PDA

View Full Version : Index Got a Real-World Weapon or Armour Question? Mk. XV



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Brother Oni
2014-05-11, 10:01 AM
Real World Weapons and Armour Thread XV

This thread is a resource for getting information about real life weapons and armour. The concept has always been that the information is for RPG players and DMs so they can use it to make their games better, thus it's here rather than in Friendly Banter.

A few rules for this thread:



This thread is for asking questions about how weapons and armour really work. As such, it's not going to include game rule statistics. If you have such a question, especially if it stems from an answer or question in this thread, feel free to start a new thread and include a link back to here. If you do ask a rule question here, you'll be asked to move it elsewhere, and then we'll be happy to help out with it.

Any weapon or time period is open for questions. Medieval and ancient warfare questions seem to predominate, but since there are many games set in other periods as well, feel free to ask about any weapon. This includes futuristic ones - but be aware that these will be likely assessed according to their real life feasibility. Thus, phasers, for example, will be talked about in real-world science and physics terms rather than the Star Trek canon. If you want to discuss a fictional weapon from a particular source according to the canonical explanation, please start a new thread for it.

Please try to cite your claims if possible. If you know of a citation for a particular piece of information, please include it. However, everyone should be aware that sometimes even the experts don't agree, so it's quite possible to have two conflicting answers to the same question. This isn't a problem; the asker of the question can examine the information and decide which side to go with. The purpose of the thread is to provide as much information as possible. Debates are fine, but be sure to keep it a friendly debate (even if the experts can't!).

No modern real-world political discussion. As the great Carl von Clausevitz once said, "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means," so politics and war are heavily intertwined. However, politics are a big hot-button issue and one banned on these boards, so avoid political analysis if at all possible (this thread is primarily about military hardware). There's more leeway on this for anything prior to about 1800, but be very careful with all of it, and anything past 1900 is surely not open for analysis. (I know these are arbitrary dates, but any dates would be, and I feel these ones are reasonable.)

No graphic descriptions. War is violent, dirty, and horrific, and anyone discussing it should be keenly aware of that. However, on this board graphic descriptions of violence (or sexuality) are not allowed, so please avoid them.


With that done, have at, and enjoy yourselves!

Thread V (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?80863-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-V)
Thread VI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?124683-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-VI)
Thread VII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?168432-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-VII)
Thread VIII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?192911-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-VIII)
Thread IX (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?217159-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-IX)
Thread X (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?238042-Got-a-Real-World-Weapons-or-Armour-Question-Mk-X)
Thread XI (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?255453-Got-a-Real-World-Weapons-or-Armour-Question-Mk-XI)
Thread XII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?282471-Got-a-Real-World-Weapons-or-Armour-Question-Mk-XII&p=15188540#post15188540)
Thread XIII (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?308462-Got-a-Real-World-Weapons-or-Armour-Question-Mk-XIII)
Thread XIV (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?327994-Got-a-Real-World-Weapon-or-Armor-Question-Mk-XIV)

Brother Oni
2014-05-11, 10:13 AM
I can't think where else to post this question, but it seems to belong here...

Wrestling / grappling martial arts
The rules systems I'm familiar with use a strength equivalent stat to drive wrestling / grappling rules - but it seems to me that agility could be significant, too.

So - who here knows about wrestling / grappling techniques in real life? Is it really always about strength?


Skill is really important.

For two people of somewhat similar skill, reach and just basic body mass becomes very important. If they can bench press just as much, but one of them weighs 30 kgs more and has longer arms so he can reach further, he's going to have advantage. The stereotype of a high-STR character is bigger and heavier than the stereotype of high-AGI character.

Speed is still really important, but since the Strength stat is more than just the physical strength and also tends to imply other stuff that's useful to a wrestler, I'd say that Strength as main wrestling stat is a perfectly good approximation.


Further to Endoperez's comments, skill is very important - Unless you grossly outmatch your opponent in size and strength, all that advantage is unlikely to help if they get you in a good arm bar or use small joint manipulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_joint_manipulation).

In something like wrestling, a high agility person can't use his manoeuvrability as well as if he were sparring, since they can't stay out of reach and strike (I believe striking is against the rules?). That said, there are a number of striking martial arts that combine grappling, either to immobilise the opponent or to set them up for further techniques.

Raum
2014-05-11, 10:29 AM
So - who here knows about wrestling / grappling techniques in real life? Is it really always about strength?As others noted technique is paramount. Strength does matter, it's often a tie breaker when skills are close. Watch some of Royce Gracie's early UFC fights to see the result of some large disparities in strength and skill.

Knaight
2014-05-11, 01:56 PM
But Williams also emphasizes how difficult the best heat treatment was pull off. It took Greenwich, an armory set up by the English crown, decades to master heat treatment. Williams writes that hardly any Italian armor after the early 16th century was hardened, possibly because of how heat treatment could clash with fire-gilding. On page 211 of The Knight and the Blast Furnace, Williams specifically claims that post-1510 Italian parade armors tended to be made of better metal than plain field armors of the period, and that they were fully functional even if not primarily intended for combat.

Yes, and his explanation for this is that the lucrative armors basically dictated techniques, causing a fall in armor quality across the board, precisely because the Italian fire-gilding method didn't work with hardening (which, given the instability of martensite in medieval steel as shown by the variable cooling time tests at the end of the book, is understandable).

They were functional. They also represented a decline from previous armors as regards protection.

fusilier
2014-05-11, 03:29 PM
As others noted technique is paramount. Strength does matter, it's often a tie breaker when skills are close. Watch some of Royce Gracie's early UFC fights to see the result of some large disparities in strength and skill.

If I remember correctly, grappling in GURPS involves first making a dexterity check -- which is pretty easy, as grappling someone is seen as grabbing them -- breaking free of a grapple is a contest of strength. I'll have to double check though.

fusilier
2014-05-11, 03:30 PM
Yes, and his explanation for this is that the lucrative armors basically dictated techniques, causing a fall in armor quality across the board, precisely because the Italian fire-gilding method didn't work with hardening (which, given the instability of martensite in medieval steel as shown by the variable cooling time tests at the end of the book, is understandable).

They were functional. They also represented a decline from previous armors as regards protection.

I'm a bit confused by this discussion. Is the claim that battle armor's protection declined because parade armor's protection declined?

Storm_Of_Snow
2014-05-12, 07:22 AM
Agility in wrestling - even if it's straight forward wrestling (say Greco-Roman, or judo for instance), then agility will still matter for getting your hands and feet in the right place, and helping maintain your balance when your opponent tries to put you on the ground.

As for the previous thread's question with the backbiter sword (one side one material, one side another), the biggest question is why you'd actually want to do it - what's the problem that you can't solve with an ordinary blade?

Solve that and I'd say the actual production is quite possible, although potentially incredibly expensive, slow and laborious - for instance, you could cast the metals around an internal skeleton (say a mesh of something like a higher grade steel or titanium wire, or a non-metal like silicon carbide or carbon fibre, although you'd need a non-oxygen atmosphere to prevent the skeleton from simply burning away with the heat), giving you a final piece that's a metal-something composite. After that, careful chemical and mechanical treatment of the blade (so as not to damage the internal structure) would give it the mechanical properties you'd want, and the skeleton would keep both metals together - although there'd probably be some mixing of the metals at the interface even if one was poured after the other had solidified, so, assuming they're miscible, they'd be less liable to fall apart anyway.

Knaight
2014-05-12, 10:54 AM
I'm a bit confused by this discussion. Is the claim that battle armor's protection declined because parade armor's protection declined?

It's more that parade armor drew a lot of the really good armorers, but the specifics of Milanese armoring with parade armor basically caused the better tempering to be lost, as it wasn't working when they were working on parade armor on account of the fire gilding.

The Knight and The Blast Furnace covers this really well in the chapter about Milanese armor past 1510.

Spiryt
2014-05-12, 12:10 PM
Physical strength, in terms of size, static lifts etc. and dynamic movements is hugely beneficial in all kinds of unarmed fighting so in grappling as well, there's no discussion about it.

Every seriously competitive grappling art, from BJJ trough judo to amateur sumo has weight classes for that reason.

And professional sumo... well is something completely different. :smallbiggrin:


That being said:


Agility in wrestling - even if it's straight forward wrestling (say Greco-Roman, or judo for instance), then agility will still matter for getting your hands and feet in the right place, and helping maintain your balance when your opponent tries to put you on the ground.


Agility will matter in about everything as far as wrestling goes, there will be plenty of people arguing that wrestling is generally among most athletically demanding, gruelling and difficult sports out there.

Certainly it tends to develop some insane coordination and dynamic strength.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBJdGLcw6ZQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68mC5maENog

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLwYTR4nAWs


Of course, a lot of such 'acrobatics' is a matter of strength as well, that's where RPG statistics quickly are becoming kind of muddy.


But strength is indeed probably most important thing, (just after actual skill and experience of course), if one has to put some simple statistics to it.

Storm Bringer
2014-05-13, 02:43 AM
I'm a bit confused by this discussion. Is the claim that battle armor's protection declined because parade armor's protection declined?

more that the popularity of parade armour caused a decline in battle armour protection, because all the best armoursmiths were doing well paying parade armours with lots of fancy stuff on them, not making battle armour that required as much work and skill, but didn't pay as well.

GraaEminense
2014-05-13, 08:53 AM
Physical strength, in terms of size, static lifts etc. and dynamic movements is hugely beneficial in all kinds of unarmed fighting so in grappling as well, there's no discussion about it.

Every seriously competitive grappling art, from BJJ trough judo to amateur sumo has weight classes for that reason.
Wrestling anecdote: I´ve done a (small) bit of (very) amateur submission wrestling and in my experience, strength is the most important ability with weight clocking in at second. Both far outweigh agility in importance unless the difference is very large. I´m moderately strong and fairly heavy and I can generally trounce smaller, objectively much fitter guys because even if they do have equal or even greater strength, they have to use it on much more opponent.

Technique and agility do help, but the difference has to be significant to matter as much as size/strength. A friend of mine wrestles competitively and knows a fair bit of fancy techniques (which no one else does), and even then it´s not a guaranteed win because I´m 150% of his weight.

There are indeed weight classes for a reason, and any wrestling game rules that aim to make sense would have any Sigurds or Beowulfs getting their donkeys handed to them by Grendels and Fafnirs.

Mike_G
2014-05-13, 10:11 AM
The more rules for safety, the more strength will help.

In most competition, you are trying to make the other guy submit, and just being stronger and heavier means a lot.

Striking is usually illegal, so mobility and fast hands don't help as much, and dirty fighting is illegal (because nobody wants to get his eyes gouged in a sport.)

Real, life or death, him or me situations will reward skill and agility more. Slipping a hold and kicking the guy, or punching him in the throat, or gouging an eye which will all get you tossed out of a meet and probably arrested, work well enough on big strong guys.

I'm fairly small and very quick. I don't even bother trying to wrestle. If somebody does grab me, my goal is to slip the hold. I can't pin a guy who weighs fifty pound more than I do. No point in trying. The most I can hope for is a pain hold that makes him submit.

But if we're talking fighting, not sport, just remember: fingers hurt when bent and dislocate easily. The eyes of a four hundred pound sumo champion are no better protected than anybody else's. People can't catch you with a dislocated knee, or breathe with a damaged windpipe. Or, if you don't want to damage him too bad, a quick punch in the solar plexus will knock the wind out of him.

Fair fights have weight classes. If you get jumped by a guy twice your size, the fight's already unfair, so ignore any rule that plays into his advantage. Hurt him, disable him and keep out of his grip.

Incanur
2014-05-13, 11:22 AM
The more rules for safety, the more strength will help.

I remember somebody quoting a historical source that makes the same claim on a WMA forum years ago. I wish I could find the thread. In any case, it seems reasonable to me.

In other contexts, historical masters express different opinions about the importance of size and/or strength. For single combat in the open with swords and whatnot, George Silver considered height a serious advantage. Swetnam, despite his emphasis on reach, waffled on the question, saying the valiant smaller men often fought better than large cowards, etc. Marcantonio Pagano and Salvator Fabris (http://www.swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?19905-Strength) both thought strength a significant plus in a sword duel and even more so in a grapple.


Now let us talk of the inequality we see in a strong and a weaker fencer, as these are the two extremes in the continuum of physical power. This continuum includes three points of strengh: weak nature, strong nature and mediocre, with the latter being between the two extremes. [...]
A weaker man should never come to grapples with a strong one, and should avoid all situations in which physical power counts more than the sword's cutting ability. Therefore, the weaker fencer should also avoid all cross parries as well as all techniques that may lead to bindings (of the sword or the arm), shoves ("urti") or downright wrestling ("lotta").


When a strong person faces a weaker one, the former enjoys a great advantage. [...] When a weaker sword tries to resist against a strong one as it moves from one place to another, is usually falls so far out of line that the strong person can easily have the upper hand. [...] When the stronger person passes forward, he does so advantageously, since if he comes to grapples with the oppoent he will undoubtedly prevail.

As far as Beowulfs and Grendels go, for one I'm not sure Grendel was actually stronger; judging by what happened, I'd guess Beowulf was. But fantasy can also include skill beyond the human, making it more plausible for heroes to grapple beyond their weight class.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-13, 12:52 PM
Mike: Good advice.

I'll add that with a significantly bigger guy, remember that it's hard to hurt them. If you get the eyes or throat, those are pretty vulnerable regardless of your size (with rare exceptions* (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB7gnB31NnI)). I prefer getting a hold on stuff I'm about to hit, which is a bit of a problem if the other guy is bigger. If the size difference is too extreme, and they know how to fight with their hands at least some (big violent guys usually have experience with this), then unarmed combat is very unfavourable. Best options is to evade (it is with all fights, really).



*: Yes, I'm afraid you'll have to suffer through two episodes of that--unless you skip through it to the strikes.

Mike_G
2014-05-13, 01:36 PM
A big strong guy will always have an advantage. But there are places where everyone is vulnerable. The more those are "off limits" the more the advantage of size will matter.

So skill and speed matter more in a real fight than a contest. People who are used to watching or participating in fights with rules tend to overestimate the invincibility of big people. Just because there are people I can't beat at arm wrestling doesn't mean I couldn't cripple or kill them if I had to. Or just give them a quick shot to the groin and run away.

Starcofski
2014-05-13, 01:53 PM
Hey, question:

So, when creating a character, I always make an attempt to draw them, (it helps me get into and stay in character).

Now, when it comes to armor and weapons, most fantasy works are impractical or overly-stylized (is what I've gleamed from searching through other threads on the subject). But the actual historical armor was, for all intents and purposes, was not very easy to move in (but efficient in the protection department).

So how do I design an armor that would offer sufficient protection, but still retain enough mobility?

Breastplate (and less covering armors) have not been too much of an issue, but I haven't been able to come up with a Full Plate getup that would be practical. So far, they're just masses of metal that (in reality) would inhibit most movements of the body.

Thiel
2014-05-13, 02:26 PM
But the actual historical armor was, for all intents and purposes, was not very easy to move in (but efficient in the protection department).
That's not really the case (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q#t=217)

Also, apropos of nothing, WWI grenade crossbow (http://www.forgottenweapons.com/larbalete-la-sauterelle-type-a-dimphy/)

Incanur
2014-05-13, 02:32 PM
You're unlikely to come up with any armor design significantly more practical than 15th- and 16th-century European ones without employing modern materials.

Knaight
2014-05-13, 02:38 PM
Breastplate (and less covering armors) have not been too much of an issue, but I haven't been able to come up with a Full Plate getup that would be practical. So far, they're just masses of metal that (in reality) would inhibit most movements of the body.

Poorly fitting and poorly made stuff actually fits this description, as do some of the later munition armors. The good stuff though? It has very little movement restriction - at least within movement actually wanted. There have been designs which do restrict movement deliberately, in that they prevent hyperextension of limbs, which is a pretty excellent feature once fights devolve into wrestling matches.

Basically, just use a real full plate design. They were often very well made.

Starcofski
2014-05-13, 03:06 PM
That's not really the case (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q#t=217)


Thank you Thiel, that really blows out everything I knew!

Mr. Mask
2014-05-13, 08:01 PM
If you had space civilizations, what would you call a faction composed of an entire planet's people? Or a faction composed of multiple planets? The latter might be an empire (or a space empire), I'm not sure about the former.


Similarly, I wonder about the necessity for human soldiers in place of robots in the distant future. The dream of wars being without death, where your toy bots fight them is cool and all. With the intelligence expressed by some of the drones nowadays, it's easy to picture that becoming the case. Still, I'm a bit skeptical of humans actually being taken out of the equation. Any thoughts?

Incanur
2014-05-13, 08:21 PM
Similarly, I wonder about the necessity for human soldiers in place of robots in the distant future. The dream of wars being without death, where your toy bots fight them is cool and all. With the intelligence expressed by some of the drones nowadays, it's easy to picture that becoming the case. Still, I'm a bit skeptical of humans actually being taken out of the equation. Any thoughts?

I consider significant contributions from human soldiers in a space-faring age unlikely. Given the current difficulties of space travel and rate of improvement in artificial intelligence, AI might well be human-level or beyond before you have spaceships engaging each other or anything like that. Unless progress in AI totally tanks or there's some ridiculous breakthrough in propulsion tech, baselines human will have little place in combat by the time interstellar travel becomes practical (if it ever does).

warty goblin
2014-05-13, 08:33 PM
If you had space civilizations, what would you call a faction composed of an entire planet's people? Or a faction composed of multiple planets? The latter might be an empire (or a space empire), I'm not sure about the former.

Planetary [Form of Government] and Interplanetary [Form of Government]. Add pretentious, baroque, flowery or grandiose adjectives and adverbs as tone dictates; e.g.

The people inhabiting Stegga 3 have formed a Planetary Republic. They are under threat from the neighboring Interplanetary 'Democracy' of the Most High Besselonians (recognized for sixteen parsecs in each direction as a base tyranny), who have subjugated six other planets to date. None of these however was united as a single political entity, which allowed the use of bribery, intimidation and fifth columnists to undermine the planet from within. Due to the high civic spirit of the Steggans, any such attempt is likely to meet with failure, and a defeat for the Besselonians could prove catastrophic both in terms of their interstellar standing, and their ability to hold their vassal worlds.



Similarly, I wonder about the necessity for human soldiers in place of robots in the distant future. The dream of wars being without death, where your toy bots fight them is cool and all. With the intelligence expressed by some of the drones nowadays, it's easy to picture that becoming the case. Still, I'm a bit skeptical of humans actually being taken out of the equation. Any thoughts?
Computers tend to demand lots of electricity, obtained from pretty rarefied fuel. A person can carry several days worth of food, and in many environments scavenge for more. We also have a wide band of operating temperatures, don't stop working when we get wet or muddy, adapt pretty well to new or unforeseen events, and (so far at least) have proved pretty resilient to getting hacked by teenagers in Russia. I'd figure an army with robot support is better than one without, but probably also better than an entirely robotic one.

Incanur
2014-05-13, 08:49 PM
Computers tend to demand lots of electricity, obtained from pretty rarefied fuel.

You're aware that robots are already far more efficient at extraterrestrial missions than humans, right? See the Mars rover. In space, any life support system is likely to require far more space and energy than an AI.

Aedilred
2014-05-13, 08:59 PM
Thank you Thiel, that really blows out everything I knew!
Mark Twain has a lot to answer for.

Although this does remind me of something I've wondered about for years: the Earl of Warwick at the battle of Barnet. Schoolboy history has it that he fell from his horse and his armour was so heavy he couldn't get up again and was killed on the ground. But this is the same schoolboy history that confuses tournament armour with field armour, that's the product of generations of Whig historians assuming everyone in the Middle Ages was basically an idiot, and so on.

I mean, apart from anything else, Warwick supposedly killed his horse at Towton to inspire the men, and fought on on foot. So either in the intervening ten years he started wearing much heavier armour for some reason, or the Barnet story is a pack of lies.

Basically, the Warwick story just doesn't sound realistic, but it's the only version of the event I've heard. Does anyone know of another more likely/accepted interpretation?

warty goblin
2014-05-13, 09:07 PM
You're aware that robots are already far more efficient at extraterrestrial missions than humans, right? See the Mars rover. In space, any life support system is likely to require far more space and energy than an AI.

In space yes, but actually fighting in space seems to me to kinda be a sucker's game. Mars for instance is about eight months from Earth via Hohmann transfer orbit (aka the method that doesn't require really stupid amounts of fuel). That's eight months for the guy on the receiving end to lob nukes, ball bearings, their own ships, and whatever else strikes their fancy at the incoming ships. Now it's probably not very effective to shoot when the incoming ships are very far away, but I'd think the last couple days would be a pretty good time to unload like crazy. Anybody determined enough to launch an attack into the teeth of that is going do it with a sufficiently overwhelming force (or series of forces) that space victory is basically guaranteed.

So let's assume side A does that, and succeeds in getting through side B's barrage. What then? Side A has a serious case of air superiority, but is months away from resupply, and if their goal is conquest for profit they need to establish control on the ground. It seems a perfect time for some asymmetrical warfare on the part of side B in other words. Which is a domain I could see a substantially human army having some substantial advantages at for a very long time. Not least because the whole hearts and minds thing is probably pretty hard when one side's the next-door neighbor, and the other's a Martian death robot.

Incanur
2014-05-13, 09:16 PM
I was think about in space particular, though honestly I wouldn't be at all surprised if human soldiers become obsolete period at some point within the next hundred years.

