed in the Osprey book. Guilmartin further notes, that these monthly values were arrived at by taking the yearly value and dividing it by twelve. So they take into account the discharging of many of the crew during the off-season.

AgentPaper

2014-02-14, 05:02 AM

It looks like Osprey came through with specific numbers --

A Spanish galley of the 1530s cost 2,300 ducats to build, and 577 ducats a month to operate. Annual operating costs (assuming it was kept in service the whole year, which was probably not the case), it would be 6,924 ducats. So in a year it would have cost about three-times as much to operate the vessel as it cost to build it.

Now, if the Osprey book on Spanish Galleys had similar data . . .

I think you mis-typed on one of those. Did you mean to say Galleon in one of those?

Anyways, I'm mostly asking in reference to Europa Universalis, since I was curious how well their pricing/stats matched up with reality. In the game, a single heavy ship (Carrack/Galleon/etc) is about as strong as four Galleys, but costs 12 times as much. Galleys also get a bonus in inland seas (such as the Mediterranean).

The bonus isn't huge, though, so heavy ships are still much stronger ship-for ship in the Mediterranean. There's a mod out there specifically designed to be (more) historically accurate, especially when it improves gameplay as well (or at least doesn't harm it), so if there's evidence that galleys fought on even terms or even beat large ships single-handedly, but were more expensive to maintain, that would be something to bring up.

fusilier

2014-02-14, 06:22 AM

I think you mis-typed on one of those. Did you mean to say Galleon in one of those?

Yes, the second one should be Galleon. I think it's past my bedtime. ;-) Thanks.

Anyways, I'm mostly asking in reference to Europa Universalis, since I was curious how well their pricing/stats matched up with reality. In the game, a single heavy ship (Carrack/Galleon/etc) is about as strong as four Galleys, but costs 12 times as much. Galleys also get a bonus in inland seas (such as the Mediterranean)

The bonus isn't huge, though, so heavy ships are still much stronger ship-for ship in the Mediterranean. There's a mod out there specifically designed to be (more) historically accurate, especially when it improves gameplay as well (or at least doesn't harm it), so if there's evidence that galleys fought on even terms or even beat large ships single-handedly, but were more expensive to maintain, that would be something to bring up.

I tried to put together a longer response, but I'm too tired to be coherent. If you want more detail, I can provide it, but I don't know the game mechanics.

Look the real problem is they are just fundamentally different kinds of vessels. There are lots of problems with saying something like "a Carrack is four times as powerful as a Galley".

If the game is really abstract, then you might be able to do something as follows using history as a guide:

From the beginning of the 16th century galleys dominated warfare in the Mediterranean, 1596 is the first time they were defeated on home ground (so to speak), but they remained viable into the early 17th century. After that point, they couldn't stop the incursions of Galleons. One of the reasons was that galleys reached an evolutionary dead-end, whereas sailing ships continued to evolve.

If technology development plays a role, and you want to model this very abstractly; give galleys a big enough bonus that Galleons aren't a threat to them in inland seas. Then allow Galleons to develop (maybe into the Ship-of-line), which is just way more powerful than a galley even in home waters?

Beleriphon

2014-02-14, 10:14 AM

If technology development plays a role, and you want to model this very abstractly; give galleys a big enough bonus that Galleons aren't a threat to them in inland seas. Then allow Galleons to develop (maybe into the Ship-of-line), which is just way more powerful than a galley even in home waters?

I'd wondered about that. A first rate ship would have put a galley to shame yes? Was it just do sheer dry tonnage or the number of cannon it carried? I know the things would have been ridiculously outclassing any smaller ship, but I wonder what exactly made them so useful.

Galloglaich

2014-02-14, 10:34 AM

Until really large sailing ships had a lot of big guns, galleys were generally better in the Med, because of the issue of rowing vs. sailing.

If the wind is still, as it often was, the sailing ship is dead in the water.

If the wind is blowing in an inconvenient direction, the sailing ships (especially the earlier sailing ships like cogs which couldn't really sail against the wind at all and only to a limited degree across the wind) are at a major disadvantage.

The galleys could be where they needed to be, and they were more effectively making use of guns earlier (guns on the bow). The Ottoman galleys in the example I gave were also not nearly as powerful or effective as the Venetian and other Italian galleys were. This was pretty clear during the siege of Malta where the Christian galleys were able to run rings around the huge Ottoman fleet, frustrating the sea-pashas by being able to land reinforcements on the island and so on.

The Venetians also created the formidable Galleasses, giant galleys designed to be gun platforms, and not too many ships of any kind could contend with those.

http://i45.servimg.com/u/f45/16/95/28/53/bunt_g10.jpg

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

which was, in turn, the precursor of the Frigate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frigate#Origins

Up north in the Baltic they used rowing ships but they weren't galleys (at least not until long after the Medieval era late 16th and 17th Century when Denmark experimented with Meditteranean style galleys a bit). Through the Medieval era they were basically using Viking longships in that role, except that they had rudders instead of steering oars. These remained valuable due to their ability to run into and out of estuaries and rivers (very popular strategy for pirates) as well as having the same advantage that galleys had when the wind was still or unfavorable (the latter being pretty common as the winds blew in different directions seasonally). There were also many choke points in the Baltic the most famous of course being the Orseund between Denmark and what is today Sweden. Dangerous and often sharply contested.

The longships also evolved into the so called Herring Buss, a sailing vessel used for fishing

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

What precisely that famous 3000 ship navy was that Venice was using is hard to be certain of, (and has been long debated) but we know from records that they were using a lot of galleys in the 15th and 16th Century, at least several hundred, not just for warfare but also for basic transportation and cargo, simply because the waters were so dangerous and in certain ports warships were required. "Roundships" as we know were not typically used as warships in the Med in this era.

There were also 'great galleys' or 'merchant galleys' (galere da mercato) which were not principally warships, but like most ships of the era, could be used as such.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galley#Trade

"The zenith in the design of merchant galleys came with the state-owned great galleys of the Venetian Republic, first built in the 1290s. These were used to carry the lucrative trade in luxuries from the east such as spices, silks and gems. They were in all respects larger than contemporary war galleys (up to 46 m) and had a deeper draft, with more room for cargo (140-250 t). With a full complement of rowers ranging from 150 to 180 men, all available to defend the ship from attack, they were also very safe modes of travel. This attracted a business of carrying affluent pilgrims to the Holy Land, a trip that could be accomplished in as little 29 days on the route Venice-Jaffa, despite landfalls for rest and watering or for respite from rough weather.[81]

From the first half of the 14th century the Venetian galere da mercato ("merchantman galleys") were being built in the shipyards of the state-run Arsenal as "a combination of state enterprise and private association, the latter being a kind of consortium of export merchants", as Fernand Braudel described them.[82] The ships sailed in convoy, defended by archers and slingsmen (ballestieri) aboard, and later carrying cannons. In Genoa, the other major maritime power of the time, galleys and ships in general were more produced by smaller private ventures.

In the 14th and 15th centuries merchant galleys traded high-value goods and carried passengers. Major routes in the time of the early Crusades carried the pilgrim traffic to the Holy Land. Later routes linked ports around the Mediterranean, between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea (a grain trade soon squeezed off by the Turkish capture of Constantinople, 1453) and between the Mediterranean and Bruges— where the first Genoese galley arrived at Sluys in 1277, the first Venetian galere in 1314— and Southampton. Although primarily sailing vessels, they used oars to enter and leave many trading ports of call, the most effective way of entering and leaving the Lagoon of Venice. The Venetian galera, beginning at 100 tons and built as large as 300, was not the largest merchantman of its day, when the Genoese carrack of the 15th century might exceed 1000 tons.[83] In 1447, for instance, Florentine galleys planned to call at 14 ports on their way to and from Alexandria.[84] The availability of oars enabled these ships to navigate close to the shore where they could exploit land and sea breezes and coastal currents, to work reliable and comparatively fast passages against the prevailing wind. The large crews also provided protection against piracy. These ships were very seaworthy; a Florentine great galley left Southampton on 23 February 1430 and returned to its port at Pisa in 32 days. They were so safe that merchandise was often not insured (Mallet). These ships increased in size during this period, and were the template from which the galleass developed."

G

Galloglaich

2014-02-14, 10:39 AM

one correction on the wiki excerpt, ballestieri definitely means crossbowman, not slinger. Though they may have also had slingers on board.

G

fusilier

2014-02-14, 01:12 PM

I'd wondered about that. A first rate ship would have put a galley to shame yes? Was it just do sheer dry tonnage or the number of cannon it carried? I know the things would have been ridiculously outclassing any smaller ship, but I wonder what exactly made them so useful.

Yeah, a first rate ship of the line would have lots of large cannons. By the Napoleonic period the standard gun on a broadside was a 24-pounder. Still not quite half as big as the centerline gun on a galley of the 16th century, but the number of them was more than enough to do a lot of damage.

Galleys usefulness are complex and also strategic in nature. This isn't an easy thing to explain, because it's very different from how modern navies have operated. It's easier to understand battles like the Sluys. The English destroyed the French invasion fleet, and England was able to move troops to France in the aftermath. Than battles like Lepanto -- the Christian allies destroyed the Turkish fleet, but the Turks still captured Cyprus, and rebuilt the fleet within a very short period . . . yet, some boasting by the Turks aside, most people at the time saw it as a huge victory for the Christian alliance, with lasting effects. [The shortest answer is it wasn't the ships that were lost that hurt the Turks, it was a huge number of experts/specialists that were killed -- but even this answer requires the understanding that those personnel weren't trained in the modern sense of the word, making them very very difficult to replace.]

At the tactical level, they're also complex, because they are dependent upon many factors, some of which are intertwined with the evolving design of both galley and sailing ship, and the interplay and adoption of new technologies and weapons was not simple and straightforward. Many histories have glossed over those complexities (somewhat understandably if written from a Norther European perspective).

Galloglaich

2014-02-14, 01:26 PM

Galleys usefulness are complex and also strategic in nature. This isn't an easy thing to explain, because it's very different from how modern navies have operated. It's easier to understand battles like the Sluys. The English destroyed the French invasion fleet, and England was able to move troops to France in the aftermath. Than battles like Lepanto -- the Christian allies destroyed the Turkish fleet, but the Turks still captured Cyprus, and rebuilt the fleet within a very short period . . . yet, some boasting by the Turks aside, most people at the time saw it as a huge victory for the Christian alliance, with lasting effects. [The shortest answer is it wasn't the ships that were lost that hurt the Turks, it was a huge number of experts/specialists that were killed -- but even this answer requires the understanding that those personnel weren't trained in the modern sense of the word, making them very very difficult to replace.]

In retrospect, Lepanto clearly represented the beginning of a gradual military decline for the Ottomans especially in terms of their naval presence. Some writers have suggested it was actually the loss of all their archers which really hurt.

I think the idea that northern Europeans of the time didn't understand the Mediterranean is problematic. It's not like they were hermetically sealed apart from it. France bridged the North Sea, the Atlantic, and the Mediterranean. The Hanse traded with the Venetians and Genoese and Florentines, among others - the Medici had embassies in Bruges and Danzig. Copernicus, Jacob Fugger Fugger and many of the powerful families of the German towns attended University at least part of the time in Italy. And these nations traded and fought in and around the Middle East. The Byzantine Empire used mercenaries from Scandinavia and the British Isles more or less continuously from the 8th Century through the end in 15th.

The real issue is that much of what is available in the English language comes through an essentially Victorian filter. For reasons I still don't quite completely understand the version of history we get in the US is, as most are aware in this thread, wrong about most things from before around 1800, and this isn't just limited to the pop culture and the History Channel.

G

fusilier

2014-02-14, 01:48 PM

fusilier

2014-02-14, 02:01 PM

I think the idea that northern Europeans of the time didn't understand the Mediterranean is problematic.

I didn't say that. I think there were actually some good sources in English from the time of Lepanto that clearly understood the situation. What I am saying is that later historians didn't have that understanding. Most of our "history" starts to be compiled in the 19th century, when they start to trace the development of historical trends. From *that* perspective what impact did Mediterranean galleys have on the development of modern Northern warships? Basically none -- they ran a parallel course for a while, before dead-ending, their impact on sailing ship design would have been indirect. So a Northern European historian could simply dismiss galleys, and usually did without trying to understand them. Besides, in the 19th century this fit in great with their ethno-centric attitudes.

The real issue is that much of what is available in the English language comes through an essentially Victorian filter.

Exactly! :-)

The future was in the sailing warship, but the journey to that result was a bit more complicated. :-)

Galloglaich

2014-02-14, 11:16 PM

I could nit pick, but ... I'm going to leave well enough alone.

We don't agree on a few things but I really appreciate the good data you are sharing on the thread, I've learned a bit here.

G

Amaril

2014-02-15, 07:09 PM

Brother Oni

2014-02-15, 07:21 PM

So I'm not sure exactly how appropriate this question is to this thread, but it seems to fit well enough. Please ignore if not acceptable. Anyway, I'm looking for information about the pricing of high medieval military equipment for the purposes of a game equipment list (I want pricing to be fairly accurate to history rather than based entirely on in-game effectiveness). Does anybody have any recommendations for equipment systems in existing games that have somewhat realistic prices for items, so I can take a look and get a sense of them? Any advice would be a huge help.

Here's a list of prices cobbled from the 14th-16th Century in England (http://www.luminarium.org/medlit/medprice.htm).

Note that the prices listed are in old money (pounds, shillings and pence), so it may take some conversion to get any real sense out of it.

Prices would vary significantly from country to country and era to era - I believe some of the other posters here can help you with further lists.

Spiryt

2014-02-15, 07:45 PM

From a very short search, I found data for polish knights/nobility in Poznań region in 1472-1478. So more very late medieval/renaissance, but should help some.

For simplicity one grzywna is one western mark, so about 48 groszes (nominally, we know medieval coins weren't exactly stable, and many rulers were inflating it almost legally)

Nobility declared their yearly income for tax purposes (so probably lowered it...)

11% - up 30 grzywien
18% - 31-60 grzywien
26% - 61-150 grzywien
26% - 151-600 grzywien
11% - 601-1500 grzywien
7% - more up to 6000 grzywien.

About the same time, master cannoner in Thorn was receiving 2 grzywnas from city, weekly.

Black robe from Czech cloth costs 28 grosz's in Cracovia.
Cow costs about 40 grosz's.

Records about sword prices vary from

15 - 240 gr

Koncerz/Estoc so 'gladius militaris alias szarszan' - both 'koncerz' and especially 'szarszun' rather mysterious terms in 15th century, people still wonder what could they exactly be.:smallwink:

30-90gr (?)

Axes

from 5 to more expensive ones, 10-15

Lance

12-24, but sometimes up to 48

Crossbow

30 - 64 gr, apparently many exactly 48 (one mark)

Maille

from 2 to 7 marks/grzywnas so up to 300 gr

'Cuirass'

180gr

Pavisse

40gr

Most of it is from "Uzbrojenie w Polsce średniowiecznej 1450-1500" A.Nowakowski it seems.

Some data from Silesia - where Czech grosz, roughly identical (for our purposes at least).

Weekly earnings in second half of 15th century:

24gr - carpenter
18-35 gr - master mason
8.5 gr - unqualified worker
3.7 - carter

I can come up with more sources and examples tomorrow.

Rhynn

2014-02-15, 08:07 PM

So I'm not sure exactly how appropriate this question is to this thread, but it seems to fit well enough. Please ignore if not acceptable. Anyway, I'm looking for information about the pricing of high medieval military equipment for the purposes of a game equipment list (I want pricing to be fairly accurate to history rather than based entirely on in-game effectiveness). Does anybody have any recommendations for equipment systems in existing games that have somewhat realistic prices for items, so I can take a look and get a sense of them? Any advice would be a huge help.

Lisa J. Steele's Fief includes lists of e.g. military gear and horse prices and mercenary, etc., wages, as well as some noble ransoms, and some farm product etc. prices for comparison. Each price is given a date, as they're all pulled ultimately from period sources. (Each price isn't inline-sourced, but they're all from sources, and the book includes a source list.) I recommend it, although the big thing you notice is that prices would vary by 100s of % within 50 years or during the same period but in different parts of Europe. You're going to have to make some arbitrary decisions.

Amaril

2014-02-15, 08:08 PM

Thanks guys! I'll take a look at some of this stuff. I'll have to make up prices for completely fictional items, but it'll be a huge help regardless.

Livius

2014-02-15, 08:29 PM

Pre-gunpowder tactics question:

What disadvantages does an army composed of small autonomous combined-arms units face against a centrally controlled mostly-homogeneous army? How much does training factor in for each side?

What can go badly wrong?

Brother Oni

2014-02-16, 04:11 AM

For simplicity one grzywna is one western mark, so about 48 groszes (nominally, we know medieval coins weren't exactly stable, and many rulers were inflating it almost legally)

Spiryt, where you list prices and earnings in 'gr', is that grzywna or groszes?

Pre-gunpowder tactics question:

What disadvantages does an army composed of small autonomous combined-arms units face against a centrally controlled mostly-homogeneous army? How much does training factor in for each side?

What can go badly wrong?

To make sure I understand the question correctly:

You have a force consisting of units of archers, spear men, men at arms (short melee) and light cavalry. Each unit has their own officers and there is no overall commander of the army to coordinate strategy or tactics. The units would also have limited or no communication with each other due to political or personal reasons.
Against them you have an army consisting of mostly one troop type. Each unit has their own officers, but they take their commands from the general in charge. Officers have very limited initiative and are expected to obey their general's orders to the letter.

It depends on what the homogeneous troops are composed of.
If they were Mongol raiders consisting of mostly light horse archers, they'll decimate the enemy infantry in short order then lead the enemy cavalry into pre-planned ambushes with their other troop types.
A greek army consisting primarily of hoplites would fare less well as the enemy cavalry would be able to harass the flanks while the archers whittle them down.
A massive poorly trained conscript army wouldn't do very well at all.

As for what could go wrong, the autonomous army can't organise themselves and end up getting in each other's way, throwing themselves into battle piecemeal or unable to co-ordinate on sudden openings. Adaptation to changing circumstances would be very quick, but liable to be the wrong response (one unit charges in to assist another, but leaves an opening in their lines).
If they see another unit chewed up and their scattered survivors fleeing, the commander may decide to withdraw his unit from the field of battle.

On the other side, if the general is killed, then the army is likely to break and retreat due to the massive loss in morale.
While they're better co-ordinated, they're also going to be unable to capitalise on sudden advantages or adapt quickly to changing circumstances. Changes to the battle plan would also depend on what communication system for passing on orders is (eg. flags or messengers), so there is an inherent delay.
While routing troops are liable to panic the other units, the general can try and rally them to stop them from fleeing as well (no such option in the other army as if a unit commander decides to run away, there's nobody really stopping them).

Livius

2014-02-16, 05:20 AM

To make sure I understand the question correctly:

You have a force consisting of units of archers, spear men, men at arms (short melee) and light cavalry. Each unit has their own officers and there is no overall commander of the army to coordinate strategy or tactics. The units would also have limited or no communication with each other due to political or personal reasons.
Against them you have an army consisting of mostly one troop type. Each unit has their own officers, but they take their commands from the general in charge. Officers have very limited initiative and are expected to obey their general's orders to the letter.

This is an accurate description of the question.

Here's some more specifics, if they help refine the answer:

Force A is 100% lightly armored spearmen and archers (90-10 split), with little training, but high morale, choice of battlefield, and a 3:1 numerical advantage. They have a few mounted messengers, and limited initiative for unit officers.

Force B is ~75% Roman legionnaire-style heavy infantry, 15% archers, and 10% light cavalry, arranged into many smaller commands with the same basic makeup. Each command is trained to fight as a unit, but there is little training in coordination between commands. There is an overall general, who coordinates with mounted messengers, but the individual commands operate under their own initiative unless specifically given an order by the overall general.

How does Force A win?
How does Force B win?

AgentPaper

2014-02-16, 06:49 AM

How does Force A win?
How does Force B win?

There are a number of tactics that each side could take, and which ones they use depends heavily on the terrain involved.

Open Field:

Force A: Spread out as much as possible to take advantage of superior numbers. Archers split up, half on each flank, and fire upon the enemy's flanks to try and drive them towards the center. The wide line formation moves forwards uniformly, and after contact, the flanks move around to surround the enemy and crush them.

Two smallish groups of infantry should be attached to the archers in a 1:1 ratio, first to protect the archers from a counter-flank, and then to join them in fending off any troops that didn't get caught in the encirclement. Once whatever forces that have been caught are dealt with, the main force can turn upon what's left and run them down without much trouble.

Force B: Force B is at a major disadvantage here if it tries to continue keeping it's forces divided evenly among it's factions. Without the ability to move freely, the cavalry will be nearly worthless. The enemy will be able to see them coming and prepare a defense against their piecemeal charges. The heavier infantry and extra archers will give them an advantage in the pitched battle, but unless they can form their cavalry into a single mailed fist, they will likely becomes bogged down and surrounded by their numerically superior foe.

There is a high risk of individual units being surrounded if they stray too far from the others, so they will need to form into a single line to repel the enemy assault, while the cavalry wheel around and strike the enemy from the flanks, alternating sides to force their opponent back and prevent a complete encirclement, and eventually hopefully breaking through their defenses to cause a rout as their formation collapses.

Another major concern is the solidarity and discipline of the unit commanders. If one of them tries to flee, it will create a gap that will compromise the entire force, and likely cause a bloody rout as half the line flees and the other becomes surrounded and consumed.

Assessment: In a field battle, Force A definitely has the advantage, but Force B could potentially turn things around if they can convince their unit commanders to turn over their cavalry to a single force, and to hold the line even when things look bad. In the end, it comes down to the overall commander of Force B and how much influence he has over the unit commanders.

Dense Forest:

Force A: With trees braking up line of sight and the formation of the force, communication and cohesion will become a major issue. Force A will still want to force a major engagement just like in the open field scenario, but with the enemy's location not fully known, this becomes much more difficult, if not impossible.

With that in mind, Force A should take a much more defensive posture, splitting into two groups: Half of the forces, all infantry, should remain in the center as a single block. The commander stays with this force, and for the most part they simply advance forwards towards the enemy. While much smaller than normal, this group is still larger than the entire enemy force, so they are unlikely to be attacked directly.

The second half, including all of the archers, should split into 6-8 groups, and spread out evenly just out of sight of the main force, with a few messengers running back and force to keep them roughly the same distance away from the center and the other groups. These forces act as bait for the enemy. When attacked, their orders are first to attempt to skirmish with the enemy using their archers, then when engaged, make a slow fighting retreat towards the center. Their other orders are to, if they hear fighting close by, march towards them and attempt to flank whatever engaged forces there are. Once the enemy retreats or routs, they move back into their previous formation, requesting reinforcement from the main body when necessary.

If more than one of the enemy's groups attacks at once, the outer force sends a signal to the main force right away, which moves in to engage while the outer force keeps them held in place. If they stay and fight, the large force moves in and tries to encircle them as normal, while the outer forces maintain their positions to fend off any flanking attempts.

The main danger here is if the enemy becomes too aware of their tactics, in which case they could take advantage of the strict orders to cause confusion, for example by attacking all of the outer groups simultaneously, preventing them from reinforcing each other and leaving the center force without a clear direction to move. They could also attempt a diversion, sending 2-3 groups to attack one flank, and then picking off the other flanks one by one while the center is distracted while the diversionary force falls back.

Force B: Assuming Force A doesn't use the tactic I described, or Force B doesn't know about it, this is where Force B's tactical flexibility becomes a major advantage. The various groups in Force B should be allowed to operate mostly independently, scouting out the enemy forces and probing their defenses from all sides. If the enemy looks strong, they fall back. If the enemy looks weak, they strike. If reinforcements change the nature of the engagement, again fall back.

However, while flexibility is key, there should also be a sort of "buddy system" set up so that each group knows roughly where it's closest neighbors are, and can send to them for help if they get caught up in a losing battle. They would also serve as a network to share information, allowing each force commander to have a decent idea of what's going on in the big picture, and act accordingly. The force commander and his forces should stay unengaged if possible, allowing him to receive information and send out orders as necessary, and move in to reinforce if immediate assistance is required.

As the battlefield develops, the supreme commander will get a better and better image of what the enemy is doing, and use that information to adapt their overall strategy as needed, and send out orders for coordinated attacks when appropriate.

Assessment: Force B has the advantage here, but only slightly. The key factor in this battle will be information. If one side can pin down the other's location and/or strategy, they will get a major advantage, potentially allowing for a decisive strike to be made. Force A will be much better at gathering the necessary information, but may fail in carrying out the necessary strike if cohesion falls too much. Force B would have trouble obtaining information due it it's rigid structure, but if they do get some, would be able to perform the necessary strike much more quickly and effectively.

Spiryt

2014-02-16, 08:22 AM

Spiryt, where you list prices and earnings in 'gr', is that grzywna or groszes?

Grosz. Indeed a little ambiguous. But in grzywnas it would be all way too expensive. :smallbiggrin:

: Spread out as much as possible to take advantage of superior numbers

Well the problem here is that 'roman style' Roman had major tendency to completely smash trough untrained, numerous foes.

Keeping oneself in tight, dense formations is generally assumed a past way to stand ground.

Hannibal managed to outmanoeuvre the legions in pretty much 'that' way under Cannae, but it's probably hard to call his forces 'little trained'.

Matthew

2014-02-16, 08:29 AM

Brother Oni

2014-02-16, 09:02 AM

Force A is 100% lightly armored spearmen and archers (90-10 split), with little training, but high morale, choice of battlefield, and a 3:1 numerical advantage. They have a few mounted messengers, and limited initiative for unit officers.

Force B is ~75% Roman legionnaire-style heavy infantry, 15% archers, and 10% light cavalry, arranged into many smaller commands with the same basic makeup. Each command is trained to fight as a unit, but there is little training in coordination between commands. There is an overall general, who coordinates with mounted messengers, but the individual commands operate under their own initiative unless specifically given an order by the overall general.

Your force description doesn't seem to tie up up with your original question as that essentially boiled down to homogeneous and centrally controlled versus heterogeneous and autonomous.

Force A appears to be homogeneous with no autonomy or central command.

Force B appears to be heterogeneous, have autonomy and have an overall central command.

Could you clarify please?

Yora

2014-02-16, 12:24 PM

Galloglaich

2014-02-16, 01:52 PM

Great stuff on the equipment lists and costs in England, Silessia and Poland. I have that same arms and armor of Poland 1400-1500 book as a PDF, which has an extended section in English in the back with some prices.

Ann Tlusty also has a lot of prices for late Medieval to Early Modern southern Germany (1450-1600) in her books but I haven't had a chance to transcribe them yet, I remember a couple of things though.

I have cobbled together some stuff over the years for my Baltic book, not all of which is published yet. The biggest problem in understanding this stuff is the currency.

So first currency, with the BIG caveat that Spyrit mentioned that values of currency fluctuated wildly and were a chronic problem (something Copernicus himself chimed in on)

French Money
1 Livre / Franc = 20 Sols
= 30 Kreuzer
1 Sol Turnois = 12 Deniers
1 Denier

Money from Germany, Italy and throughout Central Europe
1 Ducat [3.5 / 3.45 g Au] = 4 Gulden
1 Species Thaler = 2 Gulden
1 Reichsthaler = 90 Kreuzer
1 Gulden or Florin / Fl. = 60 Kreuzer
= 240 Pfennige
1 Halber Gulden = 30 Kreuzer
1 Kopffstück = 20 Kreuzer
1 Ort (Fünffzehner) = 15 Kreuzer
1 Sechser = 6 Kreuzer
1 Halber Ort = 7½ Kreuzer
1 Zweyfache Landmüntze (Fünffer) = 5 Kreuzer
1 Batzen = 4 Kreuzer
1 Kayser-Groschen = 3 Kreuzer
1 Einfache Landmüntze = 2½ Kreuzer
1 Halber Batzen = 2 Kreuzer
1 Prague Groschen = 7 Pfennige
1Kreuzer/ Kr. = 4 Pfennige
1 Pfennig / p. = 2 Heller
1 Heller

This is more specific to the towns of Prussia, Silesia and Bohemia in roughly 1456

1 Heller = ½ Dinari
1 Dinarius= 1/6 Penny = 2 Heller
1 Penny (Pfennnig) = 6 Dinari
1 Groschen (Small Groat)= 2 Pennies = 12 Dinari
1 Prague Groschen = 3 Pennies = 18 Dinari
1 Kreuzer = 2 Groschen = 4 Pennies = 24 Dinari
1 Skojec = 2 Prague Groschen = 6 Pennies = 36 Dinari
1 Thaler = 4 Kreuzer = 16 Pennies = 96 Dinari
1 Mark / Grivna = 40 Kreuzer = 80 Groschen = 160 pennies = 960 Dinari
1 Guilder (Gulden / Florin) = 60 Kreuzer = 120 Groats = 240 Pennies = 1440 Dinari

Dinari = Small bronze or silver coin worth .26 grams of silver, 6 dinarius = 1 pfennig. Bronze Dinari are the size of a dime, silver dinari are very small, 1/3 the size of a dime.
Pfennig (penny) 240 pfennigs to 1 lb of silver, each pfennig equals 1.6 grams of silver. This can mean either a thin silver coin the size of a dime (‘wiesspfennig’) 12-16mm, or a thick bronze coin the size of a modern nickel, typically 18-22mm.
Groschen (Groat) = Aka groat, gros, denaro grosso, groszy (Polish): large thin silver coin size of a nickel but only the thickness of a dime. Worth 2 pennies, 12 dinarius or 3.2 grams of silver. Typically 25-30mm
Prague Groschen = Larger Groschen minted in Prague, from silver out of the Kutna Hora silver mine, 3.7 grams of silver of high purity. Worth 3 pennies.
Kreuzer = 4.4 pfennigs = 7 (roughly) grams of silver, typically 16mm. This is a larger, thick silver coin, size of a dime 16mm. Many coins are minted in multiples of crowns, such as the 3 Kreuzer coin which is the size of a quarter.
Thaler = 4 Kreuzer = 27 grams of silver, typically. This is a very large, very thick silver coin. They got bigger over time, until by the end of the 15th Century they were worth equivalent of a Gulden.
10 Kreuzer This is a common coin worth 10 Kreuzers. A heavy coin with 70 grams of silver (2.5 ounces), it is the size of a quarter but twice as thick.
Mark worth 160 pfennigs, it is worth 352 grams or 12.4 ounces of silver. This is usually just a unit of book-keeping but is also issued as a gold coin the size of a modern penny, or a silver bar known to the Russians as a Grivna and to the Poles as a Grzywny.
Gulden / Florin = 60 Kreuzer = 240 pfennigs. Gulden a gold coin weighing 3.5 grams of gold, about the size of a nickel. It is worth 1 lb of silver. It is also the rough equivalent in medieval currency of a ‘pound’ in England or a Livre Tournois in France. The Gulden (Flemish) and the Florin (Italian) are also of roughly equivalent value. Gulden are called Złoty (“golden”) in Poland.

Source: http://www.pierre-marteau.com/currency/converter/rei-fra.html

Gulden and florin and livre were roughly equal (all meant basically a pound of silver). The Polish term Zloty was also used as a rough equivalent (meaning shiny or gold coin - similar to what gulden meant)

A Mark was (roughly) equal to 12 ounces of silver. In Eastern / Central Europe this could also be a 12 ounce silver bar called a grivna, or the equivalent in furs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grzywna_(unit)

The following is mostly from Teutonic Knights records, with some from town records from Danzig / Gdansk, Torun, and Elbing. Some is from that book armaments in Medieval Poland, some is from an early 20th Century book on Krakow (http://books.google.com/books/about/Cracow_the_royal_capital_of_ancient_Pola.html?id=X Jk0AQAAIAAJ), and some is from the Balthasar Behem Codex, a book of guild regulations from Krakow in 1505, which some friends and I have partly translated.

Mercenary pay 1380-1420

Page 2 Kreuzer per month
Servant (Footman) 4 Kreuzer per month
Servant (Mounted) 10 Kreuzer per month
Light skirmisher 10 Kreuzer per month
Light foot soldier 14 Kreuzer per month
Pikeman 20 Kreuzer per month
Halberdier 40 Kreuzer per month
Leutzule (guide) 40 Kreuzer per month
Light cavalry 40 Kreuzer per month
Gunner or arbalestier 60 Kreuzer per month
Mounted crossbowman 60 Kreuzer per month
Doppelsöldner halberdier 60 Kreuzer per month
Doppelsöldner swordsman 2 Florin per month (120 Kreuzer per month)
Feldwebel (infantry sergeant) 2 Florin per month (120 Kreuzer per month)
Tartar archer 2 Florin per month (120 Kreuzer per month)
Demi-lancer 2 Florin per month (120 Kreuzer per month)
Squire 4 Florin per month (240 Kreuzer per month)
Lancer / sergeant (no horse) 4 Florin per month (240 Kreuzer per month)
Mounted arbalestier 6 Florin per month (360 Kreuzer per month)
Lancer (with horse & armor) 6 Florin per month (360 Kreuzer per month)
Knight (‘Lance’)* 20 Florin per month (1200 Kreuzer per month)
Knight Banneret** 40 Florin per month (2400 Kreuzer per month)

Kit, general

Equipment for a lancer 22 florins
Equipment for a mounted crossbowmen 11 florins
Crossbow (type not specified, Poland) 1 mark
Sword (type not specified, Poland) 1/2 mark

Some of this is from History of the German People at the close of the Middle Ages, Johannes Janssen, 1896

Civilian wages

A typical 15th Century Peasant can earn 20-30 florins per year (after rent / tithes / taxes)

Days wage for a carpenter in Klosternaubourg (early 15th Century) 20 deniers in the summer 16 in the winter

Day wage for a carpenter or a mason in Saxony (early 15th Century) 2 groschen and 4 dinari, plus two jugs of ‘hornet’ beer, plus 3 groschen per week as bath money. Very roughly equals an annual income of about 40 florins a year.

Day wage for a boatman in the Rhine in 1450, 1 florin per day (240- 300 florins per year depending on the number of holy days and the number of days worked)

Day wage for a carpenter in Augsburg in 1480 1 florin per day

A sheep, 56 dinari
Bushel of wheat 84 dinari

Armor

Military pourpoint, with mail - 14 Kr
Cuirass with pauldrons - 39 Kr
Three Quarters ‘Lancer’ Armor - 1 Fl 40 Kr (100 Kr)
Milanese Harness - 4 Fl 10 Kr (250 Kr)
Milanese Armor, “of Proof” - 7 Fl 4 Kr (424 Kr)

G

Galloglaich

2014-02-16, 03:04 PM

Taxes in Augsburg to pay for Burgundian Wars, 1475:

Type Tax (Gulden) Number
Mendici 0 107
Handworkers without property 0 2700
Burgher (recently married) 0.5 420
Burgher (artisan) 1 532
Burgher (artisan) 3 266
Burgher (artisan) 6 98
Burgher 10 59
Burgher 15 48
Burgher 20 26
Burgher 25 16
Großburgher 30 15
Großburgher 40 14
Großburgher 60 4
Großburgher 70 3

The richer 100 or so Burgher's would be either guild aldermen, merchants, or professionals like physicians or ship captains. The grossburghers were mostly Patricians and / or members of the city council, judges or burgomeisters. The recently married burghers are probably guild masters who just completed their journeymen status.

Total on the Tax roll, 4,485. Total population of Augsburg at this time, circa 20,000

G

GraaEminense

2014-02-16, 03:29 PM

Since we are discussing rpg economics...

I have a copy of the eminently useful 1999 book "...and a 10-foot pole" for Rolemaster. It's basically a huge equipment price list for 12 historical periods, 10000 BCE until today.

I'm simply wondering if anyone have read it and would care to comment on how flawed it is, obvious and necessary simplification aside?

Rhynn

2014-02-16, 03:36 PM

I'm simply wondering if anyone have read it and would care to comment on how flawed it is, obvious and necessary simplification aside?

Well, the prices are just based on standard Rolemaster prices (and a 100:10:1 coin exchange rate), so there's probably no relation to reality there, and it's got your studded leather armor (even though RM as such doesn't, having "rigid leather" instead) and full plate for the Middle Ages (stretching the definition a bit), etc. It's perfectly functional for a game (if you really need dozens of pages of equipment lists), but it's not got anything to do with historical reality. (For one thing, while it accounts for under/oversupplied markets, it doesn't account for the fact that the basic purchasing power of the same silver coin could vary hugely by region.)

Storm Bringer

2014-02-16, 06:06 PM

This is an accurate description of the question.

Here's some more specifics, if they help refine the answer:

Force A is 100% lightly armored spearmen and archers (90-10 split), with little training, but high morale, choice of battlefield, and a 3:1 numerical advantage. They have a few mounted messengers, and limited initiative for unit officers.