Human soldiers strike me as more plausible in the situation you describe, with low travel speeds. Perhaps AI development did hit a wall.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-13, 09:39 PM
Funny I brought up fighting in space now. There happens to be a thread in the science board about missiles versus lasers versus railguns and other weapons, when used in space: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?348226-Calling-All-Science-Fiction-Fans-The-Purple-vs-Green-Debate!&p=17463304#post17463304

Any thoughts on that?

On the note of space combat, I think upper atmospheric combat and outer orbit combat are likely to occur with enough technology. No need to fight over Mars, but there is need to fight over who has space superiority.


Another possibility with humans instead of AI, is if they found out a way to enhance human function with cybernetics? Like the walking cows in MGS4, there has been thought given to biological war machines--so it might well be the robots are animal like or even human like.

AgentPaper
2014-05-13, 09:40 PM
If you had space civilizations, what would you call a faction composed of an entire planet's people? Or a faction composed of multiple planets? The latter might be an empire (or a space empire), I'm not sure about the former.

Generally, the pre-requisite for an "empire" seems to be that it has multiple, disparate cultures within it's sovereignty, whereas a "nation" only has a single cultural identity, or at least a small subset of similar ones. For example, the Romans had an empire because they ruled over a lot of different cultures (something they tried to "fix" by making everyone else roman too, which worked to a degree), such as Greeks, Gauls, Iberians, Carthiginians, Jews, Egyptians, etc. Whereas France is a nation, because (most of) everyone within it's borders speaks French and identifies as French, more or less.

Really, though, people are going to name their country whatever they want to name it, and if you want to deal with them in any way other than through violence, you're probably going to need to use that name too. And especially as history moves on, the names are going to start sounding more and more arbitrary. For example, in 1444, the last remnants of the Eastern Roman Empire (what we call Byzantium) consisted of the city of Constantinople (and maybe some surrounding areas) plus a sliver of land on the south end of Greece. And yet, they still called themselves the Roman Empire, and I'm sure the Venetians and Genoese who traded with them called them that too, at least to their face. On the other hand, Lithuania controlled a rather massive part of eastern Europe, with many different cultures, religions, and peoples within it, and yet they still called themselves the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

So you could easily have a "Intergalactic Empire" that consists of a single planet and it's inhabitants, or even a small moon somewhere if they're really on hard times, and at the same time you could have the "Principality of Polioliopolis" which consists of seventeen planets, thirty-two moons, five thousand and seventy deep space stations with a population of at least a million, and two Dyson Rings.

If you want accurate and plausible names for your factions, think about who named them, when, and why.



Similarly, I wonder about the necessity for human soldiers in place of robots in the distant future. The dream of wars being without death, where your toy bots fight them is cool and all. With the intelligence expressed by some of the drones nowadays, it's easy to picture that becoming the case. Still, I'm a bit skeptical of humans actually being taken out of the equation. Any thoughts?

With today's technology, yes, humans are much more efficient and useful than drones or robots. However, as technology advances, that is almost certain to change. Drones will likely replace human soldiers first. Drones are different from Robots in that they don't actually think for themselves, but instead are controlled remotely by humans. Eventually, AI will start to get good enough that the drones can be replaced by true robots that think for themselves, or more likely semi-autonomously with humans giving more general commands, instead of controlling each one directly. At any rate, humans aren't going to be replaced overnight, but rather gradually over many years of adaptation and development.


Funny I brought up fighting in space now. There happens to be a thread in the science board about missiles versus lasers versus railguns and other weapons, when used in space: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?348226-Calling-All-Science-Fiction-Fans-The-Purple-vs-Green-Debate!&p=17463304#post17463304

Any thoughts on that?

The answer is: None of those. The primary weapon in space will be the AK-47*, for the same reason it's the primary weapon on the ground. For ship-to-ship combat, it will be the missile, for the same reason it's used by planes (which are a better comparison than battleships for interplanetary combat). Rail guns and lasers are, as of yet, too impractical to be used as primary weapons.

In the future, it'll be whichever one happens to be the most effective with current technology. If a big breakthrough in railgun tech makes them much better, then they might beat out missiles for a while. Then laser tech might make it dominant. Then missiles might get a boost again from who-knows-what. Then maybe we'll be back to swords, or maybe fights between miniature giant space hamsters because why not?


On the note of space combat, I think upper atmospheric combat and outer orbit combat are likely to occur with enough technology. No need to fight over Mars, but there is need to fight over who has space superiority.

Oh, they certainly will, and already have been, though only behind the scenes. There hasn't been an all-out total war like WW2 since the space age started, which is the only reason nobody's shot each other in space yet. Hopefully there never will be, and the question of which weapon in space is best will remain just a subject for nerds to argue over for the rest of time.


Another possibility with humans instead of AI, is if they found out a way to enhance human function with cybernetics? Like the walking cows in MGS4, there has been thought given to biological war machines--so it might well be the robots are animal like or even human like.

That could certainly improve the human soldier's lifespan for a bit, but eventually it will become more practical to have that same cybernetic power armor, but just swap out the human brain for a robot one.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-13, 09:49 PM
Good point, Paper.

Incanur
2014-05-13, 10:32 PM
Funny I brought up fighting in space now. There happens to be a thread in the science board about missiles versus lasers versus railguns and other weapons, when used in space: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?348226-Calling-All-Science-Fiction-Fans-The-Purple-vs-Green-Debate!&p=17463304#post17463304

Any thoughts on that?

Lasers are the best in vacuum if you can make them powerful enough. Missiles are slow in comparison. X-ray lasers allow for the possibility of creating an Unstoppable Death Ray of Stupendous Range (http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunconvent.php).


Another possibility with humans instead of AI, is if they found out a way to enhance human function with cybernetics?

That's basically what you today, though without implants. More direct merging of humans and computers seems likely.

Aedilred
2014-05-13, 10:49 PM
Generally, the pre-requisite for an "empire" seems to be that it has multiple, disparate cultures within it's sovereignty, whereas a "nation" only has a single cultural identity, or at least a small subset of similar ones. For example, the Romans had an empire because they ruled over a lot of different cultures (something they tried to "fix" by making everyone else roman too, which worked to a degree), such as Greeks, Gauls, Iberians, Carthiginians, Jews, Egyptians, etc. Whereas France is a nation, because (most of) everyone within it's borders speaks French and identifies as French, more or less.
A lot of it is historiographical, of course, rather than anything else. Usage of "Emperor" and the like was often alarmingly vague, and it's possible to have a completely republican empire (Rome before Augustus or post-Tyrannical Athens being notable examples). King Charles I often referred to his "Imperial Crown" because he had three kingdoms (plus overseas territories) and wanted them to consider themselves a singular entity, but he's never referred to as an Emperor. In fact the British Empire - though always referred to as such - only had an Emperor (or Empress) in respect of India, not of the whole thing (that was still a king/queen).

In the western tradition, the title seemed to be basically binary and derive from Rome. Occasionally you'd get someone popping up calling themselves "Emperor of Spain" but it didn't tend to last more than a generation. You had the Emperor in the west (initially Carolingian, then Holy Roman) and the Emperor in the east (later adopted by the Tsar), each of them effectively claiming descent from the tetrarchical Emperors of Rome. Other key elements seemed to be authority over more than one king (even if all those kings were yourself) and recognition by the head of the church - technically none of the Emperors after the 16th century were ever Emperors because they weren't crowned by the Pope, although they continued to use the title.

There is an argument to be made that there is a higher secular title (in the west) than Emperor. Taking the view that the Greek basileus is equivalent to the Latin-derived "Emperor" (and although the etymology of "Emperor" is problematic for this purpose, basileus was the Greek title used by later Roman emperors, so it should be valid), originally the basileus was himself a sub-ruler, with his ruler being the Anax (or Wanax, or Wanaka if taking the original phonetics). But that fell out of use before the Classical period and the start of the western literary tradition, so it's pretty damn archaic (in fact, pre-Archaic). But I've always felt it would make a good "ultimate title".

Realistically, though, like you say, people will call themselves what they want, and a bunch of territories united under a common ruler will generally be called an Empire because, well, what else are you going to call it?

Mr. Mask
2014-05-14, 12:56 AM
Sorry for adding so many topics of discussion. I have trouble with speaking my mind.


Any thoughts on mobile nuclear weapon platforms, ala Metal Gear? The idea used to be popular, but then they worked out how to make armoured silos. Still, I wonder if one might be useful.

AgentPaper
2014-05-14, 01:09 AM
Sorry for adding so many topics of discussion. I have trouble with speaking my mind.


Any thoughts on mobile nuclear weapon platforms, ala Metal Gear? The idea used to be popular, but then they worked out how to make armoured silos. Still, I wonder if one might be useful.

I don't know about mobile on land, but mobile in water seems to be pretty popular (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_missile_submarine).

Storm_Of_Snow
2014-05-14, 03:30 AM
Didn't the Soviet Union have trains with short-range ballistic missile launchers (I think that's what the train in Goldeneye's supposed to be based on)? And I don't doubt that NATO had something that's still highly classified. :smallwink:

Single missiles on the back of a truck are one thing, but if you want a sizable number (like on a missile sub, or nuke-tipped ALCMs coming off something like a B52), the main issue is the support staff required to maintain and ensure the security of the weapons - eventually you get into something the size of the proposed Panzer 11 (aka the Monster), and it consumes too many resources, moves far too slowly, can't cross anything except the most heavily reinforced bridges, and is a target for every single aircraft that can drop ordnance on it.

And to be honest, Mecha themselves aren't exactly practical either. :smallbiggrin:

Brother Oni
2014-05-14, 06:47 AM
Didn't the Soviet Union have trains with short-range ballistic missile launchers (I think that's what the train in Goldeneye's supposed to be based on)?

Yup, carrying these things. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-23_Molodets)


And to be honest, Mecha themselves aren't exactly practical either. :smallbiggrin:

Depends on the type of Mecha. While the popular view is of humanoid fighting robots or suits, the term includes all machines controlled by people, so tanks and drones are technically Mecha as well.

As for practicality, humanoid fighting machines like the Gundam are certainly not feasible and mechs (Battletech) or wanzers (Ring of Red), are very impractical compared to a tank.
Other uses though are more feasible - the P5000 powerloader from Aliens or the construction labors (Patlabor) are more realistic, espcially with the various exoskeleton assisted lifting suits currently in development.

Going outside the scope of the thread, entertainers are highly likely: take a look at the HRP-4C (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcZJqiUrbnI). Note that this version has vocaloid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocaloid) software, so she is technically singing the song rather than a pre-recorded human voice. Speculation on gynoids in the sex industry (particularly when combined with the RealDoll product) are board inappropriate.

Matthew
2014-05-14, 07:09 AM
Mark Twain has a lot to answer for.

Although this does remind me of something I've wondered about for years: the Earl of Warwick at the battle of Barnet. Schoolboy history has it that he fell from his horse and his armour was so heavy he couldn't get up again and was killed on the ground. But this is the same schoolboy history that confuses tournament armour with field armour, that's the product of generations of Whig historians assuming everyone in the Middle Ages was basically an idiot, and so on.

I mean, apart from anything else, Warwick supposedly killed his horse at Towton to inspire the men, and fought on on foot. So either in the intervening ten years he started wearing much heavier armour for some reason, or the Barnet story is a pack of lies.

Basically, the Warwick story just doesn't sound realistic, but it's the only version of the event I've heard. Does anyone know of another more likely/accepted interpretation?

The Continuation of William of Tyre from the thirteenth century says much the same, in that contemporary armour was so heavy that once dismounted a knight could not fight well on foot (or get up, maybe), but it is to draw a contrast with the men of Richard I's time, who were able to fight equally well ahorse or afoot. Also, there is one story of a knight slipping on his cloak and killing himself, but how much of that is true and how much to make a "pride cometh before a fall" point? Unfortunately, that is the nature of the historiography. Best we can say is that there is some evidence that men who fell off their horses might have found their armour an encumbrance in getting back up, but practical tests suggest that this is not because they limited movement (more likely because armour is exhausting to wear for prolonged periods).

super dark33
2014-05-14, 07:18 AM
The Continuation of William of Tyre from the thirteenth century says much the same, in that contemporary armour was so heavy that once dismounted a knight could not fight well on foot (or get up, maybe), but it is to draw a contrast with the men of Richard I's time, who were able to fight equally well ahorse or afoot. Also, there is one story of a knight slipping on his cloak and killing himself, but how much of that is true and how much to make a "pride cometh before a fall" point? Unfortunately, that is the nature of the historiography. Best we can say is that there is some evidence that men who fell off their horses might have found their armour an encumbrance in getting back up, but practical tests suggest that this is not because they limited movement (more likely because armour is exhausting to wear for prolonged periods).


This (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC_squo6X4) may clerify some things, and also answer some questions.

A good watch anyway.

Matthew
2014-05-14, 07:21 AM
Looks like a good watch, but does it actually bear on the text I was referring to?

Lilapop
2014-05-14, 09:00 AM
Mark Twain has a lot to answer for.

Although this does remind me of something I've wondered about for years: the Earl of Warwick at the battle of Barnet. Schoolboy history has it that he fell from his horse and his armour was so heavy he couldn't get up again and was killed on the ground. But this is the same schoolboy history that confuses tournament armour with field armour, that's the product of generations of Whig historians assuming everyone in the Middle Ages was basically an idiot, and so on.

I mean, apart from anything else, Warwick supposedly killed his horse at Towton to inspire the men, and fought on on foot. So either in the intervening ten years he started wearing much heavier armour for some reason, or the Barnet story is a pack of lies.

Basically, the Warwick story just doesn't sound realistic, but it's the only version of the event I've heard. Does anyone know of another more likely/accepted interpretation?

Not sure about which specific source to look at for "schoolboy history". My initial thought was that it wasn't his armor's weight that kept him from getting up, but rather some enemies. The wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Barnet) about the battle seems to agree:
Regardless of the king's intent, other Yorkist soldiers, perhaps ignorant of the order, found Warwick first. They pulled him down, pried open his visor, and fatally stabbed him through the neck. Edward's guards found Warwick's corpse, mutilated and stripped of its gilded armour.
Getting pulled down, and hold down, sounds much more reasonable than falling and being unable to get back up.

Storm_Of_Snow
2014-05-14, 10:07 AM
Depends on the type of Mecha. While the popular view is of humanoid fighting robots or suits, the term includes all machines controlled by people, so tanks and drones are technically Mecha as well.

True, and things like Wolverines from the second Command and Conquer, Star Wars EU AT-PTs or 40k Dreadnoughts - basically things that can carry heavy weapons into congested environments and act as infantry support - are probably a lot more practical than Gundam, AT-ATs/AT-STs, Metal Gears or Titans.

But in most cases, you're probably still better off with a tank or other armoured vehicle. :smallwink:

And IIRC, the only thing that's really stopping the Powerloader is a suitable power source (the ones in Aliens were massive puppets).

Weight of armour: I haven't looked, but I assume one of those clips is of Mike Loades riding in on a horse in full plate, throwing himself off, rolling on the floor to get up and then doing star jumps, just to prove how flexible and unhindering it really was.

If they're not, they should be. :smallamused:

As Matthew said, the real issue is endurance - someone who can afford, or is equipped with, heavy armour, would train in it a lot and build up their endurance, but given that until we get to the Napoleonic era and the techniques of food preservation that were around then, armies only really moved around in the campaign season of late spring to summer, when the weather is approaching it's warmest. Outside that time, the common (non-regular) soldiery tended to disperse to crop harvesting, or into winter quarters.

Fighting in heavy armour in those conditions, without time to rest or even take water on board, would be uncomfortable at best, and potentially give you heat stroke, if not outright hyperthermia - an important point to remember is that your body core is normally around the high 30s Celcius (mid 90's Farenheit), and if it gets up to 40 C (100-ish F), all the enzymes and proteins in your body that basically run all your metabolic functions start to denature and become useless.

Being clad in metal armour with thick cloth padding underneath that doesn't allow air to circulate around you to carry the heat away via convection and the evaporation of sweat, and minimises what you can lose in simple radiation is not the best thing in those circumstances.

Galloglaich
2014-05-14, 12:26 PM
Hi guys, back from a long and wonderful vacation! Miss me?




As Matthew said, the real issue is endurance - someone who can afford, or is equipped with, heavy armour, would train in it a lot and build up their endurance, but given that until we get to the Napoleonic era and the techniques of food preservation that were around then, armies only really moved around in the campaign season of late spring to summer, when the weather is approaching it's warmest. Outside that time, the common (non-regular) soldiery tended to disperse to crop harvesting, or into winter quarters.

Definitely not true. First of all - many people could afford full plate harness (if that's what you mean by heavy armor), including most of the wealthier peasants, so keep in mind it was not limited to a specific elite. Second, raids and military campaigns all year long including in the dead of winter were quite common - late winter being especially favored because it's when the moats and rivers often froze solid allowing castles and towns to be attacked more easily.



Fighting in heavy armour in those conditions, without time to rest or even take water on board, would be uncomfortable at best, and potentially give you heat stroke, if not outright hyperthermia - an important point to remember is that your body core is normally around the high 30s Celcius (mid 90's Farenheit), and if it gets up to 40 C (100-ish F), all the enzymes and proteins in your body that basically run all your metabolic functions start to denature and become useless.

Being clad in metal armour with thick cloth padding underneath that doesn't allow air to circulate around you to carry the heat away via convection and the evaporation of sweat, and minimises what you can lose in simple radiation is not the best thing in those circumstances.[/QUOTE]

Heat stroke, dehydration etc. was definitely an issue with armor especially plate armor, notably during campaigns in the Middle East and for example it was believed to have played a role in the battle of Towton, in spite of snow flurries.

Re: parade armor vs. battlefield armor - I agree the 16th C Italian parade armor was still pretty effective armor in spite of not being spring-tempered. Spring temper is really only needed against guns and really heavy crossbows. The reason why the English had so much difficulty setting up the industry to make the south-German style tempered-steel armor (Alan Williams oversimplifies this by calling it all Augsburg and then Innsbruck, it was initially developed in several German town including Nuremberg) is that it was the product of a very complex and sophisticated culture, with dozens of guilds and merchant families in networks of subcontractors, with systems for inspection, training, and quality control, integrated with the local government systems as well as a well-informed customer base who could immediately distinguish lapses in quality themselves. It was this network which had been organically established in the south-German towns, combinations of consumers and producers, supply chains (providing good iron and fuel, among many other things) machinery (sophisticated water powered factories) and most especially highly specialized, highly skilled experts.

This isn't so easy to just transfer - it was a little easier for the Hapsburgs because they lived in a society that had elements of the same system in it, but in England the craft guilds were different by the 16th Century and much less robust.

By way of comparison something as comparatively simple as food culture is quite hard to transfer. I'm from New Orleans and I've travelled all over the world, when away from home I avoid the ubiquitous "Cajun" and "New Orleans" restaurants and food options like "blackened redfish" or gumbo like the plague since they are invariably terrible, except a few rare instances where New Orleans ex-pats set up a place somewhere and are able to get supplies from home. Even close to here, 40 or 50 miles north or east, they can't seem to pull it off. Why? The devil's in the details I guess.

G

super dark33
2014-05-14, 03:12 PM
Looks like a good watch, but does it actually bear on the text I was referring to?

Actually yes. The presentor says one of the misconceptions came from Mark Twain.

Mike_G
2014-05-14, 03:29 PM
Mark Twain did write A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Connecticut_Yankee_in_King_Arthur%27s_Court), which was very popular, and propagated the myth of heavy armor being hard to move in. Twain lived in the Victorian age, where a lot of these myths were put forward.

It, like most of what Twain wrote, was satire. In this case, of the idea of chivalry.

Don't blame the guy. He was a product of his time, and one of our greatest writers. He traveled to England and I'm sure he was told by some museum curator that the stuff was too heavy to stand up in.

Blaming him is like blaming the director of Airplane for the NSA'a poor record.

Raum
2014-05-14, 03:58 PM
Any thoughts on mobile nuclear weapon platforms, ala Metal Gear? The idea used to be popular, but then they worked out how to make armoured silos. Still, I wonder if one might be useful.The Davy Crockett (http://www.pbase.com/image/31442384) needs to be mentioned every other RW thread instance I think. ;)

No brains
2014-05-14, 05:52 PM
On "Heavy" armor:

If somebody falls from their horse and can't get up before they are killed, it's almost certain that they didn't have time to actually say what was wrong with them either. It seems more likely to me that anyone who falls off a horse in armor (or out) might just break a bone or take some other kind of injury that would make movement in any equipment horribly difficult. If someone breaks one of their vertebrae in a fall and struggles to get up, it might look like they are fighting against the weight of their armor.

Galloglaich
2014-05-14, 06:06 PM
On "Heavy" armor:

If somebody falls from their horse and can't get up before they are killed, it's almost certain that they didn't have time to actually say what was wrong with them either. It seems more likely to me that anyone who falls off a horse in armor (or out) might just break a bone or take some other kind of injury that would make movement in any equipment horribly difficult. If someone breaks one of their vertebrae in a fall and struggles to get up, it might look like they are fighting against the weight of their armor.

I think it's certainly possible for someone to fall in thick mud, for example, and have trouble getting up - about the same as a modern infantryman with his gear. And as you say a fall from a horse can often be fatal in and of itself so no telling how injured someone might be.