Force B is ~75% Roman legionnaire-style heavy infantry, 15% archers, and 10% light cavalry, arranged into many smaller commands with the same basic makeup. Each command is trained to fight as a unit, but there is little training in coordination between commands. There is an overall general, who coordinates with mounted messengers, but the individual commands operate under their own initiative unless specifically given an order by the overall general.

How does Force A win?
How does Force B win?

a few thoughts:

"roman style" legionaries earned their reputation by repeatedly grinding though greater numbers of "lightly armored spearmen, with little training, but high morale". the majority of the Celtic and Gaelic armies were relatively lightly equipped (spear, shield and maybe a helmet) freemen with high morale but less training (due to being farmers and tradesmen rather than full time soldiers*) than a legionnaire.

I agree that splitting the cavalry up into "penny packets" does not make sense form a purely tactic viewpoint. I can see operational and strategic reasons for spreading out the cavalry**, but not tactical ones.

Formed, steady infantry are pretty much immune to melee cavalry unless someone disrupts their formation (for example, by archery, or by pinning them in melee while the cavalry flanks).

However, "light" cavalry would include horse archers, or javelin armed skirmisher cavalry as well as just lightly armoured melee cavalry. those could be more effective spread along the whole line, helping to disrupt the enemy line just before contact.

the bigger the armies get, the worse communication problems will be, but it affects the two armies differently. Army A, with a linear, centralized command structure, relies on the main commander being able to see and control the whole army, meaning he has trouble controlling events that happen outside his field of view and may be unable to exploit a opportunity because he does not see it until too late. But, he has a pretty clear idea where any part of his army is and what it's doing. Army B, on the other hand, with it's decentralized command structure, can react very quickly to small local events, but their general has trouble co-ordinating on a larger scale, because each of his sub units are off doing their own thing***, and he has to order each sub-unit individually, whereas the general of Army A can use his linear command chain to mobilize a big force quicker (it's the difference between finding and telling 5 people what to want to do and finding and telling one person).

I think that the general of army A would do best by trying to force a single, large scale, decisive battle, where his numbers count for the most and he can properly control all his sub-units because they are in one place where he can watch them. He can have a battle line that his both longer than Army B and deeper, with reserves to plug any gap. If army B tries to match his width, they will be too strung out and overwhelmed individually. If they keep close together, they will be outflanked, surrounded and crushed.

For Army B, the best option is to avoid the decisive battle, give ground and instead attempt a "death by a thousand cuts" tactic, where several sub units converge and attack a isolated or vulnerable element of army A, maul it, then disperse before Army A can concentrate on them, while other army B elements start another attack on a different part of army A. this plays into Army Bs advantages of better individual troops and better low level leadership, while minimizing Army As greater numbers and more rigid command style. after wearing down Army A b repeated attacks, stripping them of their greater numbers and high morale, then Army B can concentrate and fight the decisive battle, but this time with closer to even numbers, where the superior skills of army Bs infantry can prevail.

In the end, it really comes down to how much space army B has to play with. if they can stay mobile, and avoid battle when outnumbered, then they can whittle down army A. but if army A can threaten something army B simply must defend, like the capital or a vital river crossing, then they can be drawn into a pitched battle that favours army A more.

* the Gaelic warrior elites were, man for man, the match for anything rome could summon, but they are the elite, not the line infantry. Rome could afford to equip every one of it's soldiers to a standard that the Gauls could only equip a few. perhaps more to the point, a Gaul was a Warrior, but a Roman was a Solider. one is an individual, the other is a team player. One fights, the other makes war. ( For those who are not native English speakers, I hope the nuances in those sentences translate. if not, I will elaborate)

**I won't go into the differences between the tactical, operational and strategic levels here, but what I mean is that their can be "big picture" reasons to do something that looks stupid in the "small picture". For example, the Army B formations are normally widely spaced border guards, I can see the logic in having small numbers of scouting and raiding cavalry attached to each unit, even though that cavalry would fight better in bigger formations. The romans had standing Auxilia cohorts called "Cohors equitata", which had a organic cavalry element in about a 4 foot:1 horse ratio.

*** Rule Two of planning: ask three people what tactics to use, you will get at least three different answers, and no one will agree on which is best. (Rule One is Murphy's Law)

edit: I guess that was more than a "few" thoughts.....:smallredface:

fusilier

2014-02-16, 06:38 PM

Does a revolver get affected by being submerged in water? Many assault rifles don't take it well when fired with water inside them, but a revolver has "relatively" wide gaps for gas to escape and the action is entirely muscle-driven, so the gun shouldn't be exploding in your hand. And I'm not sure how tight the seal between bullet and cartridge usually is, but I would assume that it would take some time for enough moisture to get inside soak the powder to a point where it won't go off. And since it's a revolver you could still pull the trigger again and get the next round on a missfire.

In the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, one character has his gun in the bathtube and it looks like he has it in the water. But that movie uses period-correct percussion cap revolvers. Would that change things?

Revolvers should be fairly robust to those sorts of things, the issue is wether the ammunition is ruined by getting wet. On a metallic cartridges might be ok depending upon how well sealed they are, and how long they are left in the water.

Cap-and-ball pistol will probably have the powder ruined pretty quickly. How much, and how good the wadding is, and how tight the cap is in place -- maybe it would still fire, if it's not in the water for too long.

Galloglaich

2014-02-16, 08:06 PM

New fencing video I just had to share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDP2maXCzt4&feature=youtu.be

G

Storm Bringer

2014-02-16, 08:23 PM

Does a revolver get affected by being submerged in water? Many assault rifles don't take it well when fired with water inside them, but a revolver has "relatively" wide gaps for gas to escape and the action is entirely muscle-driven, so the gun shouldn't be exploding in your hand. And I'm not sure how tight the seal between bullet and cartridge usually is, but I would assume that it would take some time for enough moisture to get inside soak the powder to a point where it won't go off. And since it's a revolver you could still pull the trigger again and get the next round on a missfire.

In the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, one character has his gun in the bathtube and it looks like he has it in the water. But that movie uses period-correct percussion cap revolvers. Would that change things?

the scene in question. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnFdTXtFdSE)

from the looks of it, I would say the gun was only held in the bubbles, not the water, so it should work fine.

AgentPaper

2014-02-16, 09:00 PM

New fencing video I just had to share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDP2maXCzt4&feature=youtu.be

G

That's some cool swordplay, but I must admit it's a little hard to take them seriously after you notice the watermelons hanging between their legs. :smalltongue:

Galloglaich

2014-02-16, 09:53 PM

Well, I'm pretty sure they are re-enactors so it's to be expected. And it is period.

You can only ask so much. ;)

G

deuxhero

2014-02-16, 10:55 PM

Are there any indications of sling use in "eastern" or "Asian" cultures? All the stuff I can find about their historical use is in the the Americas, Europe are parts of Africa.

GraaEminense

2014-02-17, 05:17 AM

Well, the prices are just based on standard Rolemaster prices (and a 100:10:1 coin exchange rate), so there's probably no relation to reality there, and it's got your studded leather armor (even though RM as such doesn't, having "rigid leather" instead) and full plate for the Middle Ages (stretching the definition a bit), etc. It's perfectly functional for a game (if you really need dozens of pages of equipment lists), but it's not got anything to do with historical reality. (For one thing, while it accounts for under/oversupplied markets, it doesn't account for the fact that the basic purchasing power of the same silver coin could vary hugely by region.)
Much as i suspected, I don't have any other RM stuff so I didn't see the connection. Thanks.

Yora

2014-02-17, 05:40 AM

New fencing video I just had to share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDP2maXCzt4&feature=youtu.be

G

What I noticed is that many of the "hits" look like just barely grazing the opponent with the tip of the blade or stabbing from a range that would allow only for relatively shallow penetration.
Is that because of the sparring/demonstration situation or still considered a proper execution of the technique? I guess in a fight to the death, you would take what you can get even if it won't be fatal by itself. But at the same time, I often hear that in real combat you shouldn't try to be fancy but efficient to surive.

Berenger

2014-02-17, 05:55 AM

Are there any indications of sling use in "eastern" or "Asian" cultures? All the stuff I can find about their historical use is in the the Americas, Europe are parts of Africa.

The german Wikipedia article on slings has a wider section on "The sling in history" than the english version and states:

"East Asia

The eastern cultures of Asia (especially China and Japan) apparently didn't use the sling. The Chinese knew the trebuchet, respectively the Zugblide [note: alternative german expression for trebuchet] as a siege weapon. In Tibet the sling was known."

Translation by me. Unfortunatly, [citation needed] applies.

Spiryt

2014-02-17, 06:04 AM

What I noticed is that many of the "hits" look like just barely grazing the opponent with the tip of the blade or stabbing from a range that would allow only for relatively shallow penetration.
Is that because of the sparring/demonstration situation or still considered a proper execution of the technique? I guess in a fight to the death, you would take what you can get even if it won't be fatal by itself. But at the same time, I often hear that in real combat you shouldn't try to be fancy but efficient to surive.

Against bare skin and light woolen/linen chemises , blouses and pants there is really not much force required to inflict very serious wound.

Manuals obviously seem to suggest more bold strikes once opponent is already hurt.

Besides, the very point of good technique is to achieve good swing/thrust without great wind up and swinging.

snowblizz

2014-02-17, 07:22 AM

Against bare skin and light woolen/linen chemises , blouses and pants there is really not much force required to inflict very serious wound.

Manuals obviously seem to suggest more bold strikes once opponent is already hurt.

Besides, the very point of good technique is to achieve good swing/thrust without great wind up and swinging.

I keep asking the same question myself (I'm sure the sword people here are getting proper annoyed at me already :smalltongue:) because for obvious reasons modern recreation is very "safety minded", I hope.:smallbiggrin:

I was looking at the vid with more open eyes though, some of those cuts (and blocks especially) looked incredibly awkward, until I took a few secs to consider the stances they paused in. And then I could see it, opponents blade locked and your own pointing at something vital.
The sword/dagger combo looked particularly brutal actually. I was imagining the slitting of wrists in those moves...:smalleek::smalleek::smalleek:

Brother Oni

2014-02-17, 07:31 AM

Is that because of the sparring/demonstration situation or still considered a proper execution of the technique?

It's generally considered bad form to slice your partner up in a demonstration. :smalltongue:

It's also live steel and I've seen far too many accidents with supposedly blunt weapons to fault them for taking it slow. Bear in mind where the cameraman is - a fast demonstration with long bladed weapons and a third party fairly close by, sounds like a recipe for a trip to the hospital.

As Spiryt said, good technique doesn't need additional power as simply executing the technique at speed provides it with all the power it needs, especially with bladed weapons.

Matthew

2014-02-17, 08:00 AM

Gulden / Florin = 60 Kreuzer = 240 pfennigs. Gulden a gold coin weighing 3.5 grams of gold, about the size of a nickel. It is worth 1 lb of silver. It is also the rough equivalent in medieval currency of a ‘pound’ in England or a Livre Tournois in France. The Gulden (Flemish) and the Florin (Italian) are also of roughly equivalent value. Gulden are called Złoty (“golden”) in Poland.

The florin was not worth a "pound" of silver, but rather a devalued "pound" of silver at the time and in the locality (itself based on the Trojan pound). At 3.5 grams the florin was roughly worth 35 grams of silver; valuation problems were what caused the first English gold penny (modelled on the florin) to be withdrawn, as it was valued too highly for its gold content (it was supposed to be worth 20 silver pennies, being twice the weight of a silver penny of the time).

English coinage was relatively stable and "pure" for a few hundred years, so it is a very useful measure of wages during that period (typically 1-2 pennies a day for a foot soldier). A florin was in no way worth a 1lb of sterling silver when it was first issued.

Galloglaich

2014-02-17, 08:52 AM

It's generally considered bad form to slice your partner up in a demonstration. :smalltongue:

It's also live steel and I've seen far too many accidents with supposedly blunt weapons to fault them for taking it slow. Bear in mind where the cameraman is - a fast demonstration with long bladed weapons and a third party fairly close by, sounds like a recipe for a trip to the hospital.

As Spiryt said, good technique doesn't need additional power as simply executing the technique at speed provides it with all the power it needs, especially with bladed weapons.

Those guys weren't sparring, they were going through a technique progression from the book - you notice they do a technique (like a cut), then a counter, then a counter to the counter, etc.

They were going through that at very slow speed so you can clearly see the techniques. It's a type of video that a lot of groups have done over the years.

It's true you don't need a lot of force to cause a cut with a sharp but those were not meant to be cuts, they are kind of 'placeholders' for cuts if that makes any sense. I don't know this particular group but I've seen this type of demonstration enough times to recognize what they were doing. Some people do much faster demo's or even spar with steel without much or any protection, but it is indeed very risky, and that isn't something you see the re-enactor groups doing much in HEMA demos (though if you look at some of those crazy Viking re-enactors they go at it pretty hard with fairly incomplete armor... but that is a totally different thing)

As for the florin, I stipulated the value fluctuated enormously, and the terms 'florin' and 'gulden' were often used interchangeably in the records without necessarily even referring, in the first case, to coins issued from florence. But the prices / ratios I quoted are where they seemed to be in my sources from North Eastern Germany (Hanseatic towns) to Prussia and down to Bohemia, in the mid-15th Century. About a pound of silver, same as a livre or a lire (again, at least in theory), a bit more than a mark or a grivna.

All of the above coins were over or (much more frequently) under valued due to economic factors or currency manipulation by rulers, or towns who were issuing them. The latter happened in Prussia in the 1st half of the 15th Century when the Teutonic Order made the Prussian towns pay a huge ransom for their soldiers that had been captured by Poland at Grunwald. So the towns simply devalued the currency they were using to pay taxes for a drastic rate, causing a big financial disruption.

G

Matthew

2014-02-17, 09:12 AM

As for the florin, I stipulated the value fluctuated enormously, and the terms 'florin' and 'gulden' were often used interchangeably in the records without necessarily even referring, in the first case, to coins issued from florence. But the prices / ratios I quoted are where they seemed to be in my sources from North Eastern Germany (Hanseatic towns) to Prussia and down to Bohemia, in the mid-15th Century. About a pound of silver, same as a livre or a lire (again, at least in theory), a bit more than a mark or a grivna.

All of the above coins were over or (much more frequently) under valued due to economic factors or currency manipulation by rulers, or towns who were issuing them. The latter happened in Prussia in the 1st half of the 15th Century when the Teutonic Order made the Prussian towns pay a huge ransom for their soldiers that had been captured by Poland at Grunwald. So the towns simply devalued the currency they were using to pay taxes for a drastic rate, causing a big financial disruption.

Yeah, prices fluctuate, but the value of gold to silver was fairly stable until the really big silver discoveries of the late middle ages, and even then it didn't go too crazy. One of the reasons the florin was such a good international coin was because it also remained a fairly steady coinage in terms of purity, much like the solidus that preceded it. It is a fascinating subject, and it is possible to figure out some pretty reasonable ideas about costs. For example, knowing roughly the devaluation of the French livre it is possible to see that the pay for French foot soldiers and English foot soldiers in 1200 was on a reasonable parity, even though the former was paid several times the nominal wage of the latter.

Thiel

2014-02-17, 09:45 AM

deuxhero

2014-02-17, 04:25 PM

The german Wikipedia article on slings has a wider section on "The sling in history" than the english version and states:

"East Asia

The eastern cultures of Asia (especially China and Japan) apparently didn't use the sling. The Chinese knew the trebuchet, respectively the Zugblide [note: alternative german expression for trebuchet] as a siege weapon. In Tibet the sling was known."

Translation by me. Unfortunatly, [citation needed] applies.

Thanks. Seems interesting how such a basic yet effective weapon didn't seem to get used there.

Livius

2014-02-17, 06:44 PM

Your force description doesn't seem to tie up up with your original question as that essentially boiled down to homogeneous and centrally controlled versus heterogeneous and autonomous.

Force A appears to be homogeneous with no autonomy or central command.

Force B appears to be heterogeneous, have autonomy and have an overall central command.

Could you clarify please?

Force A is homogeneous with central command and no autonomy.
Force B is heterogeneous with "central command" but lots of autonomy (depending on what a sub-unit commander does, it may be impossible to undo it).

fusilier

2014-02-17, 09:02 PM

Galloglaich

2014-02-17, 09:16 PM

fusilier

2014-02-17, 09:22 PM

Yeah, prices fluctuate, but the value of gold to silver was fairly stable until the really big silver discoveries of the late middle ages, and even then it didn't go too crazy. One of the reasons the florin was such a good international coin was because it also remained a fairly steady coinage in terms of purity, much like the solidus that preceded it. It is a fascinating subject, and it is possible to figure out some pretty reasonable ideas about costs. For example, knowing roughly the devaluation of the French livre it is possible to see that the pay for French foot soldiers and English foot soldiers in 1200 was on a reasonable parity, even though the former was paid several times the nominal wage of the latter.

Yeah, but in the international sense "florin" needs to be clarified. The Italian florin was very consistent in terms of gold amount, but other "florins" did fluctuate. Also, if I'm not mistaken, it was common to quote soldier salaries in gold coins, but to pay them with silver. I remember this discussion was important in observing how pay rates changed over time, because if one were to look at the gold coins it would seem that the pay dropped, but in silver coins it remained about the same (or something like that, I would have to double check).

Stephen_E

2014-02-17, 10:19 PM

Well the problem here is that 'roman style' Roman had major tendency to completely smash trough untrained, numerous foes.

Keeping oneself in tight, dense formations is generally assumed a past way to stand ground.

Hannibal managed to outmanoeuvre the legions in pretty much 'that' way under Cannae, but it's probably hard to call his forces 'little trained'.

I would point out that Spartacus repeatedly smashed Roman armies and his force could definitely be described as high morale but poorly trained and equipped.
The big advantage of the well trained force is that it can lose and run and regroup. Poorly trained forces that a reliant on high morale, when they lose, tend to shatter.

Matthew

2014-02-18, 10:02 AM

Well the Livre in France and the Lira in Italy both theoretically meant a pound of silver, but as book-keeping units and actual cash they tended to fluctuate according to the needs of various rulers, the French king being particularly bad about it from what I remember.

On the continent they did not so much fluctuate as just "inflate", especially in France. Some coinage reforms would temporarily halt inflation by issuing a new coin, as with Louis IX, but the inflated value of the livre was unlikely to deflate.

Yeah, but in the international sense "florin" needs to be clarified. The Italian florin was very consistent in terms of gold amount, but other "florins" did fluctuate. Also, if I'm not mistaken, it was common to quote soldier salaries in gold coins, but to pay them with silver. I remember this discussion was important in observing how pay rates changed over time, because if one were to look at the gold coins it would seem that the pay dropped, but in silver coins it remained about the same (or something like that, I would have to double check).