G

fusilier
2014-05-14, 06:39 PM
On "Heavy" armor:

If somebody falls from their horse and can't get up before they are killed, it's almost certain that they didn't have time to actually say what was wrong with them either. It seems more likely to me that anyone who falls off a horse in armor (or out) might just break a bone or take some other kind of injury that would make movement in any equipment horribly difficult. If someone breaks one of their vertebrae in a fall and struggles to get up, it might look like they are fighting against the weight of their armor.

Back and joint complaints were common among condottiere; slipped disks from falling from horseback, and problems that would be associated with wearing heavy armor on horseback for long periods of time.

Matthew
2014-05-15, 05:53 AM
Actually yes. The presentor says one of the misconceptions came from Mark Twain.

Eh? What has Mark Twain got to do with a thirteenth century French chronicle?

super dark33
2014-05-15, 07:34 AM
Eh? What has Mark Twain got to do with a thirteenth century French chronicle?

Sorry, confused you with somone else.

Aedilred
2014-05-15, 11:42 AM
On "Heavy" armor:

If somebody falls from their horse and can't get up before they are killed, it's almost certain that they didn't have time to actually say what was wrong with them either. It seems more likely to me that anyone who falls off a horse in armor (or out) might just break a bone or take some other kind of injury that would make movement in any equipment horribly difficult. If someone breaks one of their vertebrae in a fall and struggles to get up, it might look like they are fighting against the weight of their armor.
This is a really good point, and I'm kicking myself for not having thought of it myself.

No brains
2014-05-15, 12:03 PM
This is a really good point, and I'm kicking myself for not having thought of it myself.

I'm happy you found my input useful!:smallsmile:

Durkoala
2014-05-15, 04:04 PM
Hi, all.
I just had a brainwave and need some information for a character.
If you were in an environment where you were likely to be attacked with both blades and bullets, and had procured a bullet-proof vest and a set of chainmail*, would it be better to wear the vest over or under the mail? Is there another armour option that is effective against being both shot and stabbed?

*yes, those don't really match. Roll with it:smallwink:.

fusilier
2014-05-15, 04:14 PM
Hi, all.
I just had a brainwave and need some information for a character.
If you were in an environment where you were likely to be attacked with both blades and bullets, and had procured a bullet-proof vest and a set of chainmail*, would it be better to wear the vest over or under the mail? Is there another armour option that is effective against being both shot and stabbed?

*yes, those don't really match. Roll with it:smallwink:.

I'm just speculating here, but looking at the way bullet-proof vests are constructed (a typical police style one anyway), it might make more sense to wear it over chainmail (like a breast plate would be worn over chainmail). But I'm not sure it would be strictly necessary -- I think, historically, padded garments could be worn both over and under chainmail.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-15, 04:15 PM
If you have the option, you'd probably be best with a ballistic knife-proof vest, like cops use. You could wear added mail on the limbs and areas not protected by the vest.

I don't know of any case where mail was worn over plate. Generally, the hardest and most rigid material goes on the outside (sometimes with a layer of soft material outside of it, like a surcoat).

AgentPaper
2014-05-15, 04:17 PM
Hi, all.
I just had a brainwave and need some information for a character.
If you were in an environment where you were likely to be attacked with both blades and bullets, and had procured a bullet-proof vest and a set of chainmail*, would it be better to wear the vest over or under the mail? Is there another armour option that is effective against being both shot and stabbed?

*yes, those don't really match. Roll with it:smallwink:.

I would guess chain mail over, since you need to wear something under it anyways, and there's no point in having both a layer of padding and a layer of bulletproof armor.

Durkoala
2014-05-15, 05:01 PM
@ Mr Mask

thanks! I knew that bullet vests weren't good against edged weapons, but not why police ones are knife-proof so I didn't consider those. My general reasoning was vest over mail because bullet holes open the mail for stabbing attacks and snagged weapons could tear it further, while the vest would need to be cut more before its protection was lost.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a surcoat was for showing your heraldry and not for armour.

@agentpaper
Aaannd we have a differing opinion. Thanks for replying. That does make sense, but I've thought up some points against it while typing this out.

Thanks for both your help. I'm still not decided, but it's late and I'm very tired (sorry if I came off as a bit wierd, I'm having trouble thinking straight) so I'll come back and think about it tommorow.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-15, 07:46 PM
Whoops, misread part of that. Thought the question was whether to wear the mail over a breastplate. In the case of a ballistic vest with no knife mesh, you probably want to wear the mail over it. Some links will get busted if you get shot, but a lucky slash across the ballistic vest could cut it nearly in two. The ballistic vest can also function as padding for the mail.

Surcoats were for the big part to show your heraldry, and to keep the sun from heating your armour, yes. However, if the surcoat has a little thickness, it also takes the punch out of arrows and blows more than would be expected (still not huge, but for the weight it's pretty good).

fusilier
2014-05-15, 08:09 PM
Whoops, misread part of that. Thought the question was whether to wear the mail over a breastplate. In the case of a ballistic vest with no knife mesh, you probably want to wear the mail over it. Some links will get busted if you get shot, but a lucky slash across the ballistic vest could cut it nearly in two. The ballistic vest can also function as padding for the mail.

Surcoats were for the big part to show your heraldry, and to keep the sun from heating your armour, yes. However, if the surcoat has a little thickness, it also takes the punch out of arrows and blows more than would be expected (still not huge, but for the weight it's pretty good).

Is the area that a ballistic vest covers the same that the padding for mail would cover?

Mr. Mask
2014-05-15, 08:22 PM
Well, it'll work as padding for most of your torso. Padding generally covers everywhere the mail does, so you probably will need to supplement it.

fusilier
2014-05-15, 09:38 PM
Well, it'll work as padding for most of your torso. Padding generally covers everywhere the mail does, so you probably will need to supplement it.

Then perhaps it doesn't matter too much whether or not it's worn under or over, from a comfort standpoint. Are you worried about people cutting holes in the bullet proof vest, and then shooting you, or people shooting holes in the mail, then stabbing?

I think I would lean toward the bulletproof vest over the mail -- the enemy will probably shoot first before closing to hand-to-hand. Although there could be other factors to consider.

AgentPaper
2014-05-15, 09:51 PM
Then perhaps it doesn't matter too much whether or not it's worn under or over, from a comfort standpoint. Are you worried about people cutting holes in the bullet proof vest, and then shooting you, or people shooting holes in the mail, then stabbing?

I think I would lean toward the bulletproof vest over the mail -- the enemy will probably shoot first before closing to hand-to-hand. Although there could be other factors to consider.

I'd be more worried about making an already heavy and hot mail/vest combo even heavier and hotter by putting an extra layer of padding beneath it. I suspect you're more likely to die due to heat exhaustion (directly or indirectly) than you are to die because someone shot your five times and then stabbed you through the hole he made.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-15, 09:56 PM
Depending on the vest and the melee weaponry in use, you might need more padding anyway.

With a plain kevlar vest, it stands a chance of getting cut to bits (even if they just stab straight, the mail could deflect the blade so it cut through much kevlar).

Mike_G
2014-05-15, 10:29 PM
Mail plus a standard vest will be very heavy, and pretty bulky, regardless of which you wear on the outside. The tactical vest the military wears now (IOTV or MTV with inserts) is around 30 pounds (14 kg), not including helmet, or arm and leg protection, and then if you put mail with it, you are lugging a lot of weight, and it's not fitted like a full plate harness would be, so no forward rolls.

I would think a good quality modern ballistic armor reinforced with plates where necessary, like military armor, and maybe mail over the joints would work best.

The most important thing about armor is you need to be able to function in it.

Also, it makes a big difference what the weather is like. In a hot climate, you will obviously worry more about dehydration and hyperthermia.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-15, 10:48 PM
Figuring on handguns and maybe SMGs, just because it sounded more like urban crime would be your enemy than battlefield combat. So, you could probably manage with a lighter vest.

If you needed to stop rifle fire, a level 3 or 4 would be necessary. You could probably incorporate some added knife-mesh if necessary, and could add some light mail to other parts of your body if you didn't mind the weight (depending on the threat, if it's just small swords and knives, you can go pretty light).

One thing I forgot. Normally you need padding, but with the technology for rifles and ballistic vests, you could just go with high quality mail without padding. The blows you take will sting like heck, but high quality metal mail won't break without padding to swords or knives.

If you have to deal with axes, armour piercing spikes, and polearms... you'd need to incorporate some kind of titanium full-plate harness, I guess.

Brother Oni
2014-05-16, 02:33 AM
If you have to deal with axes, armour piercing spikes, and polearms... you'd need to incorporate some kind of titanium full-plate harness, I guess.

While titanium has a better strength to weight ratio than steel, the high carbon tempered steels are much tougher, so I'm still dubious on full plate made out of titanium being inherently better.

Eventually you reach a point where it's better just to kill the enemy first than to worry about protecting from his attacks and given that we have modern firearms in the equation, it makes closing with melee weapon hazardous at best.

This isn't including specialised AP ammunition which would drastically reduce the effectiveness of body armour.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-16, 03:08 AM
I don't have a good list of materials and their properties on hand, so I can't comment on which modern material would give the best balance of density, tensile strength and hardness (if you know a good list, I'd be grateful).

If the setting is urban crime, knives still see an amount of use, just because of they're concealable. Polearms are harder to bring into a setting with modern ballistic vests available.

Storm_Of_Snow
2014-05-16, 07:36 AM
I don't have a good list of materials and their properties on hand, so I can't comment on which modern material would give the best balance of density, tensile strength and hardness (if you know a good list, I'd be grateful).

Carbon nanotubes? :smallamused:

You're probably looking at layering as the best kind of armour (like modern AFV armour, particularly the British Chobham and Dorchester types) - padding closest to the body to absorb impact forces, with layers of Kevlar and/or ceramic or metal plates on top (IIRC, the military have steel for the troops and ceramics like Alumina for officers, but Silicon Carbide and Silicon Nitride fibres, once woven, heat treated to turn into a ceramic, and placed in a suitable matrix as a composite material, could possibly be even more effective).

You could also potentially have cells of non-Newtonian liquids as well, especially around points of movement (e.g., to extend torso armour up over the neck and down over and around the upper thighs and groin and thus extend protection to the carotid and femoral arteries - especially where the latter runs close to the surface of the skin on the inside of the thigh), so you can move fairly freely, but still get some protection.

The issue then really becomes around cost and processing - atomic deposition could potentially give you single perfect crystals of nanocrystalline diamond that would be nearly impossible to penetrate, but it would cost so much and take so long to manufacture that it's not worth it.

Knaight
2014-05-16, 12:33 PM
I don't have a good list of materials and their properties on hand, so I can't comment on which modern material would give the best balance of density, tensile strength and hardness (if you know a good list, I'd be grateful).

Steel is actually extremely good for this, though exactly which alloy gets used is up in the air, and there's a huge amount even if you restrict the list to commonly used commercial alloys.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-16, 03:38 PM
With carbon nanotubes, I heard they actually make a poor material for armour in the tests they've done. Maybe they just can't weave them right or something.

Knaight
2014-05-16, 04:15 PM
With carbon nanotubes, is I heard they actually make a poor material for armour in the tests they've done. Maybe they just can't weave them right or something.

Carbon nanotubes have great tensile strength. The shear strength is a different matter entirely.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-16, 11:58 PM
Knaight: That's probably the reason. Thanks.


Archery question. How much do you use your legs in archery? I was pondering how creatures with non-human lower halves would do as archers, as they are popular in mythology and are regularly portrayed as using bows.

Storm Bringer
2014-05-17, 03:36 AM
Archery question. How much do you use your legs in archery? I was pondering how creatures with non-human lower halves would do as archers, as they are popular in mythology and are regularly portrayed as using bows. .

since a human can quite easily use a bow either kneeling or on horseback, I think (but do not know) that the legs are not that important (beyond creating a stable firing platform)



IIRC, the military have steel for the troops and ceramics like Alumina for officers, but Silicon Carbide and Silicon Nitride fibres, once woven, heat treated to turn into a ceramic, and placed in a suitable matrix as a composite material, could possibly be even more effective)



right, speaking only for the british military, everybody uses the same plates, as that simpliflies logistics, which appear to be a ceramic type (not sure what they are made out of, but ceramics seems the best fit. they have a green cloth materails that glued on to cover the whole plate, which i think is to help hold the plate together if it cracks when shot.)

as far as i know, the US armour is simmilar, and i think most other nations use ceramic plates as well.

Brother Oni
2014-05-17, 03:43 AM
Archery question. How much do you use your legs in archery? I was pondering how creatures with non-human lower halves would do as archers, as they are popular in mythology and are regularly portrayed as using bows.

Depends on the draw weight. For very heavy draws, the entire body is used as the archer leans into it: 170lb draw longbow (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-2KLuAH4GY), 105lb draw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDraLdefXnA).

There's also an apparently historical technique where the bow is drawn and shot in a constant rolling fashion: keep your eye on the guys in the background (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFjCenyu34E).
Edit: I remember seeing a better quality video, but I can't find it at the moment.

For lighter poundages (anything less than ~75lbs), you can get away with just using your back to draw, but this is very dependent on the individual's strength and technique. As an example, my technique is fairly poor so I compensate with strength thus I tend to get tired after about 10 ends - there's a lady at my club with a higher poundage bow than me, probably 3 or 4 stone lighter, but can shoot for longer and more accurately as her technique is much better.

If the higher poundage methods look more inaccurate, then you're right. The expected accuracy for combat was hitting a 12"x12" target at 100 yards, while target archery is much more exacting.

With regard to non-human archers, I'd say it would depend on their physical proportions - something with proportionally longer arms would find it easier. Centaurs are typically bigger and stronger than humans, so I don't think they would be affected by their different legs. In my opinion, a naga-style archer like Medusa from Clash of the Titans (http://chriswauchop.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/medusa_fnt.jpg) would have issues with higher poundage bows since I can't really see her being able to use anything else than her back to draw (she can't shift her weight forward and back like a human can).

Durkoala
2014-05-17, 06:48 AM
:smalleek: I was not expecting this big a response...

Thank you all for your input. I see I'm going to need to do some research on armour...
I completely failed to consider overheating, but the local weather has recently reminded me of why that is a problem.


Whoops, misread part of that. Thought the question was whether to wear the mail over a breastplate. In the case of a ballistic vest with no knife mesh, you probably want to wear the mail over it. Some links will get busted if you get shot, but a lucky slash across the ballistic vest could cut it nearly in two. The ballistic vest can also function as padding for the mail.

Surcoats were for the big part to show your heraldry, and to keep the sun from heating your armour, yes. However, if the surcoat has a little thickness, it also takes the punch out of arrows and blows more than would be expected (still not huge, but for the weight it's pretty good).

Ah, I didn't know that bullet-proofing was that vunerable to blades. I assumed that it would be fairly easy to cut, but still hold together. About coats, how thick would 'a little thickness' be?


I'd be more worried about making an already heavy and hot mail/vest combo even heavier and hotter by putting an extra layer of padding beneath it. I suspect you're more likely to die due to heat exhaustion (directly or indirectly) than you are to die because someone shot your five times and then stabbed you through the hole he made.

This looks like a good reason to not have a coat, as it would make things even hotter. So, mail over armour seems to be the better option?


Then perhaps it doesn't matter too much whether or not it's worn under or over, from a comfort standpoint. Are you worried about people cutting holes in the bullet proof vest, and then shooting you, or people shooting holes in the mail, then stabbing?

The reason I asked was because I wanted to know which was the one to be more worried about, so I'm afraid I can't help you:smallredface::smallsmile:.


I think I would lean toward the bulletproof vest over the mail -- the enemy will probably shoot first before closing to hand-to-hand. Although there could be other factors to consider.
This is the biggest arguement for vest-over-mail: most people with a ranged option will use it before closing in for melee. There's also the fact that the character has few resources and will want to preserve his gear as much possible. Torn mail looks very hard to repair, but would it be possible to tape the vest back together and have still be functional?

A bit more information: the character is a former soldier from a collapsed state with stong USSR themes. He now wanders with no real aim, but his experiences have left him with a bitter hatred of dictatorship, often leading him to sabotage any would-tyrants or similar figures he runs across. At present, I'm thinking of calling him Ben, as that's easier to type than "that character".

I imagine the vest was taken from the army supplies. It's as good as it will need to be: there probably won't be anything good given to the rank-and-file, but he could have found a rich and paranoid officer's stockpile. Alternately, he could have taken it from some unfortunate he met on the road.

The mail probably came from a museum, although it may have been seized by the deperate army before he came across it.

Atm, I'm thinking of vest over mail. Thanks for all your help:smallsmile:

Edit: is there any way to add quotes in while editing? I missed a couple.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-17, 07:25 AM
Archery: Thanks for the help, guys :).


Durkola: Knifes go pretty cleanly through plain kevlar. It's not to say it's likely to get slashed in two like I described, just that with swords there would be a chance of the armour getting damaged.

As for surcoat thickness... well, it's not like padded cloth armour which looks like a bloated life-jacket. It's more like thick clothing, I think. Someone else will hopefully verify some actual thicknesses.


Mail is actually one of the easiest armours to repair. Doesn't require much skill, and not too much time if the damage isn't extensive. get some new rings to place the broken ones, and connect them with the others.

Kevlar would be a problem to repair. If you just sew it together, the stitching will tear apart as soon as a bullet anywhere on the vest.

Not sure when the game is set, but the USSR had some nice level 4 bodyarmour, last I checked. Heavier than the US stuff, but not necessarily better. I'm pretty sure it's standard for the infantry, and I'm uncertain of any supply issues that may have prevented it being common. There are some soft kevlar layers mixed in with the heavier military vests, so your character might be able to scavenge some if you don't want heavier duty stuff.

Note that it's not too hard to make your own mail. It take a lot of hours, but a drill and a roll of thick wire and some wire cutters and pliers are all you need.

Thiel
2014-05-17, 07:45 AM
Modern body armour, especially the level III and IV stuff are way tougher than you're making it out to be. In both cases you've got complete chest and back plates of plastic cased ceramics up to 10mm thick. Good luck trying to stab through that. It's true that kevlar isn't exactly the greatest thing on earth when it comes to stopping blades, but the entire thing is covered by extremely durable webbing, not to mention al the buckles, pouches and gear that's usually attacked to it as well.

snowblizz
2014-05-17, 07:58 AM
Durkola: Knifes go pretty cleanly through plain kevlar. It's not to say it's likely to get slashed in two like I described, just that with swords there would be a chance of the armour getting damaged.


Huh. So what exactly is cut/puncture resistant gloves (eg) (proof being impossible apparently) made out of? Anyone have a general idea? Friend of mine have a pair and I thought it contained kevlar. Looking online I can unsurprisingly only find brand named stuff.

Also I'm curious as to how something can be bullet proof but not knife resistance. If I make a pointy enough bullet wouldn't it then defeat the armour same as a knife?

Thiel
2014-05-17, 08:17 AM
Huh. So what exactly is cut/puncture resistant gloves (eg) (proof being impossible apparently) made out of? Anyone have a general idea? Friend of mine have a pair and I thought it contained kevlar. Looking online I can unsurprisingly only find brand named stuff.

Also I'm curious as to how something can be bullet proof but not knife resistance. If I make a pointy enough bullet wouldn't it then defeat the armour same as a knife?
As in butchers gloves/mitts? (http://www.chefdepot.net/latexgloves.htm)
They usually incorporate woven stainless steel wire or outright mail.

snowblizz
2014-05-17, 09:35 AM
As in butchers gloves/mitts? (http://www.chefdepot.net/latexgloves.htm)
They usually incorporate woven stainless steel wire or outright mail.

No as in leather gloves. The main ones it seems is "police gloves". They looked perfectly normal (I guess low profile is the point) but are resistant to cutting and piercing. Didn't seem to include steel thread like the butcher stuff.

https://www.turtleskin.com/webstore/police-gloves

Thiel
2014-05-17, 10:00 AM
No as in leather gloves. The main ones it seems is "police gloves". They looked perfectly normal (I guess low profile is the point) but are resistant to cutting and piercing. Didn't seem to include steel thread like the butcher stuff.

https://www.turtleskin.com/webstore/police-gloves
Well, TurtleSkin appears to be some sort of tightly woven para-aramid and leather in and of itself is pretty decent at preventing stuff like glass cuts.
Para-aramids (Kevlar etc) as you know has an extremely high tensile strength for its weight and it doesn't stretch. I'm guessing it's the latter quality they're going for.
Hypodermic needles are small enough that they'll try to push through the gaps in the fabric. If you use a sufficiently inelastic material and enough layers of it you can basically trap the point within it.
Bear in mind that these gloves are only meant to protect against accidentally cutting or pricking yourself. They're not going to stop a blade or even a needle if someone is actively trying to force it through the glove.

Also, it's not as if Kevlar just falls apart if you stick a knife in it. At the end of the day it's still a really tough material and any ballistic vest worth the name is going to include at least a dozen layers of it. Which is why stab-proof vests tends to use it as well. They just include a couple of layers of woven steel cloth as well.

Brother Oni
2014-05-17, 12:16 PM
Note that it's not too hard to make your own mail. It take a lot of hours, but a drill and a roll of thick wire and some wire cutters and pliers are all you need.

For butted mail, yes. Riveted mail takes more training and some specialised equipment.

Galloglaich
2014-05-17, 02:20 PM
For butted mail, yes. Riveted mail takes more training and some specialised equipment.

and only riveted mail really works. Butted mail also has to be a lot heavier to even hold together sufficiently for a costume. Riveted mail can be quite light. I've handled some antique mail shirts and they aren't heavy at all.

G

Durkoala
2014-05-17, 04:51 PM
Archery: Thanks for the help, guys :).


Durkoala: Knives go pretty cleanly through plain kevlar. It's not to say it's likely to get slashed in two like I described, just that with swords there would be a chance of the armour getting damaged.

As for surcoat thickness... well, it's not like padded cloth armour which looks like a bloated life-jacket. It's more like thick clothing, I think. Someone else will hopefully verify some actual thicknesses.


Mail is actually one of the easiest armours to repair. Doesn't require much skill, and not too much time if the damage isn't extensive. get some new rings to place the broken ones, and connect them with the others.

Kevlar would be a problem to repair. If you just sew it together, the stitching will tear apart as soon as a bullet anywhere on the vest.

Not sure when the game is set, but the USSR had some nice level 4 bodyarmour, last I checked. Heavier than the US stuff, but not necessarily better. I'm pretty sure it's standard for the infantry, and I'm uncertain of any supply issues that may have prevented it being common. There are some soft kevlar layers mixed in with the heavier military vests, so your character might be able to scavenge some if you don't want heavier duty stuff.

Note that it's not too hard to make your own mail. It take a lot of hours, but a drill and a roll of thick wire and some wire cutters and pliers are all you need.

Thanks for the info! When I suggested taping it together again, I meant covering it in duct tape where appropriate. Would that improve the durability?

Being able to fix mail easily is going to make a big difference, but according to Gallogliach it would be inferior to professional mail.:smallsigh:
Also, could I have a link to these armour levels you keep quoting?:smallsmile:



and only riveted mail really works.
Bugger.:smallannoyed:
This is close to my original vision of having to walk around with holes in your anti-sword shirt until you found a decent metalworker and enough money. I suppose you could patch it with DIY'd mail: bad protection being better than no protection.


Bear in mind that these gloves are only meant to protect against accidentally cutting or pricking yourself. They're not going to stop a blade or even a needle if someone is actively trying to force it through the glove.
Now this I can comment on. When we were little, my brother attacked me with a garden saw. It wasn't very big, or very heavy, or very sharp, but it went right through the leather gloves I was wearing. Granted, these probably weren't top-quality leather, but my brother was seven at the time. So, untreated leather isn't very good at resisting sharpened metal.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-17, 06:26 PM
Why do I keep misspelling names?


Riveted mail isn't so hard to make. You need some narrower wire, and something to work as a press (pliers could work, with the right set-up). Even if you weren't skilled with garage work, trial and error would be a decent teacher if you knew the basic concepts.

I really don't think duct tape would be helpful with flexible kevlar. With non-flexible bodyarmours, it's even less likely to work (when the American level 3 stuff breaks, you can only replace it).

Let's see, armour levels link... http://www.tote.com.au/threatlevel.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletproof_vest#Performance_standards

Honestly, if you could get some high quality metal wire, even simple butted stuff would probably make decent knife protection.

Aedilred
2014-05-17, 08:52 PM
Also I'm curious as to how something can be bullet proof but not knife resistance. If I make a pointy enough bullet wouldn't it then defeat the armour same as a knife?
In theory, yes, but there are practical problems. Bullets basically cause damage through percussive force: you hit someone with a piece of metal and it causes injury. You hit someone with a piece of metal hard enough and it will break the skin and possibly bone. The deeper a bullet penetrates, the more trauma it will cause, especially since they push an expanding cone in front of them. Body armour therefore aims to react to that force and stop the bullet before it enters the body. Knives tend to be made of a harder metal and spread the damage over an area that armour designed to stop bullets is less efficient at repelling. So the layers of armour designed to repel the bullet might not stop a knife. Knives can also inflict slash damage, which probably won't penetrate the armour but will damage it and make it less effective against other types of impact.

A bullet designed for the purpose could penetrate body armour, if it were made of a hard enough metal and fired fast enough, and potentially if it had a sharper tip, although the last is less important, since the point of impact will still be small. Indeed, there are bullets designed to penetrate armour, after all, although they aren't always sharp-tipped. There are also issues with getting metals hard enough to penetrate armour to interact well with the gun you're firing from: the hard penetrator will be encased in a softer (but still "hard") metal anyway to prevent fouling, so the shape of the exterior casing is less important. Such bullets however are less effective against flesh, because the same properties that make them better at penetrating armour also cause them to penetrate the body more efficiently and cause less damage.

Knaight
2014-05-17, 09:39 PM
Any comments about this (http://deremilitari.org/2013/11/medieval-siege-warfare-a-reconnaissance/)? Some of it is pretty familiar: The huge focus on sieges, the militarization of large groups (e.g. urban militias), some of the specifics of the tactics in use, but parts of it seem a bit more radical, and it seems to be ignoring another big aspect of medieval warfare - namely, raids of agricultural areas, supply trains, et. all.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-17, 11:13 PM
Aedilred: A marine I know decided to have a go at at one of the vests with a knife. He penetrated it with one good stab. Plain cloth kevlar is a lot less resistant. I don't know how it is with the level IV vests.

Brother Oni
2014-05-18, 03:12 AM
and only riveted mail really works. Butted mail also has to be a lot heavier to even hold together sufficiently for a costume. Riveted mail can be quite light. I've handled some antique mail shirts and they aren't heavy at all.

I've been doing some digging, but I can't find a weight for the odd split links that some Japanese mail used (the ones that used overlapped split links much like a key chain). I can see those working just as well as riveted mail, but be heavier.



Riveted mail isn't so hard to make. You need some narrower wire, and something to work as a press (pliers could work, with the right set-up). Even if you weren't skilled with garage work, trial and error would be a decent teacher if you knew the basic concepts.

And an anvil, hammer, drill press and vice: link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjwsalUx7UM). In medieval times, they had a die to flatten and punch holes in the links before riveting.

While I agree it's not hard, it's still a lot more tricky than just bending split links together with two pairs of pliers.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-18, 04:21 AM
You're only making one suit here, not starting a factory. An anvil is useful, but a second hammer or other surfaces can work. One guy would flatten the rings with a hammer on his lap. Having the right tools for it and the knowhow wil lcertianly make it go faster, and the mail will end up nicer (some of the really fine mails require skilled labour).

Matthew
2014-05-18, 06:06 AM
Hi guys, back from a long and wonderful vacation! Miss me?

Welcome back! Where did you have your vacation?



Any comments about this (http://deremilitari.org/2013/11/medieval-siege-warfare-a-reconnaissance/)? Some of it is pretty familiar: The huge focus on sieges, the militarization of large groups (e.g. urban militias), some of the specifics of the tactics in use, but parts of it seem a bit more radical, and it seems to be ignoring another big aspect of medieval warfare - namely, raids of agricultural areas, supply trains, et. all.

A well known article by a well known historian, first published in 1994. Things have moved on since then, but he was one of the trailblazers.

Brother Oni
2014-05-18, 10:57 AM
You're only making one suit here, not starting a factory. An anvil is useful, but a second hammer or other surfaces can work. One guy would flatten the rings with a hammer on his lap. Having the right tools for it and the knowhow wil lcertianly make it go faster, and the mail will end up nicer (some of the really fine mails require skilled labour).

I don't think the tools needed by one armourer is anywhere near factory level mass production and it's certainly not the production line process that mail traditionally used.

I personally think you're under-estimating the number of links required to make a suit - depending on size of the links and coverage required, I've seen values from 10,000 (Russian mail with really big links) to 150,000 (full hauberk with long sleeves and small links). I certainly wouldn't want to flatten that many links and rivet them (double the number of links) using any other surface than a hardened steel one and certainly not on an unstable surface supported by my lap.

Erik D Schmid (http://www.themailresearchsociety.erikds.com/), probably the foremost expert in historical methods of making mail, estimates that he can weave ~1000 riveted links a day (8-9 hours) - a Roman hamata (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Lorica_Hamata.jpg) of ~20,000 links took him about 20 days to make. This is the full operation of lap, flatten, pierce, weave and rivet depicted in the video I linked to earlier - if it were just weave and rivet, he thinks he could do ~3000 links a day (alternating rows of solid and riveted links).

A fellow in my re-enactment group made himself a short hauberk with short sleeves with butted mail in ~40 hours of work, which certainly ties in with the general estimate of riveted mail taking 4 to 10 times longer to make.

While you could do it without the proper equipment, it certainly won't be to the timeframe or quality required - it's less being able to make it go faster and being able to finish it without WRULD setting in.

warty goblin
2014-05-18, 01:43 PM
You're only making one suit here, not starting a factory. An anvil is useful, but a second hammer or other surfaces can work. One guy would flatten the rings with a hammer on his lap. Having the right tools for it and the knowhow wil lcertianly make it go faster, and the mail will end up nicer (some of the really fine mails require skilled labour).

Hammering things against a surface that has any degree of shift in it at all is not a smart way to work. Any degree of bounce and you end up wasting a lot of effort just shifting stuff around to no benefit. Even if you could flatten metal in your lap, it would be excessively difficult, extremely time consuming, and probably hurt like crazy after a couple hours.

Now it's worth noting that you don't need a particularly big anvil to do work like this. A bigger one is certainly handier - a person can never have too many hard flat surfaces when working with tools - but the sort of anvil that comes built into a standard shop vice I'd think would be quite sufficient. Then you just need something solid to mount the vice on; a sturdy sort of table made out of 4x4 posts and thick plywood with the posts resting on concrete or bedrock and the vice mounted directly above one of the legs works well. Bolting the vice down is very much recommended, otherwise it tends to slide about and make life all kinds of annoying.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-18, 02:57 PM
As I had said before, tools do help. If you haven't got a lot of spare time, then it's going to be an issue whether you have the right tools or not.

warty goblin
2014-05-18, 10:07 PM
As I had said before, tools do help. If you haven't got a lot of spare time, then it's going to be an issue whether you have the right tools or not.

At least in my experience, even doing butted mail takes a fairly massive amount of time. With an extra three steps per ring, a person's gonna want to do everything as quickly and easily as possible. A half-decent hammering surface is a small price to pay for sanity and a couple fewer smashed digits.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-18, 11:03 PM
As I said, good tools help.



Anyone heard much about torture training? In discussing it, it came up that there isn't any good way of training people to resist torture.

Brother Oni
2014-05-19, 02:19 AM
As I said, good tools help.

It's less tools helping and more tools making it either possible or practical. Theoretically you can close butted links made with high gauge wire without any tools, but I wouldn't want to guess the state of your fingers after a couple hundred links or how long it would take to make a piece in this way.



Anyone heard much about torture training? In discussing it, it came up that there isn't any good way of training people to resist torture.

Look up SERE (Survival Evasion Resistance Escape) training, particularly the Resistance part. Generally though, physical conditioning and exposure to severe environmental conditions will help build up a person's tolerance of pain, but never underestimate the inventiveness of people to find new ways of inflicting pain.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-19, 03:10 AM
Your bare hands would not be practice for closing rings.


That's about what it came down to, with the earlier discussion. You can toughen people up, but torture training is limited.

Storm_Of_Snow
2014-05-19, 03:27 AM
right, speaking only for the british military, everybody uses the same plates, as that simpliflies logistics, which appear to be a ceramic type (not sure what they are made out of, but ceramics seems the best fit. they have a green cloth materails that glued on to cover the whole plate, which i think is to help hold the plate together if it cracks when shot.)

as far as i know, the US armour is simmilar, and i think most other nations use ceramic plates as well.
Everyone having the same plates would make sense, but I remember being told that the officers got the light, massively expensive stuff, and the troops got the cheaper, heavy stuff - and often swapped it out for cardboard so they had the bulk (for inspections) but not the weight on them.

I'm pretty sure they're alumina, it's relatively common and easy to process.

and I guess the problem with Kevlar and blades is that the point of a blade can slide between the fibres of the weave, which then puts all the force on the fibres running transverse to the blade and allows it to cut through each in turn.

Thiel
2014-05-19, 04:10 AM
Everyone having the same plates would make sense, but I remember being told that the officers got the light, massively expensive stuff, and the troops got the cheaper, heavy stuff - and often swapped it out for cardboard so they had the bulk (for inspections) but not the weight on them.
I'm sorry, but that's utter bull****. Firstly because there are no lightweight plates in the first place and secondly because the cost of a plate is peanuts compared to the compensation the military pays to the family if a soldier dies.
That said, there are metallic plates out there, however they're for drill purposes only since they aren't bulletproof. They weigh and handles the same as the ceramic ones, but they're a lot tougher which makes them ideal for training scenarios where they won't have to stop anything. I'd guess the paper trick you mention is similarly limited to training and maybe garrison troops in peaceful areas.

Speaking of bulletproof vests and uniforms, the Danish military posted a video a while back about their new M/11 uniform and M/12 ballistic vest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aKAYmysQVk

Mr. Mask
2014-05-19, 04:25 AM
Speaking of armour, anyone done much research into Dragon Skin?

Mathis
2014-05-19, 05:50 AM
You are probably referring to Dragon Skin Body Armor. Yes, quite a few people have actually. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Skin) is a nice overview of its controversy and quite a few links to articles and reviews of research papers.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-19, 05:57 AM
I've looked into it. Curious of others opinions on it.

Thiel
2014-05-19, 06:44 AM
It's difficult to say really. There's so much information out there and most of it is contradictory.
However, one of the issues that appear genuine enough is that you essentially have to replace the entire vest if it gets hit. This isn't a particularly big problem for bodyguards and special forces, but it is when you're an army and have to buy tens or hundreds of thousands of them. Similarly, it can't be mission tailored so you'll need different vests for different mission profiles and even then your choices are rather limited.
Another unknown at this point is how well the plates stands up continued use. Pinnacle Armor provides a six year guarantee, but so far it's only been tested on shelf items.

Brother Oni
2014-05-19, 07:11 AM
That's about what it came down to, with the earlier discussion. You can toughen people up, but torture training is limited.

Inflict enough physical torture on any person and they will break. It's not a matter of if, just when.

I believe SAS soldiers are trained to resist giving up any information regarding their unit's whereabouts for 24 hours, to allow time for the rest of their squad to disperse.

Galloglaich
2014-05-19, 03:37 PM
Any comments about this (http://deremilitari.org/2013/11/medieval-siege-warfare-a-reconnaissance/)? Some of it is pretty familiar: The huge focus on sieges, the militarization of large groups (e.g. urban militias), some of the specifics of the tactics in use, but parts of it seem a bit more radical, and it seems to be ignoring another big aspect of medieval warfare - namely, raids of agricultural areas, supply trains, et. all.

It's a very interesting article, and I agree with some elements, but I definitely agree he does oversimplify.

I think his basic point that the role and importance of the feudal knight, the heavy cavalry charge, and the decisive open-field battle are very exaggerated in our overall assessment of medieval and migration -era warfare. I also agree with him about the importance (if not utter dominance) of the continuity of Roman battlefield tactics (and in some cases, fortifications) as well as the general militarization of the "civilian" population in the medieval period. And with his point that siege warfare was actually quite sophisticated, especially by the high medieval period.

I think he does miss the importance of the raid, and he also puts too much importance on the largest scale of siege warfare vis a vis the sieges involving towns and cities, at the expense of smaller castles. The capture of towns and cities may have often been the ultimate goal of many medieval military campaigns but the creation and destruction of small and large castles and fortified abbeys and villages, as well as smaller keeps, fortalices, and other strongholds was probably (I would argue) very generally speaking, the most important modus operandi or tactic of how warfare was actually conducted. Making and breaking castles was almost like a super-slow motion version of armored warfare, and building a castle (or a series of castles) in the right place was typically one of the most important offensive actions a military leader could take.

For sources he's critical of the monastic chronicles while omitting the usually more accurate and detailed urban chronicles, priestly records, and records of military orders which are also available, as well as letters, legal documents and many other types of documents we have access to today.

I think it's very difficult to generalize about the period, especially when coming at it from a "Western" perspective, by which what is usually meant is a mostly English plus some French and maybe a little Flemish through an English filter. There were really a large number of regions in Europe which were very distinct in terms of terrain, economics, and social landscape. He talks about Italy as an example of warfare as a series of struggles over urban centers, but northern Italy where the campaigns he was discussing took place was one of the most highly urbanized zones in the world at that time.

Broadly speaking, I think he overgeneralizes, both in terms of the time span (1,000 years is just too broad to say much) and space, and the "Western" focus I think tries to cram round, triangular, diamond shaped (and so on) pegs into a single square hole. I think the overall revisionist tone with respect to some of the established experts is somewhat appropriate though and I do agree with the very general premise that siege warfare was hugely important. One other thing I would add is that terrain as a form of "natural fortification" was often as important as the artificial terrain of castles and fortified cities. But if we are going to dethrone historians like Delbruck from their lofty perch we have to do as well as they did in understanding the primary sources not just secondary analysis, however well done, and have the magisterial breadth of knowledge that they did as well, no mean task.

Delbruck, to me, remains pertinent largely because even though he disagrees with all those primary sources most of the time, he is enough of a gentleman to share his (quite good, as often as not) translations and transcriptions with the reader so that they can decide for themselves. This gives the work value beyond the authors own theories, which is a trend I think we really need to get back to. The theories are ephemeral, the data is ... immense, and immensely complex.

Speaking of ephemeral theories and endless data, by the way, I've been reading a lot of chronicles myself in the last few weeks, and I've developed the theory a bit further that more Crusades were fought by Europeans against Europeans than in the middle east, by every measure: in terms of scale, number of people involved, number of casualties, money spent etc. and so on.

We also had a debate a few iterations of this thread back, about how early naval cannon warfare was taking place and specifically, if ships could be sunk by cannon, during which I had mentioned the capture of the Pirate Stortebecker at the turn of the 14th Century. I have the details of that naval action from the Hamburg Chronicle and ships were sunk by cannon, apparently. I'll post it when I have some time.



G

Aedilred
2014-05-19, 04:02 PM
Speaking of ephemeral theories and endless data, by the way, I've been reading a lot of chronicles myself in the last few weeks, and I've developed the theory a bit further that more Crusades were fought by Europeans against Europeans than in the middle east, by every measure: in terms of scale, number of people involved, number of casualties, money spent etc. and so on.
Depending on what you count as a Crusade (and a European), of course, I think you're absolutely right. After all, the whole idea of a "holy crusade" started in Spain centuries before the eastern Emperor called for aid, and despite the nominal objective of the First Crusade's being to help the Byzantines out, they fought them about as much as they helped, not to mention fighting their way across Hungary and half of Germany to get to the imperial border in the first place. The Fourth Crusade was obviously a complete farce. Not to mention the Baltic Crusades, which were against pretty much exclusively European (and often Christian) opponents.

Galloglaich
2014-05-19, 09:42 PM
Depending on what you count as a Crusade (and a European), of course, I think you're absolutely right. After all, the whole idea of a "holy crusade" started in Spain centuries before the eastern Emperor called for aid, and despite the nominal objective of the First Crusade's being to help the Byzantines out, they fought them about as much as they helped, not to mention fighting their way across Hungary and half of Germany to get to the imperial border in the first place. The Fourth Crusade was obviously a complete farce. Not to mention the Baltic Crusades, which were against pretty much exclusively European (and often Christian) opponents.

The IVth Crusade I would only partly count as European vs. European since a lot of the Byzantine Empire was outside Europe, technically, and a lot of the wars which went on against them were not considered Crusades. Neither was most of the Reconquista which was a bit too complex to be considered a Crusade (since Christians and Muslims were so often allied against other coalitions of Christians and Muslims).

But you've hit on one of the really big ones, the Baltic Crusades (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Crusade), which went on for more than 300 years, (you could stretch it longer if you wanted to, it kind of gradually petered out and turned into a different kind of war around the end of the 15th Century, but Crusading as such actually went on a little longer) as well as the closely related Livonian Crusade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livonian_Crusade) and the Wendish Crusade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendish_Crusade), all three of which are kind of "bonus" because they also included anti-Crusades in which apostate converted pagans who were thought to be pacified for decades went crazy and wiped out all the Christians and forcibly unconverted everybody. Definitely something which should be but generally isn't in most overviews of the Crusades. There were also Crusades by Sweden against Novgorod (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish-Novgorodian_Wars), which gradually evolved into truly bitter sectarian wars against Moscow that continued into the 18th Century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_War) which by that time of course were no longer Crusades as such.

But if you considered a Crusade to be a religious war declared by a Pope on the basis of remission of sins (and sometimes other more temporal benefits) for the religious army against pagans or heretics, you've also got many other really big ones like the Albigensien Crusade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_crusade) and the similar but radically unsuccessful Hussite Crusades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussite_Wars#The_first_anti-Hussite_crusade) (and their pro-heretic anti-Crusades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussite_Wars#Beautiful_rides_.28Chevauch.C3.A9e.29 ) which followed). These alone as big as they are, aren't quite on the same scale as the entirety of the Crusades in Central Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. But!

I think the numbers really start to equal out if you include the dozens of smaller Crusades that almost nobody ever heard of but which nevertheless involved tens of thousands of people fighting and epic levels of destruction and death, like the rather sordid Despenser's Crusade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Despenser's_Crusade), in which an English army invaded Flanders for very cynical though religious reasons, the even more despicable crusade launched against the Flemish Stedinger tribe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stedingers#Crusade) (in which they were declared heretics due to not wanting to pay increased taxes) which allowed the Archbishop of Bremen, who had been losing a feud against them, to finally annihilate them to the last man, woman and child. There were also even more of the still-smaller Crusades such as those which became part of Guelph-Ghibelline strife in Italy, like the one declared by the Avignon Pope against the Visconti of Milan in 1322 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matteo_Visconti#Final_Years).