This all goes to "units of account" versus actual coins. There was a particularly interesting case of the 200 "gold coins" for the yearly upkeep of one knight in the holy land, which Smail calculated one way Tyreman another, based on totally different understandings of the value of the coin. The florin, of course, was based on an Arabic gold coin, which was based on the solidus, though each iteration being smaller (something like 4.5, 4.0 and 3.5 grams). Crusades make for very interesting examples, as they tend to have prospective budgets available, though obviously these were speculative and special cases in many instances. Hopefully have some time tomorrow to delve into this some more, but it is time to do the taxes!

fusilier

2014-02-18, 06:00 PM

This all goes to "units of account" versus actual coins. There was a particularly interesting case of the 200 "gold coins" for the yearly upkeep of one knight in the holy land, which Smail calculated one way Tyreman another, based on totally different understandings of the value of the coin. The florin, of course, was based on an Arabic gold coin, which was based on the solidus, though each iteration being smaller (something like 4.5, 4.0 and 3.5 grams). Crusades make for very interesting examples, as they tend to have prospective budgets available, though obviously these were speculative and special cases in many instances. Hopefully have some time tomorrow to delve into this some more, but it is time to do the taxes!

Was the Arabic coin the "tari"? I know those were minted in Sicily for a while, and are sometimes considered the only gold coin minted in Europe at the time. Although Sicily wasn't usually considered part of Europe at that time . . .

Also, even in Florence there were "two" florins. A small one and a big one (about 20% larger). The small one was popular earlier, and the big one later. According to my source, they stopped minting the small one altogether in 1471.

My understanding is that most people who had to conduct business in a variety of coins just kept scales handy. :-)

Brother Oni

2014-02-18, 07:55 PM

My understanding is that most people who had to conduct business in a variety of coins just kept scales handy. :-)

And I thought pounds, shillings and pence was complicated... :smalltongue:

fusilier

2014-02-18, 10:43 PM

And I thought pounds, shillings and pence was complicated... :smalltongue:

Yeah . . . no, not really. That system was pretty widespread apparently the Romans started it. Although I always thought it strange that there were 20 shillings to the pound, and 12 pence to the shilling -- as the Roman pound was divided into 12 ounces. Doing some searching on wiki, it looks like it grew out of a different system, where 12 silver denarii = 1 gold solidus, and 240 denarii happened to weigh a pound.

By variety of coins I meant coins from different nations, where the relationship was variable, or not obvious. Scales would make it fairly easy. Just weigh the coins -- although the purity of the metal would have to be taken into account . . .

Weighing wasn't a bad idea in general, as sometimes people tried to shave a little bit of metal off the coins.

Galloglaich

2014-02-18, 10:52 PM

Gold and silver were often used basically as bullion currency in many places, but some rulers (notably France) tried to crack down on that and enforce the use of their own fiat currency (using the face value of the coins).

Shaving coins was widely practiced but it was also a very serious crime, punishable by corporeal means (including execution in some cases).

The other big problem was that of rulers devaluing the coins with lead, tin, and other metals. One of the reason the prague groschen was so popular was that it was high purity, due to the fantastic output of the Kutna Hora silver mine.

England enjoyed similar benefits due to several good silver mines in the British Isles until the late middle ages.

G

Talakeal

2014-02-19, 04:02 AM

Quick question about the ballista: Is it a direct fire weapon or is it typically used like a bow, arching to fall down upon its target.

Brother Oni

2014-02-19, 07:21 AM

Yeah . . . no, not really. That system was pretty widespread apparently the Romans started it.

Then the British ran away with it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_banknotes_and_coins). :smalltongue:

I concede the point, but some odd values are still used out of tradition, for example prize money for some horse races are still quoted in guineas.

Quick question about the ballista: Is it a direct fire weapon or is it typically used like a bow, arching to fall down upon its target.

Primarily direct fire but I see no reason why it couldn't be used for indirect fire if it was mounted suitably (the more powerful and hence heavier ones would be on wheels rather than on a universal joint or similar, thus they'd have a comparatively fixed angle of fire).

The available ammunition (bolts or rocks/lead weights) may also affect the choice of fire.

Spiryt

2014-02-19, 07:34 AM

This whole difference between 'direct fire' and 'indirect' one always seemed odd to me.

All projectiles drop due to velocity.

Thus, to aim at larger distances, one has to at least roughly know projectile speed, and the way it behaves in air (how quickly it drops velocity, stability, vibrations etc.).

Be it rock and pilum or ballista or some anti-material 0.50 rifle with 1 meter + barell.

The obvious difference being that pilum will have a drop of 3 meters at 15 meters of distance, while 0.50 rifle bullet will have the same drop at 1.5 kilometres. :smallwink:

Brother Oni

2014-02-19, 07:45 AM

This whole difference between 'direct fire' and 'indirect' one always seemed odd to me.

The only real difference is that indirect fire is done when you don't have line of sight to the target. Whether that's because of range or there's an obstacle in the way doesn't really matter.

Some people, like me, use the same terminology for firing at an arc typically used for indirect fire, even when you have LOS to the target. To my mind, this is because a projectile fired at such an arc develops certain characteristics, like suffering more from environmental conditions like wind, or gravity having an effect on the downward arc.

Thus, to aim at larger distances, one has to at least roughly know projectile speed, and the way it behaves in air (how quickly it drops velocity, stability, vibrations etc.).

There are some other really exotic effects when you're dealing with extreme long range artillery (eg coriolis effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect)), but the one that I have trouble wrapping my head around is the naval bombardment firing solutions that permit them to fire three full salvos, yet all shells arrive at the target at the same time.

Mike_G

2014-02-19, 09:01 AM

Matthew

2014-02-19, 11:12 AM

Was the Arabic coin the "tari"? I know those were minted in Sicily for a while, and are sometimes considered the only gold coin minted in Europe at the time. Although Sicily wasn't usually considered part of Europe at that time ...

No. The gold coin was the "dinar" (originally the same weight as the Byzantine solidus) and the silver coin was the "dirham" (about twice the weight of a standard penny). Very decent coins, so much so that the Franks minted their own versions. Never heard of the "tari", but sounds interesting!

Also, even in Florence there were "two" florins. A small one and a big one (about 20% larger). The small one was popular earlier, and the big one later. According to my source, they stopped minting the small one altogether in 1471.

Another thing I have never heard of! The standard florin was 3.5 grams or 54 grains, as compared to the 72 grain solidus (in other words, three quarters the weight). A bigger one would have been equal to the dinar, so that would make sense.

My understanding is that most people who had to conduct business in a variety of coins just kept scales handy. :-)

Oh certainly, but purity was the big issue, and weight doe not tell you much about that, which is why the sterling silver penny and, later, the florin were so important for trade, being struck at regular reliable content and weights.

Yeah . . . no, not really. That system was pretty widespread apparently the Romans started it. Although I always thought it strange that there were 20 shillings to the pound, and 12 pence to the shilling -- as the Roman pound was divided into 12 ounces. Doing some searching on wiki, it looks like it grew out of a different system, where 12 silver denarii = 1 gold solidus, and 240 denarii happened to weigh a pound.

By variety of coins I meant coins from different nations, where the relationship was variable, or not obvious. Scales would make it fairly easy. Just weigh the coins -- although the purity of the metal would have to be taken into account . . .

Weighing wasn't a bad idea in general, as sometimes people tried to shave a little bit of metal off the coins.

It is so freakin' complicated and I have forgotten half of what I knew back when I was pursuing this subject, but the "pound" system seems to have been inspired by the tremissis (a one third weight solidus of 24 grains) that was common in the west around the time of Charlemagne. Basically, the tremissis is the "sol" or "shilling", being worth twelve silver coins of around 24 grains (the penny), though really these were struck to the tower pound and so were about 22.5 grains.

The newborn is crying and I have to get up for work, so I will have to love you and leave you. If you have not before, then do check out this file I put together: Ancient and Medieval Coinage (http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/2075699/).

Galloglaich

2014-02-19, 11:39 AM

The mark was also supposed to be a pound of silver, at least in theory, though it came to mean a 12 ounce 'pound'. Maybe that corresponds with the older 'small' florin. One of the most common types of currency for a 'pound' in the Medieval was the 12 ounce silver bar or 'grivna'.

I didn't know about the two types of florin either, but that explains the difference between your numbers and mine, most of my research was focused on the mid 15th Century (1456, to be precise) for my Baltic book.

G

Spiryt

2014-02-19, 12:55 PM

Firing at really steep, above 45 degrees angles, without having enemy at any significant height - to shoot above some obstacle, or whatever, could be something called 'indirect fire', I guess.

It's not something I can imagine doing with ballista though. Can be wrong, but it would be straight out hazardous, and projectile would be likely to travel much higher than it would travel far. Hard to really aim at anything smaller than meadow.

warty goblin

2014-02-19, 01:40 PM

This whole difference between 'direct fire' and 'indirect' one always seemed odd to me.

All projectiles drop due to velocity.

It is true that all projectiles drop due to gravity. I don't think that makes the distinction between direct and indirect fire meaningless however.

Ignoring air resistance for a moment, the maximum range across a flat plain you can achieve with a projectile fired at a given velocity occurs at a launch angle of 45 degrees above the horizontal. For every point below this maximum range, still firing at a fixed velocity, there exist two angles that will land the projectile at that location. One of these lies above 45 degrees, the other below. It's sensible to distinguish between the super-45 angle and the sub-45 angle, hence direct and indirect fire.

Factoring in air resistance, I believe the longest-range launch angle can deviate from 45 degrees, but this doesn't really matter. For any target below the maximum range, the mean value theorem guarantees that there will still exist a direct and indirect firing solution for that target.

fusilier

2014-02-19, 03:56 PM

I didn't know about the two types of florin either, but that explains the difference between your numbers and mine, most of my research was focused on the mid 15th Century (1456, to be precise) for my Baltic book.

G

In those regions, as you noted, they used gulden, that were ostensibly based on the florin, and often referred to as florins, but they didn't have the consistency of the Florentine florin (the "true florin"?). The Ducat (if wikipedia is correct), originated in Venice and should have been almost identical to the small florin -- for some reason, when other nationalities adopted the Ducat they tended to maintain it's high standards, so that compared to gulden it was usually stronger and more stable -- but the numbers I've seen vary a bit (that may be due to different florins/guldens floating around).

Anyway, it seems, like Matthew, whenever I revisit this subject, I'm amazed by how confusing it is! :-)

I found some more info about the small and large florins on an Italian website --

The "Piccolo" (the small florin), was in use from 1256-1510. From the middle of the 15th century onward it was more common as a *silver* coin.

The "Grosso Guelfo", was a silver coin from 1200-1420, then a gold coin until 1510.

My suspicion is that the used the same dies to make silver and gold coins.

Another source claims that when first introduced the florin was equal to a lira (i.e. pound of silver), but by 1500, due to the devaluation of silver currency, and not a change in the gold content, it was worth 7 lire. But, this source doesn't explain if the 1500 evaluation was using the small or large florin.

fusilier

2014-02-19, 04:05 PM

No. The gold coin was the "dinar" (originally the same weight as the Byzantine solidus) and the silver coin was the "dirham" (about twice the weight of a standard penny). Very decent coins, so much so that the Franks minted their own versions. Never heard of the "tari", but sounds interesting!

The tari was apparently based on the quarter-dinar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarì

Galloglaich

2014-02-19, 04:26 PM

In those regions, as you noted, they used gulden, that were ostensibly based on the florin, and often referred to as florins, but they didn't have the consistency of the Florentine florin (the "true florin"?).

But you underestimate a bit the amount of commerce between Italy and Northern and Central Europe.

You have to remember, they were using a lot of Italian currency throughout Europe, especially and specifically Florentine currency, since they were doing huge amounts of business with the Medici bank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medici_Bank#Maturation), as well as with the Bank of St. George from Genoa and the Venetians as well. Plus the large Augsburg banks (notably that of the Fuggers and Welsers, but there were several others) who were closely linked to Italy.

The Medici had a permanent outpost in Basel, several in France, a factory in London, and a large factory in Bruges for most of the 15th Century (it went bankrupt and was disbanded shortly after the death of Charles the Bold)

The Genoese were major players from the Crimea up to Prussia and their Bank of St. George controlled most of the Central European trade routes to the Silk Road until the demise of their Crimean outposts in the late 15th Century.

The Venetians established a successful bank in Lübeck (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gherardo_Bueri&prev=/search?q%3Dmedici%2Bbank%2Blubeck%26biw%3D1366%26b ih%3D638) in 1410, (which was also linked to the Medici bank) and they had a strong presence in Krakow, Wroclaw and Gdansk. Several important Jewish families who were being persecuted in Venice fled to German towns in the 15th -16th Centuries. Many of them ended up in Hamburg. They continued to trade with their Italian and Mediterranean trade networks.

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

Most of the larger German and Polish cities, particularly the University towns (Basle, Cologne, Erfurt, Krakow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Krak%C3%B3w#Early_history), Prague), had large, permanent Italian populations, with their own Italian neighborhoods featuring distinct compounds from the Genoese, Venetians, Florentines, and sometimes other families and towns.

And etc.

G

Mike_G

2014-02-19, 04:46 PM

It is true that all projectiles drop due to gravity. I don't think that makes the distinction between direct and indirect fire meaningless however.

Ignoring air resistance for a moment, the maximum range across a flat plain you can achieve with a projectile fired at a given velocity occurs at a launch angle of 45 degrees above the horizontal. For every point below this maximum range, still firing at a fixed velocity, there exist two angles that will land the projectile at that location. One of these lies above 45 degrees, the other below. It's sensible to distinguish between the super-45 angle and the sub-45 angle, hence direct and indirect fire.

Factoring in air resistance, I believe the longest-range launch angle can deviate from 45 degrees, but this doesn't really matter. For any target below the maximum range, the mean value theorem guarantees that there will still exist a direct and indirect firing solution for that target.

But if you aren't trying to go over something, it's never a good reason to fire at a more than 45 degree angle, since your shot, while theoretically having the same point of impact, will be much more affected by air resistance. You will always be more accurate, and probably maintain more momentum by shooting flatter than 45.

There is some mental block that make people think bows always shoot high angle and drop onto the heads of the enemy. That would only be true at long range and that would be the 45 degree angle shot. Like when Henry's archers loosed a volley at the French knights at Agincourt to goad them into an attack. Arrows at the end of their flight would be less accurate and hit less hard than direct shots at close range.

And a shot passing through a formation at a flat angle has a better chance of hitting a target than one passing through at a steep angle. You miss at a steep angle, your arrow plows into the dirt. You miss the first guy's head at a a shallow angle, you may hit the second guy in the chest. Or the third guy in the groin. Or the fourth guy in the leg.

Bows work exactly like crossbows or rifles. You aim at the target. If it's close, you shoot at a flat angle. If it's far way, you aim high and hit it on the downward arc.

Real indirect fire in great for artillery that is firing over friendly troops, or trying to hit an enemy in defilade, behind a hill or in a ditch. It's a lousy way to shoot at a guy you can actually see and have a clear path to.

Figgin of Chaos

2014-02-19, 05:39 PM

Brother Oni

2014-02-19, 06:40 PM

Bows and crossbows are both cool, so I'm making a system where they're differently effective but neither is strictly better than the other.

Would armor penetration be an accurate way to do that? As in, bows are better against lightly armored opponents while crossbows are better against heavily armored opponents?

Other ideas include crossbows being more clumsy (you can't move and attack with a crossbow in the same round), for the tradeoff of more damage and/or range.

Availability of equipment and training are irrelevant in this system.

Armour penetration is an acceptable way of differentiation, as is giving bows a higher ROF for less damage/armour penetration.

I would say that crossbows are harder or impossible to reload on the move, depending on the spanning mechanism, but attacking on the move wouldn't be an issue - if anything, they're easier to shoot and more accurate than bows.

Related to the ease of shooting would be the ability of a crossbowman to use cover that an archer can't, but that might be going into too much detail.

warty goblin

2014-02-19, 08:28 PM

But if you aren't trying to go over something, it's never a good reason to fire at a more than 45 degree angle, since your shot, while theoretically having the same point of impact, will be much more affected by air resistance. You will always be more accurate, and probably maintain more momentum by shooting flatter than 45.

There is some mental block that make people think bows always shoot high angle and drop onto the heads of the enemy. That would only be true at long range and that would be the 45 degree angle shot. Like when Henry's archers loosed a volley at the French knights at Agincourt to goad them into an attack. Arrows at the end of their flight would be less accurate and hit less hard than direct shots at close range.

And a shot passing through a formation at a flat angle has a better chance of hitting a target than one passing through at a steep angle. You miss at a steep angle, your arrow plows into the dirt. You miss the first guy's head at a a shallow angle, you may hit the second guy in the chest. Or the third guy in the groin. Or the fourth guy in the leg.

Bows work exactly like crossbows or rifles. You aim at the target. If it's close, you shoot at a flat angle. If it's far way, you aim high and hit it on the downward arc.

Real indirect fire in great for artillery that is firing over friendly troops, or trying to hit an enemy in defilade, behind a hill or in a ditch. It's a lousy way to shoot at a guy you can actually see and have a clear path to.
Absolutely. I'm not trying to argue that the two are anywhere near equivalent in effectiveness or anything like that; only that they are in fact meaningfully distinct. If nothing else the fact that indirect fire is usually not the answer suggests the differentiation is sensible.

AgentPaper

2014-02-19, 08:47 PM

Knaight

2014-02-19, 09:17 PM

AgentPaper

2014-02-19, 09:36 PM

That's a really odd definition though. For one thing, it would make modern sniping indirect fire, where it's about as directed as it gets.

Indirect doesn't mean unaimed.

fusilier

2014-02-19, 10:16 PM

But you underestimate a bit the amount of commerce between Italy and Northern and Central Europe. . . .

I wasn't clear. The florin was widely copied because it was widely used. My point was there were lots of different coins being produced that were referred to as "florins" -- in the 14th century there around 150 different florins being produced by different states/authorities.

Storm Bringer

2014-02-19, 10:17 PM

AMFV

2014-02-19, 10:21 PM

fusilier

2014-02-19, 10:28 PM

Indirect doesn't mean unaimed.

I know this was mentioned before up thread, but I think it bears repeating --

Indirect fire has a specific meaning in a military sense. When the person or persons firing the weapon cannot see the target, and are receiving aiming instructions from a forward observer. Or, more generically, the weapon isn't being sighted at the target, and aiming is accomplished by plugging in azimuth and elevation using instruments.

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

Colloquially it might mean shooting at a steep angle, but perhaps other language should be used.

For ballistae, I know that crossbows were usually shot using flatter trajectories than bows, and I don't think they were very good at plunging fire (something involving the aerodynamics of the bolt makes them unstable as they lose energy?). I imagine that a ballista would have similar performance but I'm not certain.

Galloglaich

2014-02-19, 10:41 PM

Another definition might be that direct fire is when you're aiming by pointing directly at your target, which means you're shooting from such a range that the height lost to gravity is minimal enough to be ignored, while indirect fire is whenever you need to aim above a target to account for the arc that the projectile will take.

Under this definition, bows do usually use "indirect' fire since you're rarely going to be close enough to aim straight at someone and hit them, and will need to aim at least a little bit above them. Whereas for a musket or rifle, the drop-off is much less, so you can aim straight at someone and hit them even if they're relatively far away, compared to a bow, leading to much more use of direct fire.

You should really say direct or indirect 'shots' not 'fire' since fire literally means firearms.

Plunging shots are the most common way that bows were used on the battlefield in Europe historically and (to help answer another question upthread) this is the principle difference between bows and crossbows - but more on that in a second.

The ability to do plunging shots and what the English called 'clout shooting' (shooting into a specific area, for which they trained by shooting at big colored sheets or 'clouts') was valued especially for siege warfare and especially, on ships due to the ability to kill people behind cover and shoot over friendly troops. Bows had a very high rate of shots.

In practice it's a little bit like light mortar fire, minus the explosions. It could be very effective - this was the preferred method of the Mongols and the Turks, to shoot from the maximum possible distance with very light flight arrows into masses of enemy forces until they caused a morale problem in their target, then charge in and shoot heavier arrows at point blank range to cause and exploit a panic.

English style longbows were used also at a distance with 'clout shooting' in a similar manner but with heavier (and more damaging arrows) but which didn't have quite as good of range.

For direct shots at individual human targets though any kind of self-bow (i.e., bow as opposed to a crossbow) was limited to about 50 feet.

The indirect shots could be as much as 300 or more meters for a longbow, and maybe as much as 400 meters for a powerful recurve (with the light flight arrows). So to summarize:

LONGBOW
Advantages:
Good long 'plunging shots' range: 300 meters or more
Heavy, hard-hitting arrows
Fast rate of shots
Disadvantages:
Short direct shot range, requires a lot of strength, can't be readied indefinitely.

RECURVE COMPOSITE
Advantages
Excellent long range plunging shots with flight arrows
Fast rate of shots
Relatively easy to use on horseback
Disadvantages
Short direct shot range, requires a lot of strength, can't be readied indefinitely. Relatively light arrows. Susceptible to rain

Crossbows are a subject of a lot of confusion mainly because there were so many types. But functionally, for Europe, to kind of dumb it down for RPG terms, you can very roughly divide them into 2 basic types for the battlefield: medium crossbows which can be spanned by hand (using belt-hook, foot stirrup, goats-foot etc.) and very heavy (though not necessarily larger) crossbows which have to be spanned by a windlass or a smaller but more expensive cranequin (something like a jack you use to lift up a car when you are changing the tire)

The former have a maximum direct-shot range of about 80 meters, the later close to 150 meters, maybe more. So much better than the bow. Crossbows could also shoot plunging shots, but crossbows didn't shoot as fast.*, half the rate of a longbow for the medium type, probably more like 1/3 the rate for a heavy type.

The medium crossbows didn't have as good of a maximum range as the best of the longbows or recurves, lets say very roughly about 250 meters, but we have some evidence (Ralph Payne Galways famous experiment, plus a lot of textual evidence) that the really heavy ones had the best range of all, over 400 meters.

Crossbows also shot heavy bolts which were probably the best for armor-piercing and probably better at killing large animals like horses.

MEDIUM CROSSBOW
Advantages
Good direct shot range (about 80 meters)
Can be steadied indefinitely
Can use supports for better aim
Heavy bolts

Disadvantages
Slower rate of shots
Poor maximum range (less than the best bows)

HEAVY CROSSBOW
Advantages
Very good direct shot range (about 150 meters)
Can be steadied indefinitely
Can use supports for better aim
Heavy bolts
Very good maximum range (about 400 meters)
Disadvantages
Very slow rate of shots
Expensive
Dangerous to use
Required expensive devices to span them
vulnerable to rain (can't easily be unstrung)

G

fusilier

2014-02-19, 11:29 PM

Crossbows are a subject of a lot of confusion mainly because there were so many types. But functionally, for Europe, to kind of dumb it down for RPG terms, you can very roughly divide them into 2 basic types for the battlefield: medium crossbows which can be spanned by hand (using belt-hook, foot stirrup, goats-foot etc.) and very heavy (though not necessarily larger) crossbows which have to be spanned by a windlass or a smaller but more expensive cranequin (something like a jack you use to lift up a car when you are changing the tire)

I just wanted to add that I've started to see some references that indicate heavy crossbows (although perhaps not the heaviest siege crossbows) could be spanned with belt-hooks. I haven't seen firm evidence, but there's the occasional mention to it. (For example, see the discussion here (http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/2012/11/spanning-crossbow-from-belt.html) about the 15th century Spanish knight Don Pero Nino, who, "used to bend the strongest crossbows from the girdle")

The theory revolves around the fact that although a belt hook doesn't confer the same mechanical multiplier that a windlass or crannequin does, it uses the legs which are much more powerful than the arms. Belt-hooks could be combined with a pulley which gives a 2:1 mechanical advantage. I strongly suspect that it would have required some decent physical conditioning and practice to prevent back injury. There's more discussion on it here:
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.15581.html

It's interesting, but I haven't seen any sort of consensus on it yet.

Spiryt

2014-02-20, 04:06 AM

It is true that all projectiles drop due to gravity. I don't think that makes the distinction between direct and indirect fire meaningless however.

Ignoring air resistance for a moment, the maximum range across a flat plain you can achieve with a projectile fired at a given velocity occurs at a launch angle of 45 degrees above the horizontal. For every point below this maximum range, still firing at a fixed velocity, there exist two angles that will land the projectile at that location. One of these lies above 45 degrees, the other below. It's sensible to distinguish between the super-45 angle and the sub-45 angle, hence direct and indirect fire.

Factoring in air resistance, I believe the longest-range launch angle can deviate from 45 degrees, but this doesn't really matter. For any target below the maximum range, the mean value theorem guarantees that there will still exist a direct and indirect firing solution for that target.

Yeah, aiming much higher than 45 degrees would be indeed different, in much longer, 'around' path towards target.

And we have some scant sources quite seemingly suggesting it, from descriptions of Hastings battle to Paolo Uccello paintings.

Still, doesn't seem possible/practical with balista.... But maybe someone had actually heard otherwise?

Short direct shot range, requires a lot of strength, can't be readied indefinitely. Relatively light arrows. Susceptible to rain

That would be good summing up, I don't see how this particular part can help.

There's absolutely nothing that stops one form firing heavy arrows from his reflexive bow.

Also, it should be 'reflexive composite' - many bow are recurved, but obviously stereotypical steppe composite was not only recurved but very strongly bent away from archer at several places.

I just wanted to add that I've started to see some references that indicate heavy crossbows (although perhaps not the heaviest siege crossbows) could be spanned with belt-hooks. I haven't seen firm evidence, but there's the occasional mention to it. (For example, see the discussion here about the 15th century Spanish knight Don Pero Nino, who, "used to bend the strongest crossbows from the girdle")

I looking into original (Spanish? Latin?) could make a lot of difference, but I would seriously be sceptical about interpreting 'strongest' (or whatever word used) as some absolute term.

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=256401

Rather, if anything, absolute in terms of actually simply spanned bows, or simply 'strongest possible'.

It does seem that any spanning devices more complicated than goats foot are pretty much Renaissance, anyway. I've never seen cranequin not described as 'XV century, 'second half of XV century, XVI century' and so on, at least.

Spanning bows with belt hook would be probably rather closely related to dead lift/leg press at large angle exercises, and while some technical details can make it easier, I would be very sceptical about bending anything heavier than, say, 500 pounds that way...

Spiryt

2014-02-20, 04:35 AM

Bows and crossbows are both cool, so I'm making a system where they're differently effective but neither is strictly better than the other.

Would armor penetration be an accurate way to do that? As in, bows are better against lightly armored opponents while crossbows are better against heavily armored opponents?

Other ideas include crossbows being more clumsy (you can't move and attack with a crossbow in the same round), for the tradeoff of more damage and/or range.

Availability of equipment and training are irrelevant in this system.

As others had noted, it's hard to really differentiate clearly between 'bows and crossbows' that way, because, simply, of sheer amount of different draw weight, length etc. combinations possible.

Most basic difference would probably be rate/easiness of reload, with crossbow disadvantage most of the time. Cumbersome and can make one vulnerable.

While crossbow advantage would be much more intuitive, 'modern' line of sight and aiming, much less variables while aiming - and the fact that one is not holding that 50/100/150 pounds spring with his fingers while aiming.

Crossbow would be also easier to shot from all sort of cover, and positions different than standing up from that reason.

Brother Oni

2014-02-20, 07:26 AM

Excellent summary Galloglaich, although I have one question:

For direct shots at individual human targets though any kind of self-bow (i.e., bow as opposed to a crossbow) was limited to about 50 feet.

I assume this is with the heavier war arrows and not flight arrows?

Spanning bows with belt hook would be probably rather closely related to dead lift/leg press at large angle exercises, and while some technical details can make it easier, I would be very sceptical about bending anything heavier than, say, 500 pounds that way...

Reading up about it, having a stirrup helps as well, since that allows the initial starting position to be lower, so as the draw becomes heavier, the leg angle is more acute.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OytFU139S3Y/USuBuXzYMrI/AAAAAAAAAD0/i1iLEXdwKdk/s1600/crossbow-belt-hook.jpg

From the looks of it, it's less deadlift and more single legged, leg press motion. Note that a western-style crossbow's power stroke is much shorter than a bow's (I've seen values of ~6 inches), so the strain is significantly less on the crossbow man than you think.

Something I noticed while looking up stuff is that the crossbow is 'upside down' in the image, in that the trigger is facing away from the crossbowman, presumably for basic weapon safety.
A cranequin/windlass or goatsfoot spanner has the crossbow the other way round though, but given that the string is more secure in the former and the draw is much lighter in the latter, accidentally tripping the trigger may not be such an issue.

Spiryt

2014-02-20, 10:07 AM

From the looks of it, it's less deadlift and more single legged, leg press motion. Note that a western-style crossbow's power stroke is much shorter than a bow's (I've seen values of ~6 inches), so the strain is significantly less on the crossbow man than you think.

Uh, sadly, we have few preserved 'early' crossbows, but:

Wooden, or composite bows had way longer span than 6 inches for all we know...

http://www.berwelf.de/artikel/anleitungen/armbrust.pdf

Here it seems to be estimated at 14.

Extremely short spans, like in some late, very heavy steel bows, would indeed be easier to span, but it would defeat the whole purpose.

From fire to frying pan - such short spans wouldn't allow to store any significant energy.

Those reconstructions indeed doesn't seem to exceed 400 pounds for most part anyway.

Also, even when pushing straight down, I doubt that one leg leg press is really helping much...

Especially that:

- one still has to hold the crossbow and pretty much stand on one leg, is not secured and stabilized neatly like during actual 'leg press' exercise.

- graphic sources tell us, that many, many early crossbows exhibit no spanning stirrup/ring at all!

Galloglaich

2014-02-20, 11:23 AM

My understanding (from many sources) is that the most common battlefield arrows used by the Mongols, Turks, and other steppe nomads weighed about 40 grams, with the long range flight arrows about 20 grams.

They did also have heavy arrows and these were used at close range for killing and finishing off men and horses.

Longbow arrows are usually indicated (very rough average) of about 80 grams, less for flight arrows, more for some of the heavier types.

Crossbow bolts come in a bewildering variety of types (maybe even more than arrows) but the 'typical' war bolts seem to be very roughly in the range between 60 and 120 grams. There really is too much variety to guess an average but my closest estimate would be around 90-100 grams.

They did also use something like flight arrows (flight bolts) for crossbows, including special whistling types which nobody seems to have been able to reproduce yet, as well as both explosive and incendiary bolts which have been found.

The earliest record I've seen for a cranequin is about 1390's from the account of an English earl on crusade with the Teutonic Knights in Lithuania, but they seem to have already been established by then. There is also mention from around the same time that the Lithuanians captured a German artisan and forced him to teach them how to make both the crossbow and the spanner, in exchange for his life.

But they did have windlasses for spanning crossbows going back to the 13th Century. And those weren't as difficult to use as I'd thought personally.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEOeZTV9wiA

My reduction of 'medium' and 'heavy' crossbows is really too simplistic, I was trying to reduce it to typical RPG categories. The Teutonic Knights categorized 4 different types. The knottelarmbruste (I may have misspelled that this is from memory) had a solid wood bow, made of yew. By far the most common, (they had thousands of them) apparently spannable by hand, I'm guessing around 200 lbs draw. Then the stirrup crossbow, which really needs a stirrup to be spanned, and probably the belt hook too - probably 200-350 lbs range I'm guessing. Those were also pretty common, they had several hundred.

Then a heavier (maybe 250-500 lbs draw) cavalry type weapon, spannable by a device like a goats foot, which could be shot pretty fast, and was more expensive. In the Baltic these were composite prods because apparently the steel prods were vulnerable to snapping in extreme cold, but in other parts of Europe they used steel prods.

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

and finally the really heavy ones say 400- 1200 lbs, the windlass, or 'English winder' which seems to have mostly been for sieges, and the more popular 'German winder' or cranequin, quite expensive but quite effective. They claimed to be able to kill horses with one shot. They only had a couple of hundred of these and made more as fast as they could.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjYQEyC4m10

Looks like it took Todd about 20 seconds to span the crossbow with his cranequin...

The type remained popular for hunting from horseback long after guns took over from crossbows for warfare (into the 18th Century)

Could you span a really heavy crossbow with just a belt hook and stirrup? Probably some really strong guys could, but I think the issue would be doing it over and over, it would be a major feat of strength and wear you out quick. I think this is another issue with crossbows in general, if you are using mechanical devices to span the weapons (often two guys behind a pavisse, one spanning one shooting) it's much less physically exhausting than pulling and shooting a 120 lb bow over and over and over again.

G

Galloglaich

2014-02-20, 11:39 AM

Excellent summary Galloglaich, although I have one question:

I assume this is with the heavier war arrows and not flight arrows?

What I mean is that, past that range, most archers aren't targeting a specific individual, rather they are shooting at an area. You could still shoot at a specific individual, but the accuracy is bad enough that you have a lower probability of hitting.

So what makes more sense tactically is, "there are a bunch of bad guys in this ten foot circle of space 200 meters away" therefore "lets pour arrows into that ten foot circle". So each individual arrow may not have a high probability of hitting, but if you have say, 5 archers shooting 6 arrows a minute, that's 30 arrows a minute landing in a ten foot space, it's a good chance you are going to get a few hits. This is how they trained, at least in England. "Shoot at that spot." "Ok he's dead now shoot at that other spot."

That's how bows were mainly used. Crossbows were also used this way as well, incidentally, but a crossbow had a much longer individual shot range, from 3 or 4 times or up to 10 or more times further.

Crossbows weren't as good at the long range, plunging shots / area shots, as bows were mainly because crossbows didn't shoot as fast*, especially the heavier ones. This I think is where the ballista would fail, the rate of shots was low enough that you wouldn't get as much of the benefit of dropping shots into an area. Some benefit, but they were probably better used to aim directly, the way the Romans apparently used their (surprisingly effective) scorpion torsion-spring weapons. To lob missiles into a spot or over a wall, a catapult or something similar seems more logical.

The ability to rest or steady the crossbow on a support of some kind (typically a pavise shield, or the side of a wagon, the freeboard of a ship, the crenelated wall of a castle etc.) should also not be discounted, especially for 'sniper' shooting. This was so valued for firearms that they used to carry around their own shooting posts for nearly two centuries.

G

* meant to mention this before - unless you are using something like a Chinese repeating crossbow of course

Spiryt

2014-02-20, 11:49 AM

My understanding (from many sources) is that the most common battlefield arrows used by the Mongols, Turks, and other steppe nomads weighed about 40 grams, with the long range flight arrows about 20 grams.

It is said so, and it may be very well the truth, I was just saying that the fact they were using the light arrows doesn't, in any way, mean that you can't use very heavy arrows with reflexive bow.

The earliest record I've seen for a cranequin is about 1390's from the account of an English earl on crusade with the Teutonic Knights in Lithuania, but they seem to have already been established by then. There is also mention from around the same time that the Lithuanians captured a German artisan and forced him to teach them how to make both the crossbow and the spanner, in exchange for his life.

But they did have windlasses for spanning crossbows going back to the 13th Century. And those weren't as difficult to use as I'd thought personally.

That's interesting. Do you recall what word was used in this account? Latin, German, French?

I haven't personally ever seen something that might pass as cranequin or any more complicated spanning device before 15th century.

It seems Ekdahl suggest use of something like that in late 14th century already, indeed.

http://web.archive.org/web/20100819044938/http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/ekdahl.htm

The statements about those 'winders' mostly have no annotation though, sadly.

Galloglaich

2014-02-20, 12:00 PM

It is said so, and it may be very well the truth, I was just saying that the fact they were using the light arrows doesn't, in any way, mean that you can't use very heavy arrows with reflexive bow.

Yes, I agree, and in fact they did - in fact I've even heard of all-steel arrows, used obviously at very close range. I don't know if anyone has ever reproduced those effectively though.

Which also brings up steel bows, which seem to have been very common and poorly understood.

That's interesting. Do you recall what word was used in this account? Latin, German, French?

I haven't personally ever seen something that might pass as cranequin or any more complicated spanning device before 15th century.

It seems Ekdahl suggest use of something like that in late 14th century already, indeed.

http://web.archive.org/web/20100819044938/http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/ekdahl.htm

The statements about those 'winders' mostly have no annotation though, sadly.

It's Latin, and I have the document, but it's a mess, bad ocr and I can't find the section. I don't know what word they used. It's an account by Henry Bollingbroke (later King Henry IV of England) of his crusades in Prussia.

I was mainly interested in it because he brought 300 longbowmen with him, so it opens up the issues like "what if English longbowmen fought mongols" and "what if English longbowmen fought German crossbowmen" and so on. Thy fought in the massive failed siege of Vilnius, and some other engagements. But I couldn't decipher it very well, except for part of the introduction which is in English. I have a distant plan to get a better ocr and try to lure one of my latin reading friends to take a stab at translation, but that's a bit down the pipe.