When you put all these together it creates a rather appalling stack of bodies, burnt villages, depopulated farmland and so on... which I think compares pretty well with the 'foreign' ones. You also have the same kind of catastrophic reverses and failures, since the European vs. European Crusades were just as characterized by failure and calamity as the ones in Outramer and Turkey.

G

No brains
2014-05-19, 11:45 PM
I'm sorry if this derails and steals the momentum from otherwise thoughtful discussions, but what weapons and armor do the posters here like? Interpret the question as broadly as you want; whether you like the equipment for how it looks, it's efficacy, some interesting factoid about like numbers produced or an interesting inventor, or even something along the lines of "I like this weapon because I don't truly 'like' the idea of weapons/armor/fighting."

Mr. Mask
2014-05-19, 11:58 PM
Longswords and Kalashnikov rifles, and specially knives. The former because of what it represents, its image. The second for its usefulness in war. The last because they're what I'm most suited to.

Aedilred
2014-05-20, 12:05 AM
I'm sorry if this derails and steals the momentum from otherwise thoughtful discussions, but what weapons and armor do the posters here like? Interpret the question as broadly as you want; whether you like the equipment for how it looks, it's efficacy, some interesting factoid about like numbers produced or an interesting inventor, or even something along the lines of "I like this weapon because I don't truly 'like' the idea of weapons/armor/fighting."
An interesting question. I've always had a bit of a thing for polearms, which I can't quite explain: poleaxes, glaives and halberds particularly. Also maces and morningstars: I think I like their symbolic value.*

As an Englishman, I retain a sentimental fondness for the longbow and the axe. And as a fencer and early-modern fetishist, the smallsword, rapier and (straight) sabre also have great appeal.

Essentially, I'm a dilettante, like in most areas of my life...

*According to legend, the mace became the symbol of power (as a sceptre) because it was the most effective weapon against heavily-armoured opponents, such as the nobility. So the king's sceptre symbolised his power to kill his most powerful subjects. I'm not sure how much truth there is to it. Maces would be most effective - relative to other weapons - against the sort of armour that only really started to appear quite a long time after sceptres, and indeed maces themselves, were commonplace symbolically. So it might just be nonsense.

eulmanis12
2014-05-20, 12:34 AM
I'm sorry if this derails and steals the momentum from otherwise thoughtful discussions, but what weapons and armor do the posters here like? Interpret the question as broadly as you want; whether you like the equipment for how it looks, it's efficacy, some interesting factoid about like numbers produced or an interesting inventor, or even something along the lines of "I like this weapon because I don't truly 'like' the idea of weapons/armor/fighting."

I like zwiehanders and dane axes but my personal favorite medieval weapon has always been the simple spear. A good spear is something no medieval infantryman should be without. In battle it can serve as a two handed weapon, a short to mid range thrown weapon, or be wielded with a single hand freeing the other to hold a shield. In camp three soldiers banding together have a tripod to hang their stew pot, and two soldiers working as a team can make a stretcher. On the march a good spear makes a passable hiking staff, and should it ever break it is easy to replace. Truly the spear is the swiss army knife of medieval weapons.

also, from a certain point of view, the spear is one of the few items on the medieval battlefield to still be in use on the modern battlefield. almost every modern soldier carries a bayonet in order to, at need, turn their rifle into a spear.

Storm Bringer
2014-05-20, 01:16 AM
Everyone having the same plates would make sense, but I remember being told that the officers got the light, massively expensive stuff, and the troops got the cheaper, heavy stuff - and often swapped it out for cardboard so they had the bulk (for inspections) but not the weight on them.




I'm sorry, but that's utter bull****.
I'd guess the paper trick you mention is similarly limited to training and maybe garrison troops in peaceful areas.



you'd like to think thst, wouldn't you? however, on my pre tour briefs for my last deployment, they haad just found out someone had done the cardboard thing as they were taking off his body armour after he was wounded.

It like the case of 30 years war soldiers who dumped thier breastplates and campgained with only a skull cap for protection, or the american civil war troops who sold thier greatcoats in the spring and then complained abouta lack of cold weather gear that winter. squaddies have a long reputation of making short sighted decisions that trade long term benefits for a short term gain, often Less Stuff To Carry. soliders are often carrying stupidly heavy loads, and the tempation to lighten them must be pretty high.

Storm_Of_Snow
2014-05-20, 03:41 AM
you'd like to think thst, wouldn't you? however, on my pre tour briefs for my last deployment, they haad just found out someone had done the cardboard thing as they were taking off his body armour after he was wounded.

It like the case of 30 years war soldiers who dumped thier breastplates and campgained with only a skull cap for protection, or the american civil war troops who sold thier greatcoats in the spring and then complained abouta lack of cold weather gear that winter. squaddies have a long reputation of making short sighted decisions that trade long term benefits for a short term gain, often Less Stuff To Carry. soliders are often carrying stupidly heavy loads, and the tempation to lighten them must be pretty high.
Cheers for the backup :smallsmile:

Now, if you can confirm that when the SA-80 came into service, the first question a senior officer asked wasn't about reliability or accuracy, but whether his men could still drill with it (and had he asked those other questions, it might not have been such a dog's breakfast to start with), I'd be a very happy person. :smallwink:

Storm Bringer
2014-05-20, 06:38 AM
Cheers for the backup :smallsmile:

Now, if you can confirm that when the SA-80 came into service, the first question a senior officer asked wasn't about reliability or accuracy, but whether his men could still drill with it (and had he asked those other questions it might not have been such a dog's breakfast to start with), I'd be a very happy person. :smallwink:

thats a new one for me, but it sounds about right for our army. it's not just the Guards who do drill on s regular basis.


The current model of the L-85 (SA-80 is the "civvie" name for it.) is actaully pretty reliable. I've only every had three stoppages with the rifle, and they were all caused by slightly deformed mags feeding two rounds at once.

about this time last year, over a three week period, i put several thousand rounds though my rifle on a range package, and it worked fine, with just a 5-min oiling every morning, no need to clean it.

plus, it is and has always been a very accurate weapon, so much so they apprantly had to change the tests when it came in, as any old sod could get high scores with it.

Brother Oni
2014-05-20, 07:03 AM
Lots of Crusades stuff

I've been meaning to ask, are the Crusades a personal favourite topic of yours? I remember you were very surprised when I found that English bishop involved with the Poll Tax riots, who was later involved with a mini-Crusade on the mainland.


I'm sorry if this derails and steals the momentum from otherwise thoughtful discussions, but what weapons and armor do the posters here like? Interpret the question as broadly as you want; whether you like the equipment for how it looks, it's efficacy, some interesting factoid about like numbers produced or an interesting inventor, or even something along the lines of "I like this weapon because I don't truly 'like' the idea of weapons/armor/fighting."

Spear and staff as that's what I've had the most training with. For much of the same reasons as eulmanis12, their simpleness, versality and effectiveness have always appealled to me.

I do have a strange fondness for axes, even if I've never been allowed to use one. It's probably the image of the weapon more than anything else - it just looks more interesting than a sword and the implied brutality of the thing.

I've had influence from two cultures regarding the power of the bow (three if you include my wife's), so I like these as well. Unfortunately for my English side, I prefer recurves over longbows though.

I'm not as fond of firearms (the great equaliser), but I appreciate the training required for sharpshooting and their effectiveness in combat. As a scientist though, their development fascinates me and is one of the best examples of natural selection in a non-biological system I can think of.
Rifles tend to be my thing from my cadet days - I can still remember how to strip and clean the L98A1 GP Cadet Training Rifle even after having never touched one for over 20 years (not to mention remember the name without looking it up...).

JustSomeGuy
2014-05-20, 07:33 AM
With regards to the british army rifle - SA80/rifle 5.56mm/A2/whatever else they keep changing the name to, i gave up caring:

It can be very accurate - i can shoot pretty well as far out as 500m with it in the more stable positions (prone, trench etc.), with the right sights. However, with plain old iron sights it is only really useful up to 200m accurately and 300m if all you want to do is hit in or close to a man sized target (at least for me, no doubt there are some real keen sorts who can put out the queen's eye on a penny at a km - if they didn't think of it as blasphemous anyway!)

It does have some odd quirks of reliability though, without taking cleaning/maintenance way past the levels we get instructed on - examples:

We have had a SUSAT loose it's zero mid-shoot, as *something* occured and it went 8 adjustments to the right. It was decided upon inspection that there was a ridiculously small bit of grit in the threads of the adjuster screw, and it got crushed/vapourised/heated and shattered or whatever, due to the shocks and heat of firing, and released some tension from that adjuster which jumped thread pitches, blah blah technical gumpf, end result was a badly altered sight zero.

Another really random issue was the barrel's rifling 'burnt out' during a range day, which meant it lost accuracy past 300m - as in, shots were flaining wildly in all directions... took them a while to figure that one out!

Trigger lb pressures can 'go' as well, to the point before every competition shoot detail there are randomised trigger pressure checks

Also, not the weapon itself but a derivitive, the LSW - when using the bipod legs, if you lean into the butt too much (whic hyou are encouraged to do to ensure a good solid position whic hwill hold better during burst fire), it somehow flexes the barrel which obviously affects accuracy badly... although this can be nullified by firing without hte bipod, which i have to do. Also, i weigh 17-18st so maybe i'm just too fat to shoot it! Other guys on our team don't get this problem as bad, but some do to lesser degrees.


Overall, i spent a long time disliking the weapon - intricate and frequent cleaning needed, seemed flimsy and problematic and wasn't regarded very well by the more senior ranks. When i got into shooting properly and worked with guys who took it more seriously, with better training and instruction it turned out really rather useful and reliable despite some freak issues and strange foibles, although i suspect these may be encountered with other long barrelled weapons too (for instance, needing different aiming points depending on firing position and range, probably due to minor variations on alignment etc)


EDIT: no practical experience at weapon fighting (beyond the old xbox anyway!), but i used to box and dabbled in a bit of muay thai, jujitsu and mma, and based on all of that i like the idea of a fast, agile defense with a few well-timed swings with a real powerhouse of a weapon - something like a big axe, a two handed sword or hammer etc. also, gotta show some (theoretical) love for the longbow, given it's patriotic bent and all!

Matthew
2014-05-20, 08:28 AM
Depending on what you count as a Crusade (and a European), of course, I think you're absolutely right. After all, the whole idea of a "holy crusade" started in Spain centuries before the eastern Emperor called for aid, and despite the nominal objective of the First Crusade's being to help the Byzantines out, they fought them about as much as they helped, not to mention fighting their way across Hungary and half of Germany to get to the imperial border in the first place. The Fourth Crusade was obviously a complete farce. Not to mention the Baltic Crusades, which were against pretty much exclusively European (and often Christian) opponents.

A very great deal indeed depends on what you count as a crusade, or rather how you define it. The first real precursor to the "crusade" could be said to be the Norman conquest of England, because William was granted a papal banner and endorsement of the Pope (only really possible because of the reforms within the church starting with Gregory VII). The wars in Spain, by contrast, were a different sort of affair until the mid twelfth century when the second crusade kicked everything up into philosophical high gear. I am not at all convinced that more money was spent on internal crusades than on external ones, but again that depends on how you define what "counts". For example, I would be disinclined to discount the enormous sums of money spent on expanding and defending the crusader states.

JustSomeGuy
2014-05-20, 09:22 AM
Look what i found for you lucky lucky people:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z74QVhzYunA&feature=youtu.be


If you can't quite make it out, the date on the object is 1992, so could well have been superceded by now (although equally possibly not, we all know how generous 'the system' is!)

Galloglaich
2014-05-20, 09:29 AM
A very great deal indeed depends on what you count as a crusade, or rather how you define it. The first real precursor to the "crusade" could be said to be the Norman conquest of England, because William was granted a papal banner and endorsement of the Pope (only really possible because of the reforms within the church starting with Gregory VII).

I'm only counting Crusades which were declared as a Crusade by the Pope and followed up upon with at least some kind of dispensations for the Crusaders.


The wars in Spain, by contrast, were a different sort of affair until the mid twelfth century when the second crusade kicked everything up into philosophical high gear. I am not at all convinced that more money was spent on internal crusades than on external ones, but again that depends on how you define what "counts". For example, I would be disinclined to discount the enormous sums of money spent on expanding and defending the crusader states.

Nor would I, but keep in mind, that would include almost all of the northern half of Germany East of the Elbe, since Mecklenberg, Brandenburg and much of lower Saxony were taken from the Wends and the Slavs in Crusades, as well as Pomerania, Prussia, Livonia, all of which had huge numbers of fortifications built, usually several per year for more than 200 years in the case of Prussia and Livonia (with as many destroyed as built). The Teutonic Order had a 'castle-building season'. A good portion of the major cities, abbeys and churches of Germany and the Baltic were built directly as the result of Crusades (and quite a few of them were unbuilt during revolts against them).


I've been meaning to ask, are the Crusades a personal favourite topic of yours? I remember you were very surprised when I found that English bishop involved with the Poll Tax riots, who was later involved with a mini-Crusade on the mainland.

No, not at all really. But it's one of those major medieval tropes that loom large over the period, especially from the point of view of lay people, popular media and so on, and like most of these tropes, it seems almost entirely based on nonsense. I am mainly interested in Free Cities in Central and Northern Europe at the moment, but I keep running into stories about Crusades that were internal in Europe, though I thought it's worth noting as it seems a bit shocking to me how many of these there were (and how destructive they were)- it's something that has come up over the years in this thread as I've occasionally commented on such discoveries. I've now read enough that I'm convinced that there were more internal than external, which I think is interesting.


I'm sorry if this derails and steals the momentum from otherwise thoughtful discussions, but what weapons and armor do the posters here like? Interpret the question as broadly as you want; whether you like the equipment for how it looks, it's efficacy, some interesting factoid about like numbers produced or an interesting inventor, or even something along the lines of "I like this weapon because I don't truly 'like' the idea of weapons/armor/fighting."

Longsword, because I've been studying it's use for 14 years now and because it's so marvelously versatile, flexibile, and counter-intuitive. Because of the shielhau. Military saber, particularly the European heavy sabers derived from the Hungarian Szabla (like this one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_1796_light_cavalry_sabre)), because they are so fun to spar with, so defensive, and so deadly. Rapier, because I've learned against my will to love it's lethality and it's rhythm. Crossbows, because they are so lethal and so underappreciated - and because they are such beautiful machines. Halberds (though they are a little horrifying) because they are just such perfect weapons.

And daggers, fighting knives... because they are serious business.

I've also kind of come around to appreciating early-handguns a bit, again kind of against my own will.


Overall, i spent a long time disliking the weapon - intricate and frequent cleaning needed, seemed flimsy and problematic

That reminds me of my experiences with the M-16. People these days swear (and bend my ear) that it (M4 etc.) is so wonderful now, and from what you described it sounds like it was maybe a bit more accurate than the one you were dealing with, but when we had them in the 80's they were crap in my opinion. Very prone to stoppages and in need of constant cleaning and maintenance.

G

Matthew
2014-05-20, 09:39 AM
I'm only counting Crusades which were declared as a Crusade by the Pope and followed up upon with at least some kind of dispensations for the Crusaders.

Well, the Pope didn't really declare "crusades" exactly, what he did was issue a papal bull with dispensations, sometimes concurrent with a major preaching campaign and large military action. What we call "crusades" (especially the French numbering system) can be somewhat fluid. Going to fight in Spain almost always had some sort of bull and dispensation behind it. The word "crusade" is rather rare to non-existent in the medieval vocabulary. The second crusade is a great example, as though the basic idea was to go to the Holy Land and reconquer Edessa, the bull proclaimed a war on all fronts, Spain and Germany included. So, then we get a fleet of Anglo-Norman crusaders hanging around in Spain on their way to the Holy Land (with some heated disagreement) to help capture Lisbon as part of the crusade.



Nor would I, but keep in mind, that would include almost all of the northern half of Germany East of the Elbe, since Mecklenberg, Brandenburg and much of lower Saxony were taken from the Wends and the Slavs in Crusades, as well as Pomerania, Prussia, Livonia, all of which had huge numbers of fortifications built, usually several per year for more than 200 years in the case of Prussia and Livonia (with as many destroyed as built). The Teutonic Order had a 'castle-building season'. A good portion of the major cities, abbeys and churches of Germany and the Baltic were built directly as the result of Crusades (and quite a few of them were unbuilt during revolts against them).

Ah, I see where you are going. The "European" thing was misleading me, as I was thinking "European Christian". Still, there would have to be lot of defining and caveats involved in that.

JustSomeGuy
2014-05-20, 09:48 AM
The m-16 was (and sometimes still is) held up as the solution to our rubbish weapon problem - it is alleged as lighter, easier to clean and maintain, more accurate, already in the NATO system, etc.

Maybe it's just a 'grass is greener' thing... although on the surface of it, you would expect the big almighty US of A to throw enough money and R&D time at it to make the better weapon - at least, that was always the immediate reasoning we got!

Galloglaich
2014-05-20, 10:29 AM
The m-16 was (and sometimes still is) held up as the solution to our rubbish weapon problem - it is alleged as lighter, easier to clean and maintain, more accurate, already in the NATO system, etc.

Maybe it's just a 'grass is greener' thing... although on the surface of it, you would expect the big almighty US of A to throw enough money and R&D time at it to make the better weapon - at least, that was always the immediate reasoning we got!

Yeah maybe it is just grass is greener.

I guess they have been working on it for 50+ years so they've obviously improved it, the debate is whether it is a matter of whether it has fundamental design flaws - (which I don't really want to debate since I'm not knowledgeable enough on the engineering).

I do remember we had a major problem with the M-60 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60_machine_gun#Design_flaws) as well, our 'light' machinegun, and we noted that the German ones we were able to try at the range were much better (more accurate, lighter, jammed a lot less, etc.) it has apparently since been replaced with a European weapon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_MAG).

It also seemed to me that the older M-14 was a lot better in many respects than the M-16 and I notice that the M-14 is still around in many forms today and remains popular (and much more expensive on the civilian market).

G

Brother Oni
2014-05-20, 12:12 PM
Look what i found for you lucky lucky people:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z74QVhzYunA&feature=youtu.be


If you can't quite make it out, the date on the object is 1992, so could well have been superceded by now (although equally possibly not, we all know how generous 'the system' is!)

The hat is back! :smallbiggrin:

Was that a spare ceramic plate left over from your body armour? That khukuri looks familiar too...

Edit: doing some digging on your youtube page, you say it's an old NATO ballistic plate - I assume that's a class III plate?

JustSomeGuy
2014-05-20, 12:15 PM
I have no idea, I can check if it is written on there later, or is there a specific nsn?

Storm Bringer
2014-05-20, 12:44 PM
The m-16 was (and sometimes still is) held up as the solution to our rubbish weapon problem - it is alleged as lighter, easier to clean and maintain, more accurate, already in the NATO system, etc.

Maybe it's just a 'grass is greener' thing... although on the surface of it, you would expect the big almighty US of A to throw enough money and R&D time at it to make the better weapon - at least, that was always the immediate reasoning we got!

it is worth noting that the UK does use M-16 type weapons in a limited role, mainly canadian built demarco C-7s and C-8s. thier mainly issued to our assorted spec ops units and Para pathfinders, because the L-85 isn't ally enough isn't cleared for HALO/HAHO jumps.

so The Powers That Be do have a clear idea of what the M-16 is like, and have decided to stick to the L85 for whatever reason,

JustSomeGuy
2014-05-20, 01:16 PM
Speaking of allyness, have you seen the new integrated pistol holsters that function as the safety (as in, the pistol doesn't have a safety catch, the holster inhibits firing) that stick out your leg like robocop - but also break really quick and send the whole system to the stores? I forget if it's the Sig or the glock, but i'd go with the latter because I heard the sigs are getting chinned off, although you know what duty rumours are like eh...

Galloglaich
2014-05-20, 01:42 PM
Speaking of allyness, have you seen the new integrated pistol holsters that function as the safety (as in, the pistol doesn't have a safety catch, the holster inhibits firing) that stick out your leg like robocop - but also break really quick and send the whole system to the stores? I forget if it's the Sig or the glock, but i'd go with the latter because I heard the sigs are getting chinned off, although you know what duty rumours are like eh...

Chinned off?

G

Mike_G
2014-05-20, 05:11 PM
The M16 initially had a bunch of issues with reliability. They were largely related to ammo and maintenance. Cheap propellent left a residue and rounds jammed, guns jammed and men died cursing Eugene Stoner as the VC overran their positions.

Even in 1986, when I was issued my M16A2, the weapon needed very thorough cleaning or it would jam. Old magazines tended to load poorly and we were trained to short load the magazines to account for crap worn out springs. 28 rounds in a 30 round mag.

I haven't heard any younger guys complain about the M4 and variants, so I'm thinking with decent maintenance and newer magazines it works just fine.

I still like the old M14, but I'm a dinosaur.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-20, 05:55 PM
I recall a Marine from the Iraq war who said, "If I could get this thing to fire, I would just shoot myself now." I hear some still want the M14 back.


Messing about in the garden: Wish he'd had a go at stabbing the thing. I know slashing them with a knife is pointless.

Storm Bringer
2014-05-21, 02:55 AM
Chinned off?

G

in this context, "got rid of", but normally used to say you avoided something by simply not doing it ("the OC wanted us to clean every rifle in the armoury, but the sgt chinned that right off snd just did the ones we shot....")



on the future of the Sigs, duty rumour round my parts was that they were just going to keep them and issue tem out until they broke, same as the brownings.

then agian, i'm a scaleyback who, if he was mportant enough to get a pistol, would have to use a dual mag pouch as a holster anyway, so what do i know?