On his first attempt, amusingly, he was mugged in Saxony by Robber Knights and lost all his stuff. Later on a lot of the account is lists of kit, supplies used and purchased, lost, captured and so on. Meals. That is where the crossbow and winder is mentioned, apparently but I couldn't narrow it down.

G

fusilier

2014-02-20, 05:04 PM

Reading up about it, having a stirrup helps as well, since that allows the initial starting position to be lower, so as the draw becomes heavier, the leg angle is more acute.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OytFU139S3Y/USuBuXzYMrI/AAAAAAAAAD0/i1iLEXdwKdk/s1600/crossbow-belt-hook.jpg

From the looks of it, it's less deadlift and more single legged, leg press motion. Note that a western-style crossbow's power stroke is much shorter than a bow's (I've seen values of ~6 inches), so the strain is significantly less on the crossbow man than you think.

That image is a bit unusual, as the guy has his foot in the air, rather than on the ground (which is more common in the iconography, and wouldn't require balancing on one foot while you do it). --EDIT-- A quick internet search is only showing people balancing on one-foot to do it (and not many pictures of it at all). I know I've seen it done with both feet on the ground (by bending both knees). I'll do some more searching and see if I can find an example. This balancing on one-foot way just seems weird to me. --EDIT--

--EDIT 2-- Apparently it's considered an alternative method: "Alternatively, you can put your foot in the stirrup, crouch-down, and slip the hook over the bowstring. Then you stand up, guiding the string into the lock. It's more work that way, but you don't have to balance on one foot." --EDIT 2--

This is all just theoretical, but the draw length could be a factor -- as there is a limited range of motion (closer to where the legs are almost straight), where people tend to generate significantly more power. Combined with a pulley, it may have given fairly impressive results without being too tiring.

What turned me on to this line of inquiry was a brief mention on another forum about how in Italy during the 15th century it looks like belt-hooks were preferred (which seems true from the iconography). The problem is warfare in Italy was pretty heavily armored at the time, while crossbow use was also increasing. So it seemed odd to me that they wouldn't be using more powerful bows. I speculated about other reasons first (maybe at close range the crossbows were powerful enough to pierce armor, and they preferred close-range, high-volume fire?). Then I discovered there is some discussion about how a belt hook makes use of the legs, etc., that suggested that perhaps belt hooks could suffice for a heavy crossbow. It was also the first time I saw discussion that considered the initial force used (legs / arms), rather than just the force multiplier that the mechanical system generates.

Mr. Mask

2014-02-21, 12:03 AM

I remember discussing the matter of Mongols carrying more than one type of arrow. The point was raised that in the heat of battle they would end up mixing their arrows. I'm not sure if any cases got brought up, I do wonder if confusing your arrows would have been a problem.

Brother Oni

2014-02-21, 03:05 AM

Which also brings up steel bows, which seem to have been very common and poorly understood.

The only historical examples (pre 20th Century) I've seen are Indian ones.

Modern (1950s) steel bows I've told, shoot reasonably well, but wood was preferred. Sadly nobody makes them anymore due to modern materials, like fibreglass, being both cheaper and superior and the old steel bows are too dangerous to shoot.
There's also the issue of them being based off Victorian designs for target shooting, so probably don't have much in common with the historical steel war bows.

I remember discussing the matter of Mongols carrying more than one type of arrow. The point was raised that in the heat of battle they would end up mixing their arrows. I'm not sure if any cases got brought up, I do wonder if confusing your arrows would have been a problem.

Not usually. Quivers can have internal dividers or they can just carry a separate quiver full of the different arrows.
Given that they would typically retreat to restock on arrows, they could exchange then.

It's like asking a modern sniper if he can grab a magazine of different ammunition in the heat of combat. While there's always a potential for it to happen, usually they're stored in different pouches on their person which minimises the chance of grabbing the wrong one.

Mr. Mask

2014-02-21, 03:18 AM

Brother Oni

2014-02-21, 03:46 AM

A sniper in what conditions? Assassination? SWAT support? Trenches of WW2? On their own in the jungle conducting guerilla warfare?

I can believe they'd be able to choose their ammo in some of these conditions, but I'm not sure how they'd fare when artillery is dropping on their position and bullets are coming their way.

From the first hand account from a sniper in the PWRR (Sniper One (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sniper-One-Blistering-British-Battle/dp/0141029013)), he was positioned on the roof in a sangar, picking off incoming insurgents attacking their compound with the rest of his squad.

Admittedly when things started getting hairy in one of the later attacks, they switched to SA80s from their L96s since the latter couldn't put down a sufficient volume of fire, but that's due to changing battlefield circumstances not due to an inability to pick up the right magazine.
Soldiers have been known to added stripes of coloured tape on the outside to help distinguish between them in battle, in addition to storing them in different locations.

He did say that they had to clear the roof occasionally during a mortar attack, which is the closest they had to incoming artillery bombardment, but in those scenarios, accurate fire is the least of your concerns.

I still see it as a possibility that in battle conditions, you'll be firing whatever arrow-shaped thing your hand reaches.

While I don't disagree with you, especially with inexperienced or green troops, I do think you're underestimating the training and experience of a veteran soldier.

Mr. Mask

2014-02-21, 03:57 AM

Did the book go into much detail in terms of changing ammo under battlefield conditions? Were there times they meant to use one type but ended up loading the other, or they realized they should have switched ammo types, or whichever?

I'm not underestimating the ability of trained troops, I'm just not sure if it extends this far or not. There's also the question of how much training you need to be able to pull it off in battlefield situations.

Brother Oni

2014-02-21, 07:21 AM

Did the book go into much detail in terms of changing ammo under battlefield conditions? Were there times they meant to use one type but ended up loading the other, or they realized they should have switched ammo types, or whichever?

Not really, since he generally had more pressing concerns on his mind.

He did mention green spot ammunition specifically for sniper weapons (historically, these are the first couple hundred rounds off a new press, so they're very consistent and to exact standards) and the different coloured stripes on the ammunition for a Barrett borrowed off a special forces guy (SBS probably) and the glee they had in putting holes in things and people with it, especially with the AP rounds (which were very expensive and they got a ticking off from the owner for using them all up).

I suspect that I won't be able to convince you that troops under fire are capable of reliably loading the right ammunition, so I'll have to leave it for people who've actually been in the situation to deny or verify it.

SiuiS

2014-02-21, 08:10 AM

Uh, sadly, we have few preserved 'early' crossbows, but:

Wooden, or composite bows had way longer span than 6 inches for all we know...

http://www.berwelf.de/artikel/anleitungen/armbrust.pdf

Here it seems to be estimated at 14.

Extremely short spans, like in some late, very heavy steel bows, would indeed be easier to span, but it would defeat the whole purpose.

I think he meant draw distance, not 'wing span'. Composite materials allow more strength in smaller actual motion don't they? It's why crossbows are measured in foot-pounds of output, not draw length. It certainly doesn't look like fourteen inches from resting to drawn to me.

Brother Oni

2014-02-21, 08:38 AM

I think he meant draw distance, not 'wing span'. Composite materials allow more strength in smaller actual motion don't they? It's why crossbows are measured in foot-pounds of output, not draw length. It certainly doesn't look like fourteen inches from resting to drawn to me.

No, Spiryt was right (or at least I understood what he meant). Spanning is the crossbow version of drawing for a bow and the span distance is the same as the power stroke distance (same value, just in different contexts), which is shorter than the draw distance (it doesn't include the resting distance).

It's just taking me some time to work through the PDF he linked as my German is really, really rusty. :smallredface:

I can't fault his assessment either as we're talking about crossbows from different eras, thus we're both correct. Chinese crossbows were known for their ridiculous draw lengths compared to western crossbows, so a 14" draw is not unreasonable.

Fusilier's post regarding the biomechanics involved with spanning a crossbow is just a more in-depth treatise. I've also seen a crossbow spanned with both feet on the ground (although it was hand spanned rather than with a belt hook as it was a much lighter draw) and it is more stable to do it that way than with one leg in the air.

That reminds me - for those of us with modern pulley crossbows (Galloglaich?), how are they spanned? At >200lb draws, they sounds a bit much to do by hand and with all the gubbins on top of the crossbow (eg. sights), it seems to rule out belt hook and the various winches.

Edit: While looking for information, I found another example of odd Chinese warfare devices that I had to share: the 11th Century Song Dynasty 'Triple-bow Little Bed Arcuballista' (http://www.grandhistorian.com/chinesesiegewarfare/siegeweapons-chuangzinu.html), sangong chuangzi nu (三弓床子弩), which essentially is a normal ballista, only using three prods to provide tension.

http://www.grandhistorian.com/chinesesiegewarfare/images/c-triplebowsiegecrossbow.jpg

snowblizz

2014-02-21, 10:09 AM

Edit: While looking for information, I found another example of odd Chinese warfare devices that I had to share: the 11th Century Song Dynasty 'Triple-bow Little Bed Arcuballista' (http://www.grandhistorian.com/chinesesiegewarfare/siegeweapons-chuangzinu.html), sangong chuangzi nu (三弓床子弩), which essentially is a normal ballista, only using three prods to provide tension.

I remember seeing mention of a weapon like that being used on elephant back, in the indochina area, both a double and triple bow version. Gave the bolt more oomph to penetrate jungle vegetation.

SiuiS

2014-02-21, 10:28 AM

No, Spiryt was right (or at least I understood what he meant). Spanning is the crossbow version of drawing for a bow and the span distance is the same as the power stroke distance (same value, just in different contexts), which is shorter than the draw distance (it doesn't include the resting distance).

It's just taking me some time to work through the PDF he linked as my German is really, really rusty. :smallredface:

Okay. That jives more with my admittedly limited know-how.

Edit: While looking for information, I found another example of odd Chinese warfare devices that I had to share: the 11th Century Song Dynasty 'Triple-bow Little Bed Arcuballista' (http://www.grandhistorian.com/chinesesiegewarfare/siegeweapons-chuangzinu.html), sangong chuangzi nu (三弓床子弩), which essentially is a normal ballista, only using three prods to provide tension.

http://www.grandhistorian.com/chinesesiegewarfare/images/c-triplebowsiegecrossbow.jpg

I can see some interesting stuff there but it's late and my mind can't quite figure out how the hell that works. I'll have to draw up diagrams later.

Galloglaich

2014-02-21, 11:34 AM

Regarding steel bows:

Yes I'm referring to the Indian ones, though they were also used by the Mughals (Mongols who took over most of India) and the Ottomans, Persians and others (and they even show up in some armory lists in Europe). They seem to have become quite ubiquitous in Central and South Asia by the late 16th Century, and there were a wide variety of types (ranging from tiny 'cupid' bows to much larger siege bows, to cheap munitions bows to very fancy prestige weapons with silver inlay. Some for cavalry some for infantry.)

They seem to have actually been quite important on the battlefield, they show up in some Mughal art quite prominently, but what little analysis is available in English tends to dismiss them and they are totally not on the radar in genre fiction, fantasy rpg computer games and so on. I suspect they probably should be. They certainly look cool enough:

http://www.atarn.org/letters/letr_dec04/nosteelkaman1.jpg

Personally I think it's another of the many expressions of the superlative Indian / South Asian metallurgy, the highly advanced state of which is what made such a weapon even possible. Their version of alchemy was devoted largely to ferrous metallurgy and they were arguably the most sophisticated in the world at it.

G

Galloglaich

2014-02-21, 11:36 AM

Spiryt

2014-02-21, 11:57 AM

Mein Deutsch sucks, but it's pretty clear that "Auszugslänge" is draw length.

http://www.yumi.hu/images/assets_de/hassetsu.jpg

Not necessarily actual "power stroke" so actual drawing length without brace height.

Though in crossbow case, when one obviously doesn't have to hold the bow itself, there's no reason to include brace height in draw length, but who knows. Actual power stroke may be about few inches (3,4?) shorter instead, then.

Steel is problematic for making a bow because it's damn heavy, compared to 'natural' materials and modern fibres (glass, carbon etc.)

Offers way lower compression and tension possibilities compared to horn or whale bone and sinew respectively.

And one of the reason why many steel bows had such 'silly' low draw length was precisely because they couldn't be bent any more without failure.

Then the problem with composite bow is that greater part of them, that hold it all together, and still has bend along with sinew etc.

Those Indian bow look ridiculously thin and light - almost as if one could bend the plate with bare hands. That probably eliminates weight problem largely.

Failure, as in bending while following the string was probably the reason why those are so wide all the way - to combat it.

If someone managed to indeed make them resist multiple bending, without loosing shape, then those could be potentially great, or at least perfectly OK bows.

Storm Bringer

2014-02-21, 12:39 PM

Okay. That jives more with my admittedly limited know-how.

I can see some interesting stuff there but it's late and my mind can't quite figure out how the hell that works. I'll have to draw up diagrams later.

thiers an osprey book that mentions them, which I happen to own. basically, the string is attached to the "front" bow, then runs back to the rearwards bow before going forwards to the "middle" bow. basically, all of them are under tension and you get the "flex" of all three to power your shot
thiers another picture here (http://books.google.com/books?id=12uahIduJj4C&pg=PT27&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false)

On Sniper one. Having read the book as well, and being a serving british solider, as far as I can tell, the snipers were only carrying one long arm, and the ammo for that gun, at any one time. That is, either they had their 7.62 sniper rifles, or the 5.56 assault rilfes, but they didn't carry both as once, but used whichever they felt they were going to need for a particular mission (or whatever they were carrying when things hit the fan).

However, they only had one type of ammo for each gun. They had very high quality '"green tip" 7.62mm for their snipers, and standard 5.56mm ball for their assault rifles. They weren't really in a position to load the wrong type of ammo, as neither ammo type can be fired form the wrong weapon and the magazines are totally different. That's almost certainly a deliberate, army level policy to prevent people loading the wrong ammo In the heat of battle. no point giving Murphy any more chances than you have to.

Brother Oni

2014-02-21, 03:54 PM

Regarding modern crossbows, the ones I have played with ranged from 150 lbs draw to 200 lbs, and I found them all pretty challenging to span. Not too hard once you get used to it but it's a real effort. These all had a foot stirrup as well. I always put the stirrup on the ground (preferably on a hard surface) and then pulled - you have to do so decisively as one motion using the strength of your legs, if you hesitate you have problems. It's easy to screw up too if you let the string slip, you can mess up the string that way (I've seen people do that).

Have you tried the one foot in the air method or didn't you want to chance it? :smalltongue:

Mein Deutsch sucks, but it's pretty clear that "Auszugslänge" is draw length.

http://www.yumi.hu/images/assets_de/hassetsu.jpg

Not necessarily actual "power stroke" so actual drawing length without brace height.

Though in crossbow case, when one obviously doesn't have to hold the bow itself, there's no reason to include brace height in draw length, but who knows. Actual power stroke may be about few inches (3,4?) shorter instead, then.

It says the Auszugslänge is ~ 360 mm on page 6, but the measurement looks to be from where the prod attaches to the stock to the latching mechanism, so you're right in that it doesn't include the brace height (forgot the term earlier :smallredface:).

The image on the first page suggests that the brace height is past the hole where the rope(?) ties the prod on, so a minimum of 110mm deduction (95mm from the prod connector to the middle of the hole, which is 30mm diameter) making the span length at most 250mm (~9") and looks to be less (a rough eyeball suggests less than half of the 360mm draw length, but I can't see any values to support my estimation).

Those Indian bow look ridiculously thin and light - almost as if one could bend the plate with bare hands. That probably eliminates weight problem largely.

Failure, as in bending while following the string was probably the reason why those are so wide all the way - to combat it.

If someone managed to indeed make them resist multiple bending, without loosing shape, then those could be potentially great, or at least perfectly OK bows.

While metal fatigue is indeed a major issue with metal limbs over time, the modern-ish bow I mentioned earlier does look very svelte compared to a modern recurve, but the one I handled was still surprisingly heavy.

http://www.archeryhistory.com/recurves/recurvespics/apollo50.jpg

thiers another picture here (http://books.google.com/books?id=12uahIduJj4C&pg=PT27&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Complete with explosive charge attached just behind the bolt head with twin fuses (in case one fails?) to make sure they destroy whatever they hit. :smalltongue:

No brains

2014-02-21, 04:53 PM

One advantage to a metal bow is that it doubles as a club. Just like Hawkeye did in The Avengers.

Seriously, never use a bow like a club. It insults bows and to a lesser extent insults clubs. If your bow is so amazingly sturdy that it can stand up to such chimpish usage, you go back to that problem of being so strong you don't need a weapon (even a missile one) anyway.

...Unless I am wrong and there are storied histories of whacking people with bows.:smalleek: I learned swords were thrown on occasion, so why not bows being swung?

Berenger

2014-02-21, 06:00 PM

AMFV

2014-02-21, 08:39 PM

I'd totally whack a guy in the face with my bow if my bow happens to be what I carry in my hands when that guy jumps at me with his sword. If I survive, I'll probably need a new bow, but unlike new hands or new lifes, new bows can be bought.

One mind, any weapon, rah.

warty goblin

2014-02-21, 10:00 PM

Brother Oni

2014-02-21, 10:18 PM

And at least in the case of a largish self bow, it's a big thick stick. You can do a lot of damage to an unarmored person with one of those.

Even with modern fibreglass takedown bows, the riser's essentially a large blunt metal instrument with a convenient hand grip.

fusilier

2014-02-21, 10:22 PM

So I haven't been able to find any detailed period images of using a belt hook with two feet on the ground, but here's a couple from the background of Paolo Uccello's Battle of San Romano (mid 15th century):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_of_San_Romano

In this stance the crossbowman is leaning far forward, the stirrup is on the right foot which is being held behind him. Note, his left leg appears armored.
http://www.3laws.net/Tony/Uccello1.jpg

Another detail from the same painting, the stance looks a bit different, but similar. The belt is very wide at the back.
http://www.3laws.net/Tony/Uccello2.jpg

Also, there's some images from the 1460s Hesperis Manuscript detailing the Battle (and Siege) of Piombino, 1448. While a bit crude, they do show a bunch of crossbowmen, using various stances for reloading (although rarely does it look like they are using the one foot in the air method). However, I didn't see any of them using crannequins or windlasses.

http://thegreatitalianwars.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/battle-of-piombino-1448.html

(You need to look at the full size images to make out detail).