JustSomeGuy
2014-05-21, 07:57 AM
Dual mag pouches - but where'd you put your mags? Oh right, you probably have more than the remf 3 pouch set. Some of us have to make do with a repurposed stickies/s10 pouch, you know! Also, my second posting was at 30sigs, there were some pretty switched on guys there, so you are probably more in the loop than you realise. Deffo not a complete mushroom anyways...

Brother Oni
2014-05-21, 07:57 AM
I have no idea, I can check if it is written on there later, or is there a specific nsn?

I was just asking to get an idea of what that plate is supposed to protect against. I'm not sure of the specifics myself.


Messing about in the garden: Wish he'd had a go at stabbing the thing. I know slashing them with a knife is pointless.

You could ask JustSomeGuy very nicely if he could try that, but I suggest some safety gear (goggles at least in case the plate cracks) and something other than the khukuri since that's not as well designed for stabbing.

It's less slashing is pointless and more they're still bloody durable after 22 years.


'Ally', 'chinned', 'scaleyback'

I find the ARRSE dictionary (http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/ARRSEPedia_Intro) quite useful in interpreting military jargon and slang especially since they're often not interchangable with US jargon and slang.

One term I was introduced to recently was PONTI or Person Of No Tactical Importance, which roughly equates to REMF in US slang.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-21, 08:10 AM
Oh, that was by Guy? I don't really want to inconvenience them. If Random Guy felt like stabbing it next time they got a testing urge, I'd be interested to see the results.

And yeah, modern materials are pretty impressive in how long it takes them to decay.

JustSomeGuy
2014-05-21, 09:55 AM
It's the same plates we still get given in the standard body armour (not osprey or it's predecessors) that is used by 99.9% of the shooters on uk ranges. The complete set is a cloth outer which covers a ruberry-plastic coated spongey vest, with two pouches to fit a ballistic plate front and back over the heart (i guess the R&D guys really got into 'for a fistfull of dollars eh). The plate itself is supposed to protect against small arms fire, couldn't say about anything else.

I'd really like a good axe to take to it, although i doubt chopping would do much given how little the kukhri did. Maybe a sledge would shatter it, to be honest i doubt stabbing would get through unless it was from a very, very big hit (like a pickaxe or some assortment of a running-jumping-hollywood-spear-thrust). It is more resilient than that tree chunk it's sitting on, so if you think you can stab through wood then maybe you're getting into the right sort of ballpark i guess? And no, i don't fancy stabbing it with anything without some form of crossguard, nor with something with an offset tip. Sorry folks, the elf in safety has decreed it not suitable for my fingers!

Lastly, on the topic of non-alloyed metals forming some kind of blade, there is a *thing*, of which the name totally eludes me, of electronic-gradient-conductivity-or-something damage between dismillar metals - basically, the more dissimilar two metals in contact are, the more severely one will corrode the other, moreso in wet or humid conditions. There are even tables charting the severity and 'ratings' of different metals and stuff. Most common (because of widespread industrial use i guess) between steel bolts and aluminium panels, which i suppose is where it may have been discovered.

Galloglaich
2014-05-21, 10:02 AM
Thought y'all might find this interesting:

http://www.tameshigiri.ca/2014/05/21/skeleton-executed-by-sword-blows-to-head-poses-questions-on-norman-conquest/

G

Aedilred
2014-05-21, 10:49 AM
It might not be from the 1066 invasion, but could conveivably have been one of Alfred's retinue from his invasion/betrayal in 1035/6. He also landed in Sussex, although made it as far as Guildford, and a bunch of bodies believed to have been associated with him were found there. But he might have lost other people en route, and the dating would still fit.

Thiel
2014-05-21, 04:46 PM
Lastly, on the topic of non-alloyed metals forming some kind of blade, there is a *thing*, of which the name totally eludes me, of electronic-gradient-conductivity-or-something damage between dismillar metals - basically, the more dissimilar two metals in contact are, the more severely one will corrode the other, moreso in wet or humid conditions. There are even tables charting the severity and 'ratings' of different metals and stuff. Most common (because of widespread industrial use i guess) between steel bolts and aluminium panels, which i suppose is where it may have been discovered.

Galvanic corrosion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_corrosion)

Galloglaich
2014-05-22, 01:43 PM
So this is the description of the naval action in the North Sea in 1402

Buildup
The pirate group called the victual brothers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victual_Brothers), supported by robber knights, warlike Frisian peasants, some Free Cities and several regional Dukes, was essentially at war with the Hanseatic League. Their famous battle cry was "God's friends and the whole world's enemies". From 1398 - 1402 the Victual Brothers nearly put a stop to trade through the Orseund (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oresund) (the gap between the North and Baltic Seas) and raided as far north as Bergen in Norway and as far south as Spain, where the pirate captains Klaus Stortebecker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_St%C3%B6rtebeker) and Godeke von Michelsen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6deke_Michels), both knights from Holstein, acquired saintly relics of St. Vincent which they believed made them immune to gunshots and sword cuts.

For a while the predations of the pirates were beyond the abilities of the Hanse, or the Kingdoms of England and Denmark, among other powers, to cope with, and trade declined catastrophically. But the cities, particularly Hamburg, began to make a concerted effort (including raising a large amount of money to arm and equip ships) and the tide began to turn. In 1400 a fleet from Hamburg under town-senator Albert Schreye won a battle against 'several' pirate ships from the Victual brothers and captured their base at Emden, cutting off some of their support from Frisian peasants. Later that year in another naval action 80 pirates were killed and 30 were taken. In 1401 Hamburg completed a new warship, Die Bunte Kuh (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunte_Kuh&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dbunte%2Bkuh%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D638) ('the colorful cow' is how it's usually translated, though that's not quite precise). It is believed to be one of the largest and best equipped, if not the largest European warship of this period.

http://img862.imageshack.us/img862/8697/buntekuh.jpg

Prelude to the Battle
In 1402 the Victual brothers were lurking in the estuary of the Elbe river, where they were intercepting mercantile traffic and capturing ships and cargo's. Hamburg secretly put together a fleet of 40 ships to confront them, centered around the Bunte Kuh, commanded by one of the town's burgomeisters, Nicholaus Shocke and Hermann Langhe. The Bunte Kuh was either commanded by a Nederlandish knight named Simon von Utrecht, or (other sources claim) a burgher named Hermann Nienkerken. The night before the engagement a river pilot named Peter Krutzfeldt rowed out and damaged the rudder of Stortebecker's flagship the Mad Dog. The pirate fleet was waiting off the coast of Heligoland, waiting for an expected convoy of merchant ships from England. Instead, they encountered the war-fleet from Hamburg.

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/414/buntekuh2.jpg

The Battle
According to the Hamburg Chronicle, the Hamburg fleet surprised the pirates, and the Bunte Kuh made strait for the Mad Dog, which was unable to maneuver due to her damaged rudder. Before it was able to close the distance, another pirate leader named Hennig Wichmann (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hennig_Wichmann) came to the rescue of his comrade and sailed his ship between them, firing a 'broadside' at the Bunte Kuh, which was badly though not fatally damaged, and returned fire causing serious damage in return. Stortebecker then had the Mad Dog rake the Bunte Kuh with his guns, but Simon von Utrecht replied with a 'broadside' at close quarters, lay along side, grappled and boarded the Mad Dog.

http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/1080/stoerte1.jpg

A brutal hand to hand fight ensued. Stortebecker was supposed to be a man of unusual size and strength, and believed himself protected by his magical charms - he was also very likely wearing armor. According to the chronicle, both men broke their swords and lost their axes, and were grappling in a 'death struggle' on the deck, as their various crew fought around them. Utrecht was beneath Stortebecker and was 'getting the worst of it', when two of his friends dispatched their opponents and came to his rescue and overpowered him, and tied him up, before realizing who his battered victim was. According to the chronicle, St. Vincent's relics seem to have done their work, as Stortebecker had no wounds, though he was out of breath.

Meanwhile the naval battle continued, and the Hamburg fleet was winning. Several small vessels had been sunk, two large pirate warships under the command of Godeke Michels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6deke_Michels) managed to sail away in the confusion. Wichmann's ship, which had already been damaged by gunfire from the Bunte Kuh, was sunk by gunfire from the other Hamburg ships. Most of the crew died but Wichmann himself was rescued and taken back to Hamburg as a prisoner along with 70 pirates and a great deal of loot.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Stoertebeker2.jpg
The aftermath was a bit complex, but in a nutshell, Stortebecker, Wichmann and 70 other pirates were beheaded at Hamburg.

This report from the Chronicle constitutes evidence (if not proof) that not only were guns used in naval warfare in 1402, they were used to sink ships at this time, and were shot from the sides and not just from the bow. No big surprise to me, but it was a point under contention here at one point.

A German website said the Bunte Kuh may have been a type of shp called a Schnigge, based on the maintenance costs which appear to have been lower than for a cog. Anyone know what that is exactly? The German wiki says this was a smaller ship than a Cog, so these ships may have been quite small, which may help explain how they were able to be sunk with what were probably relatively small swivel guns, hook guns and breach-loaders. I found these images:

http://www.langs-minis.de/Meine_Hobby/Schiffsmodellbau/Eider-w.jpg

http://www.patrizier-fan.de/sites/patrizier-fan.de/files/imagecache/gallery_display/images/gameinfo/189/schnigge.png

Some of the smaller pirate ships were probably similar to Viking longships (Busse or Drakkar) differing only in having a proper rudder instead of a steering oar, as such were still in common use particularly in the Baltic at that time.



G

Source: Chronicles of Three Free cities (pages 196-199)
Wilson King (former US consul to Bremen), Dent and Sons, London 1914

Raunchel
2014-05-22, 01:53 PM
Based on this I have a question about armor on ships. In many media it issaid that nno one in his right mind would be wearing armor aboard a ship for fear of drowning. I wonder if this is true, or did people just wear their normal armor on the ship, or was there a specific lighter kind that was worn?

Galloglaich
2014-05-22, 01:58 PM
Based on this I have a question about armor on ships. In many media it issaid that nno one in his right mind would be wearing armor aboard a ship for fear of drowning. I wonder if this is true, or did people just wear their normal armor on the ship, or was there a specific lighter kind that was worn?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/Bataille_de_la_Rochelle.jpg/300px-Bataille_de_la_Rochelle.jpg

They are routinely portrayed in artwork fighting in armor on ships, the various risks had to be balanced I guess - but fighting armored guys without armor is very dangerous.

G

Aedilred
2014-05-22, 02:09 PM
Based on this I have a question about armor on ships. In many media it issaid that nno one in his right mind would be wearing armor aboard a ship for fear of drowning. I wonder if this is true, or did people just wear their normal armor on the ship, or was there a specific lighter kind that was worn?
I've always been sceptical of this, since you'd be quite lucky to survive if you end up in the water anyway and the chances of being killed or seriously injured by combat are probably much higher than your chances of being knocked overboard and drowning. I imagine a lot of it would have come down to cost and convenience. Although as we've discussed armour does allow a fair amount of freedom of movement it's not going to make the job of sailing a ship any easier, so the majority of sailors just wouldn't have worn any. Officers might have if they could afford it, but armour was also expensive and time-consuming to make, and would take up space on the ship, etc. so it might not have been considered worth it. For marines or soldiers aboard ship, I would have thought armour was the norm. If I remember rightly there was personal armour recovered from the Mary Rose.

Galloglaich
2014-05-22, 02:44 PM
I've always been sceptical of this, since you'd be quite lucky to survive if you end up in the water anyway and the chances of being killed or seriously injured by combat are probably much higher than your chances of being knocked overboard and drowning. I imagine a lot of it would have come down to cost and convenience. Although as we've discussed armour does allow a fair amount of freedom of movement it's not going to make the job of sailing a ship any easier, so the majority of sailors just wouldn't have worn any. Officers might have if they could afford it, but armour was also expensive and time-consuming to make, and would take up space on the ship, etc. so it might not have been considered worth it. For marines or soldiers aboard ship, I would have thought armour was the norm. If I remember rightly there was personal armour recovered from the Mary Rose.

Because so much of naval combat before the 16th Century (and to some extent, all the way through the age of sail) boiled down to infantry fights between the crews, both in terms of missiles like guns, crossbows, bows and darts / javelins, rocks, flaming objects and so on; and (especially) hand-to-hand fighting during boarding actions, it was common for Medieval warships to have large numbers of soldiers on board. A ship with a crew of 50 might have 200 soldiers or marines or whatever you want to call them. These were typically the guys who were wearing armor, though some sailors apparently did as well.

http://www.artetmer.com/uploads/images/oeuvres/016s/mediev13.jpg

http://hyperallergic.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/image009-e1389121853835.jpg

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20131218043358/renaissancekingdoms/images/d/df/MEDIEVAL_NAVAL_BATTLE.jpg

http://evofh1l.devhub.com/img/upload/nacvfgy.jpg

G

fusilier
2014-05-22, 05:03 PM
This report from the Chronicle constitutes evidence (if not proof) that not only were guns used in naval warfare in 1402, they were used to sink ships at this time, and were shot from the sides and not just from the bow. No big surprise to me, but it was a point under contention here at one point.

. . .

Source: Chronicles of Three Free cities (pages 196-199)
Wilson King (former US consul to Bremen), Dent and Sons, London 1914

I'm not sure who would have contended that they only fired from under the bow -- It certainly wasn't me. The heaviest ordnance at the time circa 1400, might have been carried in the stern, but the evidence is that very little heavy ordnance was carried at that time. Instead it tended to be light guns in the castles (sometimes just the stern castle), with a few in the waist. Water-tight gunports had yet to be invented, so carrying heavy guns low in the hull wasn't an option.

For anyone curious the full contents of the book are available here:

https://archive.org/details/chroniclesofthre00king

Unfortunately, the "chronicle" is actually an amalgamation of various historical chronicles and history books, and the author does not seem to make it clear where he sourced particular bits of information. There is a general comment about which books he used at the beginning.

"The history of the Free Cities has been treated of and written about by very many German authors, and I have read and made use of many of their books, but I have made no original research."

So, this isn't a translation of historical chronicles, it's a history book derived from other history books. That doesn't make it invalid, but given the historical context of such books (i.e. the state of historical study in the 19th century), it should give us pause when considering the usefulness of the text.

So, if I may play devil's advocate for a moment -- is the use of the term "broadside" an addition of the early 20th century translator, influenced by assumptions about naval history made at that time? Or is it original to the source? In which case is the source (most likely a 19th century history book) reliable?

At any rate, in the sources specific to Hamburg, Beneke's Hamburgische Geschichten und Sagen, first published in the mid 1850s, makes no mention of firearms at all in the section that deals with the "Bunte kuh."
Pages 110-114 -
http://books.google.com/books?id=X0dLAQAAIAAJ&dq=Beneke%20Hamburgische%20Geschichten%20und%20Sag en&pg=PA110#v=onepage&q=kuh&f=false

This means the information is probably in one of the many books about Bremen (the other book mentioned for Hamburg doesn't even go earlier than the 1450s, but the author states that he relies upon the various Bremen books for the earlier history of Hamburg). I haven't had the time to go through those books, to track down where the author gleaned his details, but given the time period in which most of these books appear to have been written, it may be a useless endeavor.

I'm more curious to see what first-hand accounts are available to us that describe the combat.

Some poking around on wikipedia would indicate that there's a lot of legend surrounding this combat, and little agreement on the details. (Some claim that Stortebecker had already died in 1400!)

Lilapop
2014-05-22, 08:47 PM
In 1401 Hamburg completed a new warship, Die Bunte Kuh (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunte_Kuh&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dbunte%2Bkuh%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D638) ('the colorful cow' is how it's usually translated, though that's not quite precise). It is believed to be one of the largest and best equipped, if not the largest European warship of this period.

In modern German, "bunt" basically designates something as showing multiple different colors. "Colorful", on the other hand, sounds more like referring to the colors something has as being relatively saturated. However, "Bunte Kuh" reminds me far too much of the phrase "bekannt wie ein bunter Hund" (as well known/famous as a colored dog), so it has a certain feeling of ridiculousness, kind of like a clown's costume.

Galloglaich
2014-05-22, 09:33 PM
yeah I figured you wouldn't like that ;)




At any rate, in the sources specific to Hamburg, Beneke's Hamburgische Geschichten und Sagen, first published in the mid 1850s, makes no mention of firearms at all in the section that deals with the "Bunte kuh."
Pages 110-114 -
http://books.google.com/books?id=X0dLAQAAIAAJ&dq=Beneke%20Hamburgische%20Geschichten%20und%20Sag en&pg=PA110#v=onepage&q=kuh&f=false


Actually, in that section, they make mention of a 19 foot iron cannon (Kanone) which was captured from Stortebeckers ship, of a type they call "Feldschlange"

http://books.google.com/books?id=X0dLAQAAIAAJ&dq=Beneke%20Hamburgische%20Geschichten%20und%20Sag en&pg=PA110#v=onepage&q=kanone&f=false

The source for that part of the book you linked is, incidentally (according to the author, Dr. Otto Beneke) the old handwritten chronicles "den alten handschriftlichen Chroniken" which were preserved in a pristine manner "gefolgt, welche sie am ursprünglichsten bewahrt haben." The author of the book I was using, Wilson King, also does state in his introduction that you referred to that he was using the actual town chronicles for the medieval period. He uses other sources like Adam of Bremen for the very early stuff in the Viking era and so on.

Where these chronicles are today (hopefully not incinerated in WW II firebombings) I'd personally really like to know. But I've found similar chronicles already for Strasbourg, Krakow, Augsburg, and Wroclaw - I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Chronicles for all three of these towns are available somewhere at least as a scan, maybe even as a transcription.

My point all along about the naval combat is that gunpowder warfare was already pretty advanced by that time, for that matter you didn't need gunports per se to fire a broadside (not that I believe they came as late as is claimed), or to shoot in any direction, they had breech-loading guns up to 15 cm which was big enough to do damage do the ships of that time, let alone a 19 foot culverin or "Feldschlange" which is evocative of the massive guns they found on the Mary Rose more than 100 years later. You claim there is no evidence of cannons being used to sink ships, I think this constitutes evidence. Maybe not proof, but that would require a time machine. If you can find the original chronicles let me know. for my part, I'll continue to look.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Bronze_Demi_Cannon_Culverins_Pmoth.png/220px-Bronze_Demi_Cannon_Culverins_Pmoth.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Mary_Rose_Guns_ForeBronzeCulverin_RearWroughtIronC annon.png/220px-Mary_Rose_Guns_ForeBronzeCulverin_RearWroughtIronC annon.png

As for the scholarship of the 19th Century, most of what you find in books on medieval warfare today is reprinted or derived from research (i.e. transcriptions and translations) that were originally done in the period roughly 1880-1930- by guys like Delbruck, Pirenne, Burkhardt etc. all of whom are still in print. We know more about a lot of specific things today but few scholars in our era can match the breadth and depth of these older guys, for all their errors. So I don't think it's sufficient to just say "the Victorian researchers were idiots" since most of the 20th Century ones were dimmer bulbs and quite a few of the 21st Century as well. Unless of course you know something specific about this guy, who I personally don't know much about other than he was apparently the US consul for Bremen at one point in his career.


In modern German, "bunt" basically designates something as showing multiple different colors. "Colorful", on the other hand, sounds more like referring to the colors something has as being relatively saturated. However, "Bunte Kuh" reminds me far too much of the phrase "bekannt wie ein bunter Hund" (as well known/famous as a colored dog), so it has a certain feeling of ridiculousness, kind of like a clown's costume.

Yeah, like 'bunting' in a party maybe? Which kind of matches one of the (granted, fanciful) images of the "Bunt Kuh" I posted above:

http://img862.imageshack.us/img862/8697/buntekuh.jpg

...basically clown colors. Probably kind of scary in context.

G

fusilier
2014-05-22, 10:08 PM
Actually, in that section, they make mention of a 19 foot iron cannon (Kanone) which was captured from Stortebeckers ship, of a type they call "Feldschlange"

http://books.google.com/books?id=X0dLAQAAIAAJ&dq=Beneke%20Hamburgische%20Geschichten%20und%20Sag en&pg=PA110#v=onepage&q=kanone&f=false

The source for that part of the book you linked is, incidentally (according to the author, Dr. Otto Beneke) the old handwritten chronicles "den alten handschriftlichen Chroniken" which were preserved in a pristine manner "gefolgt, welche sie am ursprünglichsten bewahrt haben." The author of the book I was using, Wilson King, also does state in his introduction that you referred to that he was using the actual town chronicles for the medieval period. He uses other sources like Adam of Bremen for the very early stuff in the Viking era and so on.

I missed that about the cannon, and you are correct that it clearly says that. But the other point still stands -- King's narrative is not solely derived from first-hand accounts! We don't know, which parts of the narrative come from which history, because the author doesn't tell us -- that's a common problem with 19th century histories. That's why I urge caution, especially when it goes against modern research.


My point all along about the naval combat is that gunpowder warfare was already pretty advanced by that time, for that matter you didn't need gunports per se to fire a broadside (not that I believe they came as late as is claimed), or to shoot in any direction, they had breech-loading guns up to 15 cm which was big enough to do damage do the ships of that time, let alone a 19 foot culverin or "Feldschlange" which is evocative of the massive guns they found on the Mary Rose more than 100 years later.

You don't find it a bit suspicious that the gun doesn't sound a like a circa 1400 cannon?

The problem is, you seem to be saying that because so-and-so claims to have used such a chronicle, that all of this information, must be derived from that chronicle. But he clearly states that he uses multiple sources. For that matter, many chronicles are questionable -- some, while historical, were written well after the events, and, even when current, battles were often "recast" along classical themes, rather than being an accurate description of the combat.

The narrative also doesn't acknowledge the variety of legends and versions of the combat, that even a very simple wikipedia search reveals.

I would like to see evidence, but, despite all the pretty pictures from centuries later, this evidence is pretty weak.

I don't doubt that cannon were being used by ships by 1400 -- there's little disagreement there. How big and how effective? That's debated.

Using an event that's very confused, apparently not well recorded, strongly influenced by generations of legends and folklore, and presented by an early 20th century work, which derives it's information from a variety of sources, probably isn't the best way to convince someone.

If you're curious as to the state of ship armaments in the mid-15th century, you may want to look at "A 1445 Reference to Shipboard Artillery". From 1990 by Kelly DeVries.

Galloglaich
2014-05-22, 10:57 PM
I missed that about the cannon, and you are correct that it clearly says that. But the other point still stands -- King's narrative is not solely derived from first-hand accounts! We don't know, which parts of the narrative come from which history, because the author doesn't tell us -- that's a common problem with 19th century histories. That's why I urge caution, especially when it goes against modern research.

I'm not arguing it's a "pristine" source - clearly it isn't, but I think his main source is actually the town chronicles, and chronicles from other entities (abbeys, cathedrals) in the area from that time, because those are basically the only sources there are. Lubeck, in particular, kept a ton of records related to any and everything that happened with the Hanseatic League at that time. In fact in that book he gives you slightly different versions of a lot of the same stories (including that one) from the Bremen, Hamburg and Lubeck points of view, which to me reinforces that he is in fact relying on the chronicles. But you are right until we have those sources themselves, we can't say what elements he used may be from stories that were made up later.


You don't find it a bit suspicious that the gun doesn't sound a like a circa 1400 cannon?

No, because quite large cannon did exist in that period - probably not that long and as thick as the Mary Rose weapons, but I've seen some pretty big ones depicted from the early 15th Century - cannon were in wide use by then, and in some pretty creative ways (check out the Bellifortis).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Breech_loading_swivel_guns_15th_16th_century.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/15th_century_Cast-Iron_Breech-Loading_Gun_raised_off_Anholt_in_the_Kattegat_in_1 942.JPG
15th Century cannon could be quite long, have you ever seen one?

They were just a bit harder to make and therefore more expensive than they became later. By the mid 15th quite exotic war machines involving cannon were very common.

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/db/74/67/db746787648a5f9a4f4da0f5363f14e9.jpg

(And that image is not from a later era)



The problem is, you seem to be saying that because so-and-so claims to have used such a chronicle, that all of this information, must be derived from that chronicle. But he clearly states that he uses multiple sources. For that matter, many chronicles are questionable -- some, while historical, were written well after the events, and, even when current, battles were often "recast" along classical themes, rather than being an accurate description of the combat.

The same could be said - in fact I say it quite openly, for most modern accounts. This business with the antique tropes is also heavily overplayed. Have you read any actual period chronicles? I have done, for papers I published in the last 2 years. They are mostly lists of accounting records, legal records from lawsuits, (including testimony), letters, tax records, and notices of different events. Not novel writing. Mistakes in these kinds of municipal financial and legal records could lead to death in the Medieval era, they were pretty carefully done, though of course they do have some bias. They are in fact typically divided up into a variety of specific books: tax books, legal books, books of fines, feud books and so on.



The narrative also doesn't acknowledge the variety of legends and versions of the combat, that even a very simple wikipedia search reveals.
So wikipedia is the better source? You are exaggerating the controversies about the event- which are basically limited to what year Strotebcker was actually captured (1400 or 1402) and how much of a role Simon von Utrecht played in the action, or if it was actually some burgomeister from Hamburg that caught the guy.


this evidence is pretty weak.

But it's still stronger than your evidence that they couldn't sink ships with cannon this early - or that cannon were only being used in the Med, or that cannon were only mounted on the stern and so on.


I don't doubt that cannon were being used by ships by 1400 -- there's little disagreement there. How big and how effective? That's debated.

Using an event that's very confused, apparently not well recorded, strongly influenced by generations of legends and folklore, and presented by an early 20th century work, which derives it's information from a variety of sources, probably isn't the best way to convince someone.

Like I said, convincing you would require a time machine, but it's a clear account and it convinces me which is what I care about, and I think this actually fits pretty well with the evidence I already presented when we debated it last time, it's quite clear that guns were being used on ships through the 15th Century and earlier.


If you're curious as to the state of ship armaments in the mid-15th century, you may want to look at "A 1445 Reference to Shipboard Artillery". From 1990 by Kelly DeVries.

I'm every bit as curious as you are, maybe more so amigo.

But this 25 year old article came up last time we debated the subject (and I read it then), is full of mistakes and says very little of any substance about the period we are referring to.

G

fusilier
2014-05-23, 12:01 AM
No, because quite large cannon did exist in that period - probably not that long and as thick as the Mary Rose weapons, but I've seen some pretty big ones depicted from the early 15th Century - cannon were in wide use by then, and in some pretty creative ways (check out the Bellifortis).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Breech_loading_swivel_guns_15th_16th_century.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/15th_century_Cast-Iron_Breech-Loading_Gun_raised_off_Anholt_in_the_Kattegat_in_1 942.JPG
15th Century cannon could be quite long, have you ever seen one?

There is a tremendous difference between those cannons and the ones from the Mary Rose. The technological differences are huge, as are the performance.

[snip]

I have attempted to, repeatedly, describe the development of naval ordnance, as it is understood by modern historians. Apparently, I've failed.

Perhaps, if I get the energy, I'll do up a nice series of posts with pictures of ships and cannons, to make it all very clear (like I did for the development of the cannon armed galley).

Don't take this personally, but I cannot understand how someone can take this "story" about the Bunte Kuh that has no citations and is about an event that is steeped in folklore, and consider it to be evidence for much of anything, let alone the effective use of cannon on circa 1400 ships . . . I just can't . . . and this is acceptable evidence, not only just acceptable, but evidence that trumps modern research into the subject? . . . I don't know how to respond.

--EDIT--
One of the things that I have discovered in my studies, is that there is a lot of old research that keeps getting repeated, while modern research is ignored -- not disproved, not debated, just completely overlooked. It saddens me to see the same, already challenged/questioned/debunked, stories being repeated time and time again, as if everybody agrees that it must be true, because it keeps getting repeated.

Galloglaich
2014-05-23, 01:04 AM
There is a tremendous difference between those cannons and the ones from the Mary Rose. The technological differences are huge, as are the performance.

[snip]

I have attempted to, repeatedly, describe the development of naval ordnance, as it is understood by modern historians. Apparently, I've failed.

No you didn't fail at all. You've done a great job of repeatedly expressing your opinion, including your belief that your opinion reflects the view of "modern historians" - but you've shown little else. You made claims about the source I used which I showed were wrong, but you took that calmly in stride. Meanwhile the 25 year old article you posted didn't say anything except generalities about the period we've been discussing.

This (http://archive.org/stream/chroniclesofthre00king/chroniclesofthre00king_djvu.txt) is a source, at least linked to the actual period chronicle. So is this (http://books.google.com/books?id=X0dLAQAAIAAJ&dq=Beneke%20Hamburgische%20Geschichten%20und%20Sag en&pg=PA110#v=onepage&q&f=false). Both actually have a wealth of data about small and large scale war in the late medieval period, really they are goldmines of data, and I think plenty of people in this thread will find them useful if they delve into them. Try a search for 'pirates' or 'robber knights', you will find there are dozens of interesting incidents of naval and land warfare, intrigue, and devilry of all kinds, from the periods most people here are interested in, and I've verified several of these myself with other sources. I'm convinced of it's value!

But neither of our opinions matter much, the data is all that matters. I've found more, which you rejected, that's well established. As tempting as it is, I'm going to refrain from delving deeper into the "don't take it personally mode" and talk of spelling things out with pictures. If I go down that road someones feelings are going to get hurt, and opinions are ... ubiquitous. When I find more stuff on this, I'll post that too, hopefully that will shed further light on the elusive reality of medieval war.

G

fusilier
2014-05-23, 02:18 AM
No you didn't fail at all. You've done a great job of repeatedly expressing your opinion, including your belief that your opinion reflects the view of "modern historians" - but you've shown little else.

The fact that you said this --


But it's still stronger than your evidence that they couldn't sink ships with cannon this early - or that cannon were only being used in the Med, or that cannon were only mounted on the stern and so on.


Shows that you have not understood it. You've taken several different concepts and muddled them up.


You made claims about the source I used which I showed were wrong, but you took that calmly in stride. Meanwhile the 25 year old article you posted didn't say anything except generalities about the period we've been discussing.

G. You tried to pass off a mid 16th century culverin as an example of a circa 1400 cannon. You claimed that the source was the "Hamburg Chronicle" when no such document called the "Hamburg Chronicle" was referenced in the work you cited.

In fact, I'm not sure you were aware of the sources of that 1914 work you cited, until *I* brought attention to their varied nature.


This (http://archive.org/stream/chroniclesofthre00king/chroniclesofthre00king_djvu.txt) is a source, at least linked to the actual period chronicle. So is this (http://books.google.com/books?id=X0dLAQAAIAAJ&dq=Beneke%20Hamburgische%20Geschichten%20und%20Sag en&pg=PA110#v=onepage&q&f=false). Both actually have a wealth of data about small and large scale war in the late medieval period, really they are goldmines of data, and I think plenty of people in this thread will find them useful if they delve into them. Try a search for 'pirates' or 'robber knights', you will find there are dozens of interesting incidents of naval and land warfare, intrigue, and devilry of all kinds, from the periods most people here are interested in, and I've verified several of these myself with other sources. I'm convinced of it's value!

But neither of our opinions matter much, the data is all that matters. I've found more, which you rejected, that's well established. As tempting as it is, I'm going to refrain from delving deeper into the "don't take it personally mode" and talk of spelling things out with pictures. If I go down that road someones feelings are going to get hurt, and opinions are ... ubiquitous. When I find more stuff on this, I'll post that too, hopefully that will shed further light on the elusive reality of medieval war.

G

I think it's fascinating that you mock a twenty-five year old paper, but cling to a hundred year old book that doesn't cite it's sources.

I tend not to want to clutter this board with unbidden posts of information, but I might make an exception.

fusilier
2014-05-23, 03:14 AM
This (http://archive.org/stream/chroniclesofthre00king/chroniclesofthre00king_djvu.txt) is a source, at least linked to the actual period chronicle. So is this (http://books.google.com/books?id=X0dLAQAAIAAJ&dq=Beneke%20Hamburgische%20Geschichten%20und%20Sag en&pg=PA110#v=onepage&q&f=false).

[For those that are playing along at home, "This" is King's 1914 work that we've been discussing, and "This" Beneke's work from the 1850s]

I wanted to address a couple of concepts here because they illustrate precisely the problem with these sources.

First, do these two works reference actual chronicles -- yes, I think so (some of these works use the word "chronicle" kind of loosely in their titles). Does that mean, that the events described in them are taken directly from the Chronicles? They don't cite their sources, and the terminology is suspiciously modern ("broadsides" for example).

If the chronicles themselves actually said these ships engaged and sank each other with gunfire -- why rely upon these outdated histories? Do the digging and find out what the chronicles themselves say.

Note -- these sources don't actually claim that the chronicles say such a thing.


and I've verified several of these myself with other sources.


Here we are getting to my pet peeve. Many, many times do I see one author copy another and continue the propagation of disputed theories.

I'm certain, you will find other sources which agree with your version of events for the Bunte Kuh. Will they actually cite the Hamburg Chronicle? That remains to be seen. Are they more likely just a copy of the "source" already mentioned? Probably. I see that all the time.

When sources say the *same* thing, they are the *same* source. I have seen people, point to a wikipedia page as evidence, and when challenged, point to a website that obviously plagiarized the wikipedia page as "verification"! A second source that said the same thing!

When sources provide different evidence to reach, or reinforce, the same conclusion -- then they complement and verify each other.

However, sources can have the same evidence, but reach different conclusions.

What's happened in the past, maybe half-century, is that a handful of historians have taken a *critical* look at the primary sources, and they have come to rather different conclusions than many of their predecessors. Just because they've been ignored, to one extent or the other, by popular media (and the internet), doesn't mean that their analysis is invalid.

Galloglaich
2014-05-23, 08:45 AM
Wow you are really going pretty far with this!

So let me get this strait. My source which states it is derived from the Chronicles, which you thought (or hoped) didn't mention cannon but does, is invalid because it's from the Victorian era and is also based on other sources, is invalidated by an article you found which doesn't refer to or mention my source at all, and only refers to one actual period document which doesn't actually disagree with it. Do I have that clearly?



Shows that you have not understood it. You've taken several different concepts and muddled them up.

No, I understand it quite well. You have poor reading comprehension - in your zeal to prove yourself correct you muddled things together yourself.



G. You tried to pass off a mid 16th century culverin as an example of a circa 1400 cannon.

Ok so you are accusing me of not only being an incompetent researcher but also of being intentionally misleading? You risk hurting my feelings! Maybe you should have read the thread through a little more carefully and waited a while before replying, you might have found a more charitable interpretation becoming clearer to you. No, I did no such thing, you didn't parse the sentence correctly. I said the Mary Rose cannon were of a similar length to the one described in the book, which you seemed to think was impossible. That's why I posted photos of some actual 15th Century cannon as well.



You claimed that the source was the "Hamburg Chronicle" when no such document called the "Hamburg Chronicle" was referenced in the work you cited.

The title of the book is the Chronicles (plural) of the three free cities, the author did use the "handwritten chronicles" as his primary source for that part of the book, which I know both because he claimed it in the introduction and because it's the only source from the period in question.



In fact, I'm not sure you were aware of the sources of that 1914 work you cited, until *I* brought attention to their varied nature.

This is again ridiculous. I actually read the book fusilier, during my last vacation. I own a physical copy (which you can buy from Amazon here (http://www.amazon.com/Chronicles-three-free-cities-Hamburg/dp/B00427YT6S))- I didn't just cherry pick with a keyword search it like you did when you claimed incorrectly that it didn't mention cannons. You haven't brought anything to my attention in quite a while, you have only repeated your opinions and increasingly, baseless insults, because the sources I found don't agree with your theories.



I think it's fascinating that you mock a twenty-five year old paper, but cling to a hundred year old book that doesn't cite it's sources.


It's pretty easy to explain, let me help you. The 100 year old source is derived primarily from the medieval Chronicles. The 25 year old paper is only linked to one document from Burgundy in 1445, which document doesn't in any way contradict the 100 year old source. The rest is simply interpretation by the author, based mostly on tertiary sources.


I wanted to address a couple of concepts here because they illustrate precisely the problem with these sources.

First, do these two works reference actual chronicles -- yes, I think so (some of these works use the word "chronicle" kind of loosely in their titles). Does that mean, that the events described in them are taken directly from the Chronicles? They don't cite their sources, and the terminology is suspiciously modern ("broadsides" for example).

Here you are indicating your lack of familiarity with the reality of actual translations of period documents, which is what you get when you are dealing with old documents in other languages. Many words from another language do not translate directly. When you are talking about technical terms from 500 or 600 years ago, this is even more the case. For example the word used to describe Stortebecker's cannon, "Feldschlange", how do you translate that precisely? It's a matter of interpretation by the author. This is why in studying the fechtbucher we always try to show the original transcription of the source materials alongside our guess as to what the terms mean in translation - this has proven invaluable. For example in modern translations of 15th Century fencing manuals, some authors translate terms like 'vorschlag', 'zornhau', and 'uberlauffen' into what they think are rough English equivalents, but many others (and most of the practitioners) have decided to simply use the period terms because they simply don't translate well into English. The same thing occurs as we are all aware with many 'terms of art' for fencing, (in French), for Music (in Italian) and so on.

In this case 'broadside' may have been an approximation of the actual term used or it may have been selected by the author during the translation.



If the chronicles themselves actually said these ships engaged and sank each other with gunfire -- why rely upon these outdated histories? Do the digging and find out what the chronicles themselves say.

Again, you are showing your utter ignorance of actual academic processes. The answer is this: Because the chronicles are not available online in direct translations or even in transcriptions, in fact most of them haven't been transcribed at all. Doing so is a major academic achievement worthy of a PhD. For example, when in 2010 professor Ann Tlusty translated just a few decades worth of the chronicles and archives of Augsburg and two of other smaller nearby German towns, she was able to publish a (very expensive) book (http://www.amazon.com/Martial-Ethic-Early-Modern-Germany/dp/0230576567/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1400850462&sr=1-1&keywords=martial+ethic+of+early+modern+germany) out of the many surprising revelations she learned from it, actually two books (http://www.amazon.com/Augsburg-During-Reformation-Era-Anthology/dp/160384841X/ref=la_B001HPRYDS_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1400850589&sr=1-2).

That, incidentally, is why older translations and transcriptions are so often used - translating the documents from this period is very, very difficult and time consuming, not only because you have to be an expert on latin or say, middle low-German, but because it's requires an expert with a fairly broad base of knowledge in many fields within the period to understand the terminology they are using. I know this because I've helped translate period documents for academic publication before.

In the case of Wilson King's book, it is probably based on at least some transcriptions that do exist somewhere, and I think it may be possible to locate them. But that is never easy. They are probably in a University somewhere, possibly in Lubeck which has collected a lot of these kinds of things and publishes a lot of stuff about the Hanse.


Note -- these sources don't actually claim that the chronicles say such a thing.

They say that their sources were "the old handwritten chronicles "den alten handschriftlichen Chroniken" which were preserved in a pristine manner "gefolgt, welche sie am ursprünglichsten bewahrt haben." What is usually meant by handshriftlichen is that they were manuscripts written before 1500. Have you ever seen one? They are pretty impressive in person. And the scripts are sufficiently complex that you can perhaps understand another basic fact about period manuscripts (in this case, a Spanish one)

http://www.codexmartialis.com/download/file.php?id=116

that they are also difficult to transcribe. You generally don't even start translations until you have a transcription.

G

snowblizz
2014-05-23, 09:19 AM
For example the word used to describe Stortebecker's cannon, "Feldschlange", how do you translate that precisely?

Field gun.:smalltongue: That wasn't so hard. Literally "field snake", similar to other older names for cannons such as culverin.



The answer is this: Because the chronicles are not available online in direct translations or even in transcriptions, in fact most of them haven't been transcribed at all. Doing so is a major academic achievement worthy of a PhD.

That, incidentally, is why older translations and transcriptions are so often used - translating the documents from this period is very, very difficult and time consuming, not only because you have to be an expert on latin or say, middle low-German, but because it's requires an expert with a fairly broad base of knowledge in many fields within the period to understand the terminology they are using. I know this because I've helped translate period documents for academic publication before.

On that note, I wonder how the process to digitize such content is going. Would do a lot for furthering our knowledge I wager. Crowdsource the stuff to nerds.

Galloglaich
2014-05-23, 10:46 AM
Field gun.:smalltongue: That wasn't so hard. Literally "field snake", similar to other older names for cannons such as culverin.

Yeah but (to extend the analogy) what specifically is a "field snake"? A mortar, a long- gun, a howitzer? Large or small caliber? High or low velocity? Breach loader or muzzle loader? Bronze or iron, typically? Hoop and stave construction, cast (bronze only, at this date) or forged? Did they use stone or iron or lead balls? or shot or some kind? All of these are quite relevant to figuring out how they were used.

Obviously when we describe a WW I or WW II era gun, or even an American Civil War or Napoleonic era gun, we often have better answers to these questions. There were some long guns (related to the culverin) called 'serpent', 'dragon', 'basilisk' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilisk_(cannon)) etc., but to know precisely where to place something specific like the term "field snake" in 1400 - or if any precision can be assumed at all, requires some more specific contextual knowledge, usually.

Incidentally I love the term 'feldschlang' though incidentally because it just sounds good, a bit of an onomatopoeia...



On that note, I wonder how the process to digitize such content is going. Would do a lot for furthering our knowledge I wager. Crowdsource the stuff to nerds.

That is basically being done, or started. A lot of universities, museums and other archives (the Vatican, for example) are putting their documents online as scans just in the last 2 or 3 years. The next step is that people are systematically and painstakingly trying to transcribe them in a platform which simultaneously encourages and enables both crowdsourcing and more rigorous academic work. That is pretty much exactly what the wiktenauer is for, when it comes to historical fencing.

http://www.wiktenauer.com/wiki/Main_Page

But there are still a huge number of documents which aren't digitized or even properly catalogued. Which is why we are for example still finding 'lost' documents which in some cases were not even known to exist, like the famous second Giganti manual which was just found in 2012 by Piermarco Terminello, translated, and then published only a year later.

http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Second-Book-Nicoletto-Giganti/dp/1909348317

Google and other software has also gotten better at making transcriptions searchable, including one of the ones we were looking at in this debate, though that is still limited in quality and only works with printed documents.