No brains

2014-02-21, 11:40 PM

Knaight

2014-02-21, 11:53 PM

So you are all telling me that melee bow-whacking is not as silly as I thought it was? I could see using a bow to push aside a stab or block a very light weapon, but I would have thought that weapons designed to cut/smash bone and occasionally armor would make short work of a (sometimes very delicately crafted) piece of wood. From what I heard about dry-firing damaging bows, I had assumed they were likely the most fragile weapon out there.

Bow whacking is one of those things which you wouldn't be doing if you had a better option - but, if you've only got a bow (or don't have time to draw anything else), its a much better option than trying to fight without it.

As for dry firing, that involves the bow moving very, very quickly, and then suddenly being stopped short. It also involves drastically different movement rates along different parts of the bow, and similar forces when it stops. It's actually quite a bit of material stress. It also isn't something that is particularly likely to break a bow on any given distance.

TuggyNE

2014-02-22, 12:22 AM

So you are all telling me that melee bow-whacking is not as silly as I thought it was? I could see using a bow to push aside a stab or block a very light weapon, but I would have thought that weapons designed to cut/smash bone and occasionally armor would make short work of a (sometimes very delicately crafted) piece of wood. From what I heard about dry-firing damaging bows, I had assumed they were likely the most fragile weapon out there.

Dry-firing does not damage risers, generally, but the limbs; careful whacking in an emergency has a good chance of using chiefly the stronger riser, and is thus not quite as stupid as it seems. For that matter, it is as far as I know practical to block/parry weapon attacks with a wooden quarterstaff; sure, the staff takes some dings and chips, but if properly cured and made of good dense tough wood it won't suffer too much.

Not to say it's the first choice, of course, and as far as I know professional archers in armies almost always carried actual sidearms for melee use.

warty goblin

2014-02-22, 01:17 AM

So you are all telling me that melee bow-whacking is not as silly as I thought it was? I could see using a bow to push aside a stab or block a very light weapon, but I would have thought that weapons designed to cut/smash bone and occasionally armor would make short work of a (sometimes very delicately crafted) piece of wood. From what I heard about dry-firing damaging bows, I had assumed they were likely the most fragile weapon out there.

I'm not saying it's a good weapon used like that, and certainly wouldn't do the bow any favors. But between certainly dying, and maybe dying but needing a new bow? Most anybody with an interest in staying alive would swing that sucker till it's toothpicks. If it slows down, tangles, up or otherwise inconveniences the person after you with an interest in your life, it's a good investment at that point. That moment could be the one you need to pull a different weapon, or your buddy to come up and help you.

AgentPaper

2014-02-22, 03:39 AM

I'm not saying it's a good weapon used like that, and certainly wouldn't do the bow any favors. But between certainly dying, and maybe dying but needing a new bow? Most anybody with an interest in staying alive would swing that sucker till it's toothpicks. If it slows down, tangles, up or otherwise inconveniences the person after you with an interest in your life, it's a good investment at that point. That moment could be the one you need to pull a different weapon, or your buddy to come up and help you.

A bow doesn't seem like it would make a great weapon, though, even when you compare it to using your fists, simply because it's designed to bend, which limits the force you can translate into it.

Maybe you could use it to flail around in front of you to try and ward off your opponent, hoping that he isn't smart, determined, and/or experienced enough to just grab the bow and pull you onto his sword. Or just let you smack him and then run you through because a bow is not a quarterstaff.

Really though, the best use would be defensively, to block a sword blow which is definitely something you don't want to have to use your arm for, which might even be useful in giving you time to pull out your own sword, or at least a dagger, which will serve you much better.

AMFV

2014-02-22, 03:44 AM

A bow doesn't seem like it would make a great weapon, though, even when you compare it to using your fists, simply because it's designed to bend, which limits the force you can translate into it.

Maybe you could use it to flail around in front of you to try and ward off your opponent, hoping that he isn't smart, determined, and/or experienced enough to just grab the bow and pull you onto his sword. Or just let you smack him and then run you through because a bow is not a quarterstaff.

Really though, the best use would be defensively, to block a sword blow which is definitely something you don't want to have to use your arm for, which might even be useful in giving you time to pull out your own sword, or at least a dagger, which will serve you much better.

Well the bending is actually going to help if what you're going for is a quick stunning blow rather than an actual killing shot. Also a bow gives you a great of deal which you don't have with your fists, and using your fists against armor is going to result in broken hands, a broken bow is better. You're just trying to buy yourself that half a second of defense, and surprise.

To be honest if you are facing an armed opponent while you are not, you're screwed. It's a desperation measure, not an effective tactic. If he grabs your bow and tries to pull you onto his sword, you can let go, if he grabs your arm with the same purpose in mind, you can't. If he grabs the bow and pulls you let go and run, which is a good outcome for you.

AgentPaper

2014-02-22, 03:58 AM

Well the bending is actually going to help if what you're going for is a quick stunning blow rather than an actual killing shot. Also a bow gives you a great of deal which you don't have with your fists, and using your fists against armor is going to result in broken hands, a broken bow is better. You're just trying to buy yourself that half a second of defense, and surprise.

To be honest if you are facing an armed opponent while you are not, you're screwed. It's a desperation measure, not an effective tactic. If he grabs your bow and tries to pull you onto his sword, you can let go, if he grabs your arm with the same purpose in mind, you can't. If he grabs the bow and pulls you let go and run, which is a good outcome for you.

Or, you could just start running in the first place and not waste time swinging your bow at him, which only gives him more time to catch up to you. Also, it lets you keep your bow, which can be useful for saving your life later if you can get far enough ahead of him to use it properly.

Spiryt

2014-02-22, 04:36 AM

Bow whacking is one of those things which you wouldn't be doing if you had a better option - but, if you've only got a bow (or don't have time to draw anything else), its a much better option than trying to fight without it.

Actually, if opponent has some 'serious' long, hard hitting weapon, trying to wrestle could be way better idea than trying to swing shaky stick, I would imagine.

Or running away indeed.

AMFV

2014-02-22, 05:04 AM

Or, you could just start running in the first place and not waste time swinging your bow at him, which only gives him more time to catch up to you. Also, it lets you keep your bow, which can be useful for saving your life later if you can get far enough ahead of him to use it properly.

You don't have time to run, you whack him to buy that two second head start, you're already messed over, but you're going to be able to get away quickly enough. Not unless you've tripped him, or knocked him off balance. Which is what the bow bit is for, it's not a perfect solution, but again, I'd take it over nothing.

Actually, if opponent has some 'serious' long, hard hitting weapon, trying to wrestle could be way better idea than trying to swing shaky stick, I would imagine.

Or running away indeed.

Wrestling is great, if he's unarmed, wrestling an armed opponent may work out well or be really bad depending on your options and how he's armed. Again, it's a measure of desperation, not one of efficiency, not a good solution, just the only one you may have on hand.

AgentPaper

2014-02-22, 06:33 AM

You don't have time to run, you whack him to buy that two second head start, you're already messed over, but you're going to be able to get away quickly enough. Not unless you've tripped him, or knocked him off balance. Which is what the bow bit is for, it's not a perfect solution, but again, I'd take it over nothing.

If it actually did get you a 2 second head start, or even a half-second head start, then sure, that'd be great, but I just can't see that as being very likely. It's not that it isn't a perfect solution, it's worse than useless, since you're not only gaining little to no advantage, but you're also using precious time to make the attack and, as I mentioned, potentially ruining your bow which could do a much better job of saving your life a bit later on.

Spiryt

2014-02-22, 06:41 AM

Wrestling is great, if he's unarmed, wrestling an armed opponent may work out well or be really bad depending on your options and how he's armed. Again, it's a measure of desperation, not one of efficiency, not a good solution, just the only one you may have on hand.

I specified - 'long hitting' weapon. Not useless in grappling, but not killing and maiming in grappling.

And pretty much anybody would have a knife to use in close, if not solid dagger/puginale.

That's why swinging bow around makes even less sense, especially, that one would have to take time to unstrung it.

Stringed bow would be all sorts of bizarre in 'handling'...

You don't have time to run, you whack him to buy that two second head start,

On what account does one buy 'two second head start'?

If opponent is actually seriously hurt by a bow strike, one may as well try to stab him, or/and bash on.

For all we know, actual archers shooter generally didn't have such dilemmas, they grabbed daggers, swords or even mallets or other tools, instead of trying to make bow an useful weapon.

AMFV

2014-02-22, 06:42 AM

If it actually did get you a 2 second head start, or even a half-second head start, then sure, that'd be great, but I just can't see that as being very likely. It's not that it isn't a perfect solution, it's worse than useless, since you're not only gaining little to no advantage, but you're also using precious time to make the attack and, as I mentioned, potentially ruining your bow which could do a much better job of saving your life a bit later on.

If the infantry is there you aren't going to get another chance to use your bow. Your force is routed, you aren't going to be able to retreat and shoot, you'd be lucky to just manage a retreat. This is a last ditch option, at this point you're screwed and anything you can do is better than nothing. Yes, it's a bad option, but it's that or die at that point, you're already lost so you do whatever you can to survive.

I specified - 'long hitting' weapon. Not useless in grappling, but not killing and maiming in grappling.

And pretty much anybody would have a knife to use in close, if not solid dagger/puginale.

That's why swinging bow around makes even less sense, especially, that one would have to take time to unstrung it.

Stringed bow would be all sorts of bizarre in 'handling'...

I'd probably take a bow over nothing at all, and there is a certain possibility that may happen. If your adversary is within twenty feet you won't have time to draw a dagger, but you'll have time to improvise the bow.

On what account does one buy 'two second head start'?

If opponent is actually seriously hurt by a bow strike, one may as well try to stab him, or/and bash on.

For all we know, actual archers shooter generally didn't have such dilemmas, they grabbed daggers, swords or even mallets or other tools, instead of trying to make bow an useful weapon.

Yes and as long as your attacker isn't within twenty feet that works. It's an emergency situation. We can talk all we want about grabbing other weapons, but simply put, in a combat situation that isn't always going to be an option, and maybe not even then. A trained soldier can cross 40 feet in such a time as to make that distance roughly irrelevant, and 20 feet is too little time to even draw a weapon. Period, but it's enough time to use the bow.

Spiryt

2014-02-22, 06:53 AM

If the infantry is there you aren't going to get another chance to use your bow. Your force is routed, you aren't going to be able to retreat and shoot, you'd be lucky to just manage a retreat.

That assumes straight out 'Braveheart' battle... Those did sometimes happen, but generally, opposing lines did in fact collided many times, archers were changing their positions to shoot and so on, and so on...

Archers were shooting and hiding behind the pavise men etc.

So bold part is completely incorrect as an absolute, probably even as a general rule.

and 20 feet is too little time to even draw a weapon. Period, but it's enough time to use the bow.

Uh, if one doesn't have time to draw the weapon, he certainly doesn't have time to un-string the bow...

The latter requires way more time, concentration and coordination.....

AMFV

2014-02-22, 07:42 AM

That assumes straight out 'Braveheart' battle... Those did sometimes happen, but generally, opposing lines did in fact collided many times, archers were changing their positions to shoot and so on, and so on...

Archers were shooting and hiding behind the pavise men etc.

So bold part is completely incorrect as an absolute, probably even as a general rule.

I will correct then, if infantry is within 21.5 feet of me, then my time in the battle is done. Yes, I would be more useful later if I could retreat with my bow, but an unarmed man is still a ****load more useful than a corpse.

Uh, if one doesn't have time to draw the weapon, he certainly doesn't have time to un-string the bow...

The latter requires way more time, concentration and coordination.....

When did I say anything about unstringing the bow, it's an emergency improvised weapon, at that distance, you do whatever, and I mean whatever it takes to stay alive, tripping or hitting somebody with the bow may be the only option.

AgentPaper

2014-02-22, 07:48 AM

If the infantry is there you aren't going to get another chance to use your bow. Your force is routed, you aren't going to be able to retreat and shoot, you'd be lucky to just manage a retreat. This is a last ditch option, at this point you're screwed and anything you can do is better than nothing. Yes, it's a bad option, but it's that or die at that point, you're already lost so you do whatever you can to survive.

But it's more than just a "bad option" though, because it actively harms you. Any time you might gain from hitting your opponent will almost certainly be less than the time you spent making the attack in the first place.

And while your life and limb are obviously more important than a bow, the bow is valuable because it helps you protect your life and limb. There are infinitely better ways to use your bow than breaking it over someone's head, and shooting the guy chasing you is only one of them. It can also be used to shoot at other guys that mean bad things to you, or to hunt game while you try to manage your way back home in the wilderness after running away. You could even sell it to buy food and supplies or a ride back home if you're lucky.

Even if using your bow like that increased your chances of living by, say, 1% over not using it (which I'm already skeptical of), you'd still be better off keeping it if having an intact bow increases your survival after getting away by 10%.

Yes, you could probably come up with some contrived situation where using the bow would be better than not using it, but in the majority of circumstances throwing away a perfectly useful weapon/tool/commodity like a good bow is something you're going to avoid unless it's actually going to do something useful.

AMFV

2014-02-22, 07:51 AM

But it's more than just a "bad option" though, because it actively harms you. Any time you might gain from hitting your opponent will almost certainly be less than the time you spent making the attack in the first place.

And while your life and limb are obviously more important than a bow, the bow is valuable because it helps you protect your life and limb. There are infinitely better ways to use your bow than breaking it over someone's head, and shooting the guy chasing you is only one of them. It can also be used to shoot at other guys that mean bad things to you, or to hunt game while you try to manage your way back home in the wilderness after running away. You could even sell it to buy food and supplies or a ride back home if you're lucky.

Even if using your bow like that increased your chances of living by, say, 1% over not using it (which I'm already skeptical of), you'd still be better off keeping it if having an intact bow increases your survival after getting away by 10%.

Yes, you could probably come up with some contrived situation where using the bow would be better than not using it, but in the majority of circumstances throwing away a perfectly useful weapon/tool/commodity like a good bow is something you're going to avoid unless it's actually going to do something useful.

How does having the bow increase my chances of survival? If my position is overrun it's not very likely that I'm going to be contributing in any meaningful way to the battle in the foreseeable future. At this point as I've pointed out, you're screwed, you need to survive, and the next two seconds may be all that matters, after that point, you have time to run, or find another weapon, but in that few second period where all you have is your bow, then it's the best option you've got. Physical injuries even to the limbs are likely to kill you at this point in history, breaking the bow, is aggravating, and it makes you not useful, but it isn't fatal.

Spiryt

2014-02-22, 08:01 AM

And while your life and limb are obviously more important than a bow, the bow is valuable because it helps you protect your life and limb.

Well, actually, bow is of pretty strictly offensive value, so hard to agree here.... Especially on battlefield, it threatens, but mostly with connection with many other bows. Shootings together.

As far as protecting, it's as good as any stick.

When did I say anything about unstringing the bow, it's an emergency improvised weapon, at that distance, you do whatever, and I mean whatever it takes to stay alive, tripping or hitting somebody with the bow may be the only option.

Well, grab a strung bow then - it's very, very useless as weapon to flail around.

Resting bow, that's not some visibly reflexive one, is at least a stick.

On can whack something with it, or stab quickly and violently. Even if it can't transmit any serious forces, or cannot be handled well, it's still has that stickiness about it.

Bow with string doesn't have that and it handles just very, very funnily.

Not sure what's about it, but I suspect that the fact that the fact that end that's being swung is connected, and very 'stiffly' connected, with the other end, just ruins any sensible balance and harmonics.

Can't stab or swing with it halfway seriously any more.

Fending off small dogs would be it only possible use....

AgentPaper

2014-02-22, 08:09 AM

How does having the bow increase my chances of survival? If my position is overrun it's not very likely that I'm going to be contributing in any meaningful way to the battle in the foreseeable future. At this point as I've pointed out, you're screwed, you need to survive, and the next two seconds may be all that matters, after that point, you have time to run, or find another weapon, but in that few second period where all you have is your bow, then it's the best option you've got. Physical injuries even to the limbs are likely to kill you at this point in history, breaking the bow, is aggravating, and it makes you not useful, but it isn't fatal.

And as I keep saying, using the bow as a club doesn't increase your chances of survival, because it's useless as a weapon and you're better off running from the start, instead of trying to hit the guy coming at you with it. Maybe he'll run you through anyways, but if he was close enough to catch you then you were dead anyways.

And having the bow afterwards helps you survive for the reasons I noted, which are that you can use it to shoot at people that want to kill you, you can hunt game after your army has shattered to the nine winds, and/or you can sell it to get something you need more.

Alberic Strein

2014-02-22, 08:09 AM

It seems the issue is timing.

AMFV and Agent Paper seem to be basing their logical arguments on two very separate timings

Basically,
Agent Paper : before the point when you can't safely disengage
AMFV : after the point when you can't safely disengage

I think we all agree that, if you can safely run away without risking being stabbed in the back, then it should be the privilieged option.

However, AMFV's example seems to operate on the premise that the enemy infantry is quite litteraly upon you, charging. You have maybe one second before you are in range of their weapons. If you simply turn around and run, their momentum versus your starting speed (plus turning around) means they'll catch up to you and slaughter you, without the slightest possibility of survival. So with running not being an option anymore, and with only your bow in hand, you could try a desperate, desperate parry, slapping the attacking weapon with your bow rather than with your hand, maybe even add a thrust to make the enemy soldier come to a complete stop, before turning around and running, now with slightly better odds (if you survived till that point) of not being caught and ran through the back, since you are both at starting speed now.

Mr. Mask

2014-02-22, 08:47 AM

This argument seems needless. If striking someone with a bow will buy you time, try it. Will that often come up? Not really. Bows are lousy weapons. If it does come up, smack them!

It's preferable to keep your equipment in case you do need it later, but if your unit needs to retreat or rout, then you might be better to drop any and all excess weight so you can run faster.

The argument is about very variable circumstances. What you should do depends on the situation.

Mr. Mask

2014-02-22, 10:47 AM

All right, let's change to a fun new subject: The armour of (fantasy/fictional) cultures.

Let's say you did have a bunch of hobbits who are primarily farmers, very peaceful, who are in fear of violent invasion. What sort of armour would they wear? None? Since guerilla warfare is one of their strengths, maybe nothing they can make is light and quiet enough for their purposes?

Their metallurgy isn't likely to be very good, nor their industry suited to war. The Shire didn't seem very centralized, either--though there is a chance they could become fairly centralized in times of strife.

Let's say they're being invaded by a horde of angry goblins. Creatures who skulk in the mountains and underground. Violent, not very organized or structured, probably not a lot of centralization--more likely a tenacious alliance between various groups of mountain orcs. Their metallurgy might be pretty bad, and their industry is probably terrible. At the same time, goblins are clever when it comes to designing nasty things (as was said in The Hobbit).

The mountain goblins are also likely to be very numerous.

I have some ideas for what their armour might be. I'm curious what your thoughts are.

Rhynn

2014-02-22, 10:59 AM

Let's say you did have a bunch of hobbits who are primarily farmers, very peaceful, who are in fear of violent invasion. What sort of armour would they wear? None? Since guerilla warfare is one of their strengths, maybe nothing they can make is light and quiet enough for their purposes?

The same as anyone else: a lot of shields, mostly some helmets, some padded jacks/gambesons/aketons, and the wealthy ones wear whatever mail, greaves, etc., they've had made or can have made. Making mail is laborious but not very specialized, any blacksmith could probably do it and teach some apprentices/assistants to do it. AFAIK Republican/Imperial Rome had a "cottage industry" of mail production (since they needed a lot).

Their metallurgy isn't likely to be very good, nor their industry suited to war. The Shire didn't seem very centralized, either--though there is a chance they could become fairly centralized in times of strife.

Definite "centralized." The Shire was Victorian English countryside: there's towns and landowners. The Bagginses were the landlords of Bag End, for instance: gentry (nobility with no title). The Tooks were landlords of Tookland.

[Orkish] metallurgy might be pretty bad, and their industry is probably terrible.

Nitpicking, but Middle-earth orcs are specifically good at making weapons and armor, and at least under the will of any power (Morgoth, Sauron, Saruman) they would have very efficient industry.

I have some ideas for what their armour might be. I'm curious what your thoughts are.

Again, they'd wear a lot helmets, some mail, and use a whole lot of shields. If they had advanced forges (their own or occupied Dwarvish), they'd probably have breastplates, greaves, etc. If they're really advanced, they might have munitions-grade breastplates and helmets distributed to a majority.

Galloglaich

2014-02-22, 11:29 AM

Archers carried swords, messers or daggers for backup weapons and you can definitely draw one within 21 feet - drawing the sword into a cut or guard was part of martial arts training in Europe like it is in Iaido.

http://www.thearma.org/Youth/RapierQandA/p108.JPG

You can also draw your sword (or especially dagger) while grappling.

Pikemen used to adopt a position with their hand actually on their sword so they could draw it before a charging cavalryman passed the point of their pike and reached them.

http://www.gerards.org.uk/images/pike3%20copy.gif

There are numerous, numerous accounts of men drawing their daggers in the midst of a grapple and killing the other guy, it's also in several of the fencing manuals. We have trained for this in my fencing group, putting a knife in the belt to draw if and when the longsword fight goes to grapple. It takes some practice but if you know what you are doing it's pretty easy. And pre-1550 there weren't a lot of untrained men fighting on the battlefield.

In a fencing match 21 feet is a long distance, I know the "rules" about pistol fighting but pre 18th Century you don't have a lot of multiple shot handguns around, it's a different dynamic.

G

Mr. Mask

2014-02-22, 11:29 AM

Orcs of Mordor or Isengard would have excellent industry, and probably good metallurgy. I didn't get that impression from the mountain orcs. Maybe the ones in Moria, I don't think much info was given on their tech.

Anyone have suggestions on what sort of shields they'd use? I'm not sure if the goblins would have a lot of wood to work with, so you'd expect leather based shields from them (maybe some iron bucklers if they don't have much leather?).

As for the hobbits, I guess their shields would be a fairly simple design, if they had large numbers and since they're not warlike (supposedly not knowing how to craft finer weapons). I'm not sure what design of shield would be easier for them.

Galloglaich

2014-02-22, 12:48 PM

Orcs ala Tolkein aren't really plausible in any kind of real or historical context since they don't even appear to have females or families nor is there anywhere to grow anything where they live. Unless they can eat rocks and ashes?

Of course the Mamluks, Huns and Janissaries they are based on all did have real economies and technological systems you can analyze.

G

Mr. Mask

2014-02-22, 12:54 PM

Orcs do have females and families. Tolkien really didn't want to discuss the matter of orc children when asked, because he commented their lives would have been quite miserable, and he didn't like to think of children in misery. Orc women are never brought up in the books, but little about their culture is aside from a few interesting pieces. It was brought up that orcs are rapists, but that human women wouldn't be able to carry orc children because orcs are too corrupted. However, it was also brought up that after going through a corruption process, a human could breed with an orc. This is all from letters and interviews from Tolkien.

As for Mordor not being able to sustain life, there are more fertile parts of Sauron's land. They are the main supply of food for Sauron's empire.

Galloglaich

2014-02-22, 01:05 PM

Yeah but that is on a literary level, it's not really plausible in any kind of historical or real world sense my opinion. I don't buy it and I don't think Tolkein actually thought that part through.

You couldn't sustain armies like that (that big) in real life in areas where there isn't any food. Pre-industrial armies can't operate like that. It's something left out of RPG's generally but armies need a LOT of food, horse fodder, shelter, and a variety of other supplies to survive in the field.

The Roman Legions used to carry sickles and other harvesting equipment with them so they could harvest crops from conquered regions. When the food ran out they left. This is also one of the reasons why so many wars tended to be seasonal.

And it's why scorched-earth tactics worked so well historically. Mordor, from the appearances in the books and movies of Middle Earth, is all (or I guess mostly) scorched earth to begin with. It would be like having massive garrisons in Antarctica or something. Not really feasible.

G

Storm Bringer

2014-02-22, 01:10 PM

it's mentioned in passing in the lord of the rings book that the area around Mount doom is nothing like the southern and eastern parts of Mordor, which apprantly are rich farmlands aided by their volcanic soil.

I think it mentions briefly that the orcs famles live in this area, but like I said, it's a passing mention.

Galloglaich

2014-02-22, 01:59 PM

yes but even if that is the case, unless Mordor is really small (no idea how big it's supposed to be) you can't keep thousands of troops alive that far away from their food sources for very long - unless maybe you have robust water routes that get there. They didn't have railroads or semi trucks.

For context, here is the supply list for a very small medieval army from Regensburg on a short campaign in 1431 (transcribed from old records by Hans Delbruck). They were going into what they knew was an area already devastated by 'scorched earth' due to the Hussite Wars, the force consisted of 73 horsemen, 71 crossbowmen, 16 handgunners, and a mixed group of smiths, leatherworkers, a chaplain, pike-makers, tailors, cooks, and butchers, for 248 men in total.

To supply this group they had a train of Forty One Wagons. They brought 6 cannon, 300 lbs of cannonballs and 200 lbs of lead shot. They also carried powder and lead, 6,000 crossbow bolts, 300 fire-bolts, 19 handguns, cowhides, tents, and horse fodder for six weeks.

Supplies for the 248 men included ninety head of oxen, 900 lbs of cooked meat, 900 lbs of lard, 1200 pieces of cheese, 80 stock-fish, 56 lbs of uncut candles, vinegar, olive oil, pepper, saffron, ginger, 2 tuns and 73 “kilderkins” of Austrian wine, and 138 “kilderkins” of beer. The total cost of this campaign was 838 guilders. This was actually only supposed to be a 3 week campaign.

Fighting for sustained periods in an area which had been denuded of crops and livestock led quickly to mass starvation and typically, outbreaks of plague. A good example is the Hunger War on the border of Poland and the Teutonic Order in the early 15th Century.

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

Or the catastrophe which befell the Mongols during their occupation in Hungary.

The Orc style of slaying, burning, and destroying everything only works if the army has somewhere else to retreat to where they can feed themselves (where everything isn't destroyed, burned, etc.).

The problem with mass devastation is what led to the laws and treaties limiting the kind of damage that could be done in knightly feuds and the like.

As for hitting people with a bow, it makes sense only on the level of hitting people with a book or a shoe or something might do - it's a poor weapon and a fairly expensive tool. They carried backup weapons for that purpose.

G

Mr. Mask

2014-02-22, 02:37 PM

Could be worse. It could be Anatolia.

The orcs of Mordor aren't a standing army. They're a bunch of "tribes," scrounging a living between raiding the west and supported by the more fertile parts of Sauron's domain.

warty goblin

2014-02-22, 03:34 PM

The orcs of Mordor aren't a standing army. They're a bunch of "tribes," scrounging a living between raiding the west and supported by the more fertile parts of Sauron's domain.
I don't think the text or geography really supports that interpretation. The orcs of Mordor are split on tribal (or perhaps more accurately racial/genetic) lines, but are clearly also part of a large and centralized command structure. They appear, for instance, to have individual ID numbers, and also complain about not being free to go loot, pillage and burn. They appear, in other words, as a highly fractious but nevertheless standing and centralized military force.

They can't really be feeding themselves through scorched earth tactics either. The entire region between Anduin and Ethel Duath is clearly described as being an uninhabited wilderness. The region before the Morannon is a blasted ruin incapable of supporting life at all, while Ithilian does not appear to be subject to any significant efforts at either hunting or agriculture on the part of Sauron's forces.

Furthermore, until the Siege of Gondor, Sauron's forces have been unable to gain a foothold on the western bank of Anduin below Rauros, since Osgiliath and Caer Andros are held, and elsewhere there are neither bridges nor fords. However difficult transporting food from the great slave-farms of Nurn to Minas Morgul and the Morannon would be, capturing it in a raid on watchful Gondor, then transporting it by boat across Anduin and then through the debated territory of Ithilian is far more difficult. Notably, until the coming of the Morgul host and Denethor's general evacuation of the Pellenor, the lands between Minas Tirith and Osgiliath have been apparently left mostly unmolested. Else the Rammas would have been repaired much earlier.

Above Rauros orc bands apparently can cross the river; presumably upstream from the mouths of the Entwash Anduin is significantly easier to ford. Also the land on the western bank near Rauros is the far reaches of Rohan, far from the strongholds of Helm's Deep, Dunharrow or even Edoras. Raiding there would be more practical in some ways, but it's a long way to Mordor from East Emnet or the Wold. Particularly if, as Gollum states, the soldiery of Mordor does not cross through Emen Muil and the Dead Marshes, but apparently marches North and West from the Morranon around the Marshes and through the Brown Lands. It's apparently worth the bother for high-value prizes like black horses (gotta color-coordinate!), this raiding is mentioned in Fellowship, but it's hard to imagine this being a general source of supplies.

Lastly, it's worth noting that orcs can apparently do pretty well on extremely minimal food and drink. Being smaller than humans, and bred as disposable slaves, they appear to be both extremely hardy, and very light eaters when necessary. Note that when the Uruk-Hai are crossing Rohan, none of the orcs either rest or eat with any regularity. Certainly Sauron would have little reason to keep his garrisons on an inconveniently ample diet. Further, since Mordor is essentially a nation-sized natural fortress, hauling up food by constant labor would be little issue. It's not like Sauron, supreme and only ruler of the land, would give a rat's ass about working his slaves to the bone if it suited his paranoid designs.

Galloglaich

2014-02-22, 03:37 PM

Yeah, fair enough... but other than a couple of throw-away lines by Tolkein I've never seen a plausible Orc economy or society. The closest thing I've seen to even remotely plausible Orcs at all was probably from Burning Wheels character burner.

And I'm sorry but Anatolia looks like paradise compared to Mordor ;) ...

http://cdncms.todayszaman.com/todayszaman/2013/01/20/travel.jpg

(at least you can graze sheep there)

http://thainsbook.net/images/mordor.jpg

(where as here, apparently nothing but flies. Maybe you can make an economy based on cultivation of flies? That would be interesting)

Though to be fair, people live in the Sahara Desert and so on, but just not in very large numbers (http://library.thinkquest.org/16645/the_land/saha_tp.shtml).

G

warty goblin

2014-02-22, 03:51 PM

The area of Mordor actually seen in the books is a very small part of the overall place; basically just a hundred-odd mile radius of Mt. Doom, and that behind an enormous mountain range. Nurn by contrast is enormous - on it's own it's probably about as big as what's left of Gondor and fed by multiple rivers.

It's not really like Mordor is an orc society either. It's a Sauron society, with orcs sitting at the bottom of an entirely slave-based economic order. Now how the hell the orcs of the Misty Mountains feed themselves I don't know, but in terms of plausibility, a giant totalitarian state run by a being of immense intelligence whose will literally drives its minions being able to trans-ship supplies efficiently doesn't strain my credibility that much. It's not like Sauron cares about setting orcs to backbreaking labor; he makes them maintain a road into an active volcano after all.

Rhynn

2014-02-22, 04:04 PM

Orcs of Mordor or Isengard would have excellent industry, and probably good metallurgy. I didn't get that impression from the mountain orcs. Maybe the ones in Moria, I don't think much info was given on their tech.

I'm not really aware of any "mountain orcs." You've got orcs in Gundabad (where Durin the Deathless awoke, basically the Dwarves' Betlehem, except it was a real place in Middle-earth), in Goblin-town, and in Moria - these are the Misty Mountains orcs, and they obviously have access to Dwarven forges - as well as in Mordor, and in Isengard later on.

Anyone have suggestions on what sort of shields they'd use? I'm not sure if the goblins would have a lot of wood to work with, so you'd expect leather based shields from them (maybe some iron bucklers if they don't have much leather?).

Probably round, since that's the usual shape. Possibly longer and narrower shields for warg-riders. Maybe rectangular for orcs that fight in very close order.

As for the hobbits, I guess their shields would be a fairly simple design, if they had large numbers and since they're not warlike (supposedly not knowing how to craft finer weapons). I'm not sure what design of shield would be easier for them.

Shields don't get all that complicated: boards with a hide rim, maybe a leather covering. Metal shields do seem very unlikely.

Orcs ala Tolkein aren't really plausible in any kind of real or historical context since they don't even appear to have females or families nor is there anywhere to grow anything where they live. Unless they can eat rocks and ashes?

Well, Mordor is supplied from the area around the inland Sea of Nûrnen (freshwater; also called the Lake of Nûrnen), and probably from Khand and Near Harad. Isengard is almost certainly supplied from Dunland and Rohan. The orcs of the Misty Mountains are trickier, but then there had to be somewhere that the Dwarves of Moria got their food from - they closed the doors of Moria against Sauron in the Second Age and didn't just starve. Giant mushrooms, underground cattle, whatever.

And we never see the females (but then again, you can count the number of women of the Free Peoples in LOTR on your fingers, pretty much, and The Hobbit has even fewer), but there is a mention in The Hobbit of "goblin-imps" (presumably orc children). There's no set canonical answer, in fact, for how orcs bred; there's conflicting ideas written down at different times, but some mentions that they bred the way men do. At no point in any of Tolkien's books, though, is anyone in a position to actually see orc females (assuming they're kept "at home").

Still, it's also a perfectly fine interpretation that orcs were not born, but made artificially. There are many references to this, mostly earlier versions of their origins, but Tolkien never really settled on definite answers for a lot to do with orcs.

Mordor, from the appearances in the books and movies of Middle Earth, is all (or I guess mostly) scorched earth to begin with.

See map (http://users1.ml.mindenkilapja.hu/users/mordor_gfc/uploads/10850-high_res-lotr-map-middle_earth-mordor.jpg).

Basically, the only part you ever see is the Plateau of Gorgoroth, and then just the half that is west of Mount Doom. Nurn, the southern and eastern portion, is where all the farming goes on - it's about three times the size of Gorgoroth.

The orcs probably lived in Nurn most of the time, with garrisons maintained at the fortresses, supplied from Nurn. Orcs are under the will of Sauron when he's in power, and have basically no content to their lives except to do their duty - fight, guard, forge, farm. When we see Gorgoroth in LOTR, it's during the mustering and launching of a great attack - troops are marching through Gorgoroth towards Ithilien and Gondor, not living in it.

The orcs of Mordor aren't a standing army. They're a bunch of "tribes," scrounging a living between raiding the west and supported by the more fertile parts of Sauron's domain.

I don't actually think that's supported. They're very much a permanent military (they're soldiers, not barbarians), but they are probably "stood down" when they're not needed for something.

And no, we're never introduced to the orcs' economy - oddly, no one gets a chance to walk around some orc homes in the novels. That doesn't mean there's not plenty of space for it.

Mr. Mask

2014-02-22, 04:22 PM

Goblin: It sounded like only a portion of them were on standing army duty. Complaints about a lack of looting and pillaging shows they're used to being able to loot and pillage (that, or army units usually get to loot and pillage).

Raiding for food only works if your targets are near. They'd be raiding for slaves, tools, treasure, etc..

G: Sorry for not being more specific. Was referring to the capital, Hattusa.

Orcs didn't have much in the way of details given about them to begin with. There's no model to call implausible.

Rhynn: Were those specified as the only groups of orcs? I had the impression any particularly desolate, unpopulated area is likely to have orc groups call it home.

The orcs strike me as more of a rabid warrior raiding culture. Violent, rampaging, destructive--it takes an immortal dark lord to keep them in line, and even then they do crazy stuff like a whole fortress killing each other to the last over a mithril shirt.

Rhynn

2014-02-22, 04:38 PM

Rhynn: Were those specified as the only groups of orcs? I had the impression any particularly desolate, unpopulated area is likely to have orc groups call it home.

There's nothing to indicate orcs have "homelands" anywhere outside of the Misty Mountains (where they seem to live underground; conjectures can be made about tunnels dating back to Utumno and Angband), Mordor, and Isengard.

The orcs strike me as more of a rabid warrior raiding culture. Violent, rampaging, destructive--it takes an immortal dark lord to keep them in line, and even then they do crazy stuff like a whole fortress killing each other to the last over a mithril shirt.

This is pretty much unsupported in Middle-earth, I think. The orcs Tolkien depicts are very much warriors and soldiers. They are, indeed, fractitious and violent and occasionally undisciplined (the battle at Cirith Ungol was two Orc-captains - of Cirith Ungol and of Minas Morgul - fighting over probably the most valuable piece of loot on Middle-earth at that point, other than the Ring - which led to their respective companies fighting), but they're obviously organized along military lines. This is even clearer in the First Age, IMO. A primitive or barbaric culture is never really indicated - rather, it's a military culture. The orcs move in companies, led by captains, etc. - they're soldiers.

FWIW, I'd suppose Sauron's ability to influence the orcs was weaker than Morgoth's was, which would explain their poor discipline and internecine squabbling. Even so, there's indications that at least some of the orcs are essentially unable to act when a Dark will isn't influencing them. One might theorize that there are many kinds of orcs; Tolkien suggests at least five origins for them (orc-formed Maiar; corrupted Elves; corrupted Men; corrupted beasts; made from hatred and the slime and heat of the earth), and the last two might produce creatures that can only act at all when under the direction of the Enemy. Trolls seemed even more in need of this external control.