G

Galloglaich
2014-05-23, 11:06 AM
For context on early 15th Century cannon technology, the Dulle Griet, a bombard built and used by the city of Ghent in the 1st half of the 1400's, is a good example of how powerful and sophisticated guns could be. They were by no means all small caliber guns nor was there any reason why north German towns couldn't build powerful, long-barreled cannon.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Ghent_cannon.jpg/300px-Ghent_cannon.jpg

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

Dulle Griet with it's 640 mm caliber is probably way too big to use on a ship, but cannons of a smaller but still formidable caliber 100- 150mm and so on, were not and were probably sufficient to cause major damage to a small cog, hulk, or schnigge, let alone a longboat.

Other examples of impressive cannon from the first half of the 15th century include the Mons Meg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mons_Meg), the Pumhart von Stey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumhart_von_Steyr), the Faule Mette (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faule_Mette) made in 1411 in Brunswick, nearby Hamburg, the Faule Grete (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faule_Grete) cast in 1409 in Marienburg, and the Grose Bosche (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grose_Bochse) made in 1408 by the Teutonic Knights.

Those guns are of course famous due to the enormous caliber of the balls they fired, but other equally sophisticated if less famous guns of the same era with smaller calibers but longer barrels (and much better range, usually) were also common.

G

fusilier
2014-05-23, 12:06 PM
Field gun.:smalltongue: That wasn't so hard. Literally "field snake", similar to other older names for cannons such as culverin.

Yeah, "field-serpentine" is probably a decent period translation, and serpertines tended to be long barreled guns.


It's pretty easy to explain, let me help you. The 100 year old source is derived primarily from the medieval Chronicles.

Ah . . . I see the confusion now. How do you know this? The author references many histories that aren't chronicles. How do you know that the part describing the battle with the Bunte Kuh, is from medieval chronicles, and not later sources? Or, as I suspect, something that has potentially combined different sources into a complete narrative?

I can't see how, on the face of the matter, you can make that determination. We would have to study the medieval chronicles themselves.

While I realize that you probably were deceived by the title of the book, the repeated use of the word "broadside" I found suspicious. I am aware that historic words can be difficult to translate, that's actually what I originally set out to do -- what word was being translated as "broadside"? That's when I realized that the source wasn't actually a chronicle, but a narrative history (calling itself a chronicle - for artistic reasons?) derived from multiple sources, many of which appear to be other narrative histories. Those histories probably trace back to chronicles at some point, but too many layers of extrapolation can allow for other information to seep in, and with none of these sources giving modern citations, you'll have to dig back through the chain to find the info.

While I don't actually believe it to be true, we also can't discount that the author embellished his telling of the narrative, adding words like "broadsides" to fit his mental picture of what had happened, and to use a term that his readers would easily grasp.

It would be cool if it was actually there in the primary sources -- an early, documentable, record of ships sinking other ships with cannon would be pretty awesome. And as you pointed out these may have been fairly light ships, using fairly light cannon. But King's work (unless I've missed something), doesn't actually provide us with the primary source. :-(

fusilier
2014-05-23, 12:17 PM
For context on early 15th Century cannon technology, the Dulle Griet, a bombard built and used by the city of Ghent in the 1st half of the 1400's, is a good example of how powerful and sophisticated guns could be. They were by no means all small caliber guns nor was there any reason why north German towns couldn't build powerful, long-barreled cannon.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/Ghent_cannon.jpg/300px-Ghent_cannon.jpg

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

Similar big cannon were being made by 1380s at least, if not earlier. The hoop and stave technique allowed for pretty rapid development of cannon (compare them to the first records we have from the 1320s of little vase cannons).

The medieval development of the cannon was surprisingly quick, and provides an impressive example of how quickly technology can develop (especially giving the common misconceptions of the middle ages).

In the 1400s improvements in casting bronze, allowed the big hoop-and-stave cannon to be joined by large bronze cannon, which by the mid 1400s resulted in the "superguns" that the Ottomans used at Constantinople.

http://andrewchapmanikon.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Dardanelles_Gun_Turkish_Bronze_15c1-300x165.png

Galloglaich
2014-05-23, 01:22 PM
Yeah, "field-serpentine" is probably a decent period translation, and serpertines tended to be long barreled guns.

Yes though it's dangerous to make too many assumptions of what was meant by that in a particular place and in a specific period.



Ah . . . I see the confusion now. How do you know this? The author references many histories that aren't chronicles. How do you know that the part describing the battle with the Bunte Kuh, is from medieval chronicles, and not later sources? Or, as I suspect, something that has potentially combined different sources into a complete narrative?

I was not in the least confused. Remember I read the book. I've also been reading a semi-annual interdisciplinary Academic journal out of Lubeck which cover most of the same stories which are in this book, I've read extended excerpts from 5 other town chronicles and 3 magisterial medieval histories written in the 15th Century, and I've done a lot of research on this specific region for the last 10 years. So I have a sense of the pattern of these things, and the author himself says this, that the primary source for the later medieval and Early Modern part of this book - the source of the chapters which go from very roughly 1200 AD - 1550 AD, was probably close to exclusively the town chronicles (you can see the tone and style of the narrative changes a great deal in this section).

Before that there aren't necessarily any town chronicles as such, because the towns were under different government by regional warlords or clerics. After 1550 a variety of other sources become relevant and may have been increasingly mixed in, though the Chronicles of these three towns continue all the way into the 19th century and beyond, with certain interruptions. Not that this precludes the possibility of the author adding elements from later German history books, especially for a famous incident like the capture of Stortebecker, and it is indeed unfortunate that the author doesn't use any citations. But I think the book reflects the data from the medieval Chronicles and I believe the author when he says he didn't make anything up.

The book itself is divided into three chronological accounts of the history of the three cities which have subtle (and sometimes not to subtle) differences which reflect their different agendas and points of view (Hamburg and Lubeck were usually allies but had some serious rifts between them, Hamburg and Bremen were often enemies but later became allies), but also agree on most of the key data, just showing more or less emphasis on points which were more or less relevant to each town. Stortebecker and the victual brothers for example are mentioned at some length both in the Hamburg and Lubeck chronicles.

I know from other research that the town chronicles generally themselves only date back to roughly the high medieval period. Before that he (Wilson King) or any historian had to rely on a variety of sources such as Adam of Bremen and Saxo Grammaticus, and even earlier Classical Auctores as late medieval historians themselves did (of whom I've also read quite a few) and some monastic chronicles, all of which can be of questionable reliability, especially in comparison with the financial and legal records of the later medieval town governments which tend to be pretty accurate. The Otto Beneke source that you found from 1850 and (I think correctly) surmised was one of the sources for this Wilson King book makes this still clearer when Beneke declares specifically that he used the handwritten chronicles which were in 'pristine condition'. I have a pretty pristine level of confidence that he was referring to the medieval town chronicles.



I can't see how, on the face of the matter, you can make that determination. We would have to study the medieval chronicles themselves.

It would be nice, I would love to have access to it! I would almost certainly write a book.



While I realize that you probably were deceived by the title of the book,

Let me be abundantly clear: I was not in the least deceived, nor have I tried to deceive anyone else. I have not been confused at any point in this discussion. Try to let that sink in. I'm well aware of the limitations of the source, I also believe the source for that part of the book is derived from the Hamburg town chronicles specifically. Until I learn otherwise I'll continued to believe that.



the repeated use of the word "broadside" I found suspicious. I am aware that historic words can be difficult to translate, that's actually what I originally set out to do -- what word was being translated as "broadside"?

This is probably a translation issue, as I mentioned before, or it could be derived from an earlier German interpretation of the original source. But we have no specific reason to believe the latter.



That's when I realized that the source wasn't actually a chronicle, but a narrative history (calling itself a chronicle - for artistic reasons?)

No, I think here it's you who are pretty confused. It's because it's derived from the chronicle. Many books published with data from the Chronicles (like the Russian Primary Chronicle (http://www.amazon.com/Russian-Primary-Chronicle-Laurentian-Text/dp/0915651327/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1400867630&sr=1-1&keywords=russian+primary+chronicle), or the Novgorod Chronicle (http://www.amazon.com/Chronicle-Novgorod-1016-1471-Nevill-Forbes/dp/1241278539)) were produced in this form, they are actually abridged (and to some extent, interpreted) excerpts of translations of the original. This is how they were done back when people were doing a lot of translating.

Which, incidentally, brings up another issue that I suspect you are confused about. Because a lot of translations from the late Victorian era and early 20th century are still used in research today, many modern authors are limited in their discussions to whatever the earlier data set was - this doesn't necessarily mean however that they are repeating previous mistakes of interpretation. The interpretations of the Victorian authors are largely dismissed long ago, to be replaced by other theories in the 1930's, 1950's, 1970's, 1990's etc., which were in turn dismissed again, generally without adding a lot of any value to the understanding of the subject. When it comes to guys like Delburck, Burkhardt, etc., it is their translations and transcriptions which live on, mainly because modern researchers tend to be much more hyperspecialized and didn't do a lot of these kinds of broad based translation efforts in the later 20th Century.

In very recent years, I mean in the last 5 years or so, more translations are being done again in significant quantity, -I think largely due to the internet. And this is where the perspective starts to truly expand. This Wilson King book incidentally is available to us because scans were put online and made into a print on demand book by Google and Amazon and other companies.

One of my own pet peeves is when people emphasize the interpretations over the data, we learned the hard way in the HEMA world that the interpretations rarely last long enough for the ink to dry on the papers and books they are published in - in the early days of the HEMA / WMA revival we had had tons of interpretation and instruction books, almost all of which are now an embarrassment to their authors. Today the interest in the fightbooks is better than ever, but all people are interested in are transcriptions and translations, and the latter with the full and humble knowledge that the translations themselves are of very limited accuracy and should be subject to constant examination. That's why for example I have a lot of respect for scholars like Seamus Heaney who put his transcription of Beowulf in the original old English right across the page from his modern translation, so you could look at the source yourself as you read it, rather than just trusting in his authority as an expert. You can thereby easily see the liberties he had to take to convert this older style of speech into something intelligible to modern readers. It made for a much more interesting and engaging version. For me anyway.


While I don't actually believe it to be true, we also can't discount that the author embellished his telling of the narrative, adding words like "broadsides" to fit his mental picture of what had happened, and to use a term that his readers would easily grasp.

As I already noted a couple of times, the author says he didn't embellish, and I have no reason to assume otherwise. That doesn't mean he didn't use other sources as well, but -again- we have no specific reason to assume that he did in this case or any other.



It would be cool if it was actually there in the primary sources -- an early, documentable, record of ships sinking other ships with cannon would be pretty awesome. And as you pointed out these may have been fairly light ships, using fairly light cannon. But King's work (unless I've missed something), doesn't actually provide us with the primary source. :-(

You are missing something, but King is not definitive. His account consists of evidence, not proof. Like I said, if I can track down the original manuscripts, I will do so, you can count on that! I didn't learn about the existence of King's book until 3 months ago. But even the original MS will only constitute more evidence, the only way you can have proof is a time machine.

G

fusilier
2014-05-23, 01:50 PM
No, I think here it's you who are pretty confused. It's because it's derived from the chronicle.

What Chronicle?

Galloglaich
2014-05-23, 02:27 PM
What Chronicle?

A chronicle means the chronological records of a place,

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chronicle

In this specific case the official chronological records of the government of Hamburg, Lubeck and Bremen.

He doesn't as we both know, give us the manuscript numbers. But the authors lists several chronicles of the Hanse and of Bremen, the Hanseatic League and nearby political entities. For example Geschichtsquellen des
Erzstiftes und der Stadt Bremen means Historical sources of Archbishopric and the city of Bremen. These are the town and bishopric chronicles. What do you expect it to be called?

He then says, and I'm quoting directly from his preface "for Hamburg and Lubeck I used the same ancient chronicles as for Bremen, though of course have used other writers for more modern times"

He also of course as we have repeatedly discussed, mentions Beneke's book, which as he stated (and I've noted several times) was derived 'from the handwritten chronicles'


G

fusilier
2014-05-23, 02:33 PM
Hmmm, that was really strange, my response somehow ended up in front of yours . . . so I'll repost it.




In this specific case the official chronological records of the government of Hamburg

He's makes no mention of that as a source in his preface. Where does he refer to that as a source?


He doesn't as we both know, give us the manuscript number. But the authors lists several chronicles of the Hanse and of Bremen, the Hanseatic League and nearby political entities. For example Geschichtsquellen des
Erzstiftes und der Stadt Bremen means Historical sources of Archbishopric and the city of Bremen. These are the town and bishopric chronicles. What do you expect it to be called?

He then says, and I'm quoting directly from his preface "for Hamburg and Lubeck I used the same ancient chronicles as for Bremen, though of course have used other writers for more modern times"



G

Right, he's used multiple sources to derive his narrative, not a single chronicle. Most of those sources, are histories, some are "chronicles" ("chronik"), but those are usually about events prior to the Bunte Kuh time period.


He also of course as we have repeatedly discussed, mentions Beneke's book, which as he stated (and I've noted several times) was derived 'from the handwritten chronicles'

That may be the case, (of course it's still a secondary source) but Beneke's book doesn't give the same description of the battle that King gives? With broadsides and ships being sunk by gun-fire?

Galloglaich
2014-05-23, 02:42 PM
Right, he's used multiple sources to derive his narrative, not a single chronicle. Most of those sources, are histories, some are "chronicles" ("chronik"), but those are usually about events prior to the Bunte Kuh time period.

The author of the book I noted above (the chronicle of the archbishopric and city of Bremen), Johann Martin Lappenberg who King mentions as one of his principle sources, wrote transcriptions, apparently, of several of the town chronicles. He was himself "keeper of the Hamburg archives" during his own lifetime.

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

This, presumably, is the source for the Hamburg stuff. For example Hamburgische Chroniken in niedersächsischer Sprache means "Hamburg Chronicle in Low German"

Urkundliche Geschichte des Ursprunges der deutschen Hanse looks pretty interesting too.

G

Galloglaich
2014-05-23, 02:52 PM
And... here it is

https://archive.org/details/hamburgischechr00chrogoog

all you have to do is read (probably middle) low German

plus the other books he wrote are probably relevant as well, Hanseatic records and legal records and so on.

G

fusilier
2014-05-23, 03:20 PM
And... here it is

https://archive.org/details/hamburgischechr00chrogoog

all you have to do is read (probably middle) low German

plus the other books he wrote are probably relevant as well, Hanseatic records and legal records and so on.

G

It's not too difficult. A search brought up no reference to the Bunte Kuh (that could have to do with the fact that they did a rather poor scan of the fraktur printing).

But a search for the year 1402, did bring up a reference to Stortebeker, and a brief mention that 70 pirates were captured. (pg. 34).

There's another reference on pg. 241, but it seems to say basically the same thing. No detail on the action of the fight, as far as I can tell.

Possibly a detailed study will bring up more info.

Wait! -- it's also on google books, and they're a lot better about being able to search through faktur --
http://books.google.com/books?id=Mm4AAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Hamburgische+chroniken&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Mq1_U_jZJJSuyASonICYCA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Hamburgische%20chroniken&f=false


Hmm, still no references to the Bunte Kuh, although there is a mention of Simon von Utrecht in a footnote, also on pg. 241. It seems to be saying that he's not mentioned in these chronicles, but his story is covered elsewhere?

Lilapop
2014-05-23, 04:28 PM
For transcriptions, keep in mind that you basically have to be able to make sense of whats written there to help you across legibility gaps (either from damage to the original or extra fancy handwriting).
The German wikipedia page for Feldschlangen points at culverin as the equivalent English term, and talks about pretty long barrels with smaller caliber. That last bit is also highlighted as a difference to siege artillery, which kinda makes sense - a field-anything is meant to be used in pitched battles, so they are rather anti-personnel weapons. Oh, and the English page for culverins basically says those are the successor of ballistas.

fusilier
2014-05-23, 08:51 PM
For transcriptions, keep in mind that you basically have to be able to make sense of whats written there to help you across legibility gaps (either from damage to the original or extra fancy handwriting).
The German wikipedia page for Feldschlangen points at culverin as the equivalent English term, and talks about pretty long barrels with smaller caliber. That last bit is also highlighted as a difference to siege artillery, which kinda makes sense - a field-anything is meant to be used in pitched battles, so they are rather anti-personnel weapons. Oh, and the English page for culverins basically says those are the successor of ballistas.

Thanks Lilapop. I would just add that the term "culverin" has different meanings for different time periods. The earlier period (15th century roughly), it's a fairly small weapon, sometimes breech loading, and sometimes considered a large hand gonne. In the 16th century, it's a bigger weapon, the defining feature being a long barrel (long in relation to a "cannon" -- which can be a specific term). Twenty-four pounder (iron ball) culverins are mentioned, but it depends upon whose list you look at for what constistutes a "full" culverin (there were also half and double culverins).

Even then there can be some variation --

Late 16th century Demi-culverin:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Demi-culverin-circa-1587.jpg/300px-Demi-culverin-circa-1587.jpg

A "hand culverin", and a swivel gun, which was also called a culverin (although there's a plethora of names that could be applied to such a weapon) mid-15th century:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/EarlyCoulevrines.jpg/320px-EarlyCoulevrines.jpg

Another mid 15th century weapon referred to as a culverin(shrug):
http://riv.co.nz/rnza/hist/gun/images/culverin2.jpg

I think by the mid-16th century the term culverin is pretty standardized -- prior to that it might help to add some more description. ;-)

Incanur
2014-05-23, 10:11 PM
Although as we've discussed armour does allow a fair amount of freedom of movement it's not going to make the job of sailing a ship any easier, so the majority of sailors just wouldn't have worn any.

According to Gutierre Díez de Games (http://www.yorku.ca/inpar/gamez_evans.pdf), an armored crew noticeably hampered the ability of a galley to give or escape chase. At same time, nobody wanted to fight armored foes without the same protection. So crews put on their armor at more or less the last moment. See page 25.

Galloglaich
2014-05-23, 11:41 PM
It's not too difficult. A search brought up no reference to the Bunte Kuh (that could have to do with the fact that they did a rather poor scan of the fraktur printing).

Feel free to try your best, though it's more difficult than you think, Middle Low German isn't very similar to the high German spoken by most Germans today, and it's especially difficult for keyword searches since even if the OCR is working right, the spelling changes even for common words that do sound the same (or similar) in the spoken language. Terminology in period manuscripts also have different meanings than they do today in many cases.

But hey feel free to try to find what you can or translate that and the rest of the chronicles which Wilson King clearly used as his main sources for the medieval part of his book, as I've been saying all along. Now that I have found these I'll be looking for more interesting stuff that you won't like.

G

fusilier
2014-05-24, 12:39 AM
But hey feel free to try to find what you can or translate that and the rest of the chronicles which Wilson King clearly used as his main sources for the medieval part of his book, as I've been saying all along. Now that I have found these I'll be looking for more interesting stuff that you won't like.

G

Well, what's clear to me is that King used those histories that borrowed readily from folklore, Beneke's for example explicitly references folklore when discussing the Bunte Kuh. As the chronicles seem to have the basic information that you can find on wikipedia (i.e. there was a fight, the pirates were defeated, and 70 pirates were captured).

We were warned by Berenger in an earlier iteration of this thread:

Be careful when dealing with the Hanseatic League, Klaus Störtebeker, the Vitalian Brotherhood and the Bunte Kuh. There is an absolutely obscene amount of myths, folk tales, misconceptions and embellishments that are deepy ingrained the german collective memory and thus die very hard, even in academic circles.

But hey, keep shooting - eventually you might find some evidence!

snowblizz
2014-05-24, 03:34 AM
I was thinking about the translations and the Bunter Kuh. An educated guess would be it is named for something like this:

German Red/Black Pied, which incidentally seems to be from the area which built the ship
http://www.moocow.com/info/breedsofcows/breedimages/germanblackpied/79_1l.jpg
http://www.moocow.com/info/breedsofcows/breedimages/germanredpied/74_1l.jpg
Source: http://www.moocow.com/info/breedsofcows/g.breedsofcows.shtml

Other random stuff I've learned over the last two days.
Saker means falcon, which explains why both are used for guns.
Culverin means serpent, again both are used for cannons.

The Fieldschlange could also just mean a guy waving his manbits around in meadow.:smallredface::smallbiggrin:

I had a look at the manuscript linked and I have to say my biggest issue really is the font. The gothic font is really annoying to figure out.

Lilapop
2014-05-24, 07:57 AM
Wait! -- it's also on google books, and they're a lot better about being able to search through faktur --
http://books.google.com/books?id=Mm4AAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Hamburgische+chroniken&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Mq1_U_jZJJSuyASonICYCA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Hamburgische%20chroniken&f=false
Hmm, still no references to the Bunte Kuh, although there is a mention of Simon von Utrecht in a footnote, also on pg. 241. It seems to be saying that he's not mentioned in these chronicles, but his story is covered elsewhere?

Looks like I missed this last night.

Item anno 1403 do grepen de Hamburger, alße her Niclawes Stake(2) vnde her Dyrik(L) Ienefelt de anderen ßerouers, Wikbolten vnde Gotke Michel. Vnde he worden [...]
(L) lies Hinrik.
(2) Es ist der Bürgermeister Nicola Scoke oder Schoke gemeint und das obige Jahr 1402 das richtige, Vgl. Zeitschrift für Hamb. Gesch. Th. II S. 54. Auffallend muß es erscheinen, daß diese Chroniken der Theilnahme des Simon von Utrecht an diesen Zügen nicht gedenken, welche doch durch gleichzeitige Urkunden festgestellt ist. Siehe daselbst S. 82.

Can't really make sense of the old text, but the footnotes are pretty straightforward.

(L) read: Hinrik. [So its not a form of Dietrich, but of Heinrich/Henry]
(2) This refers to the mayor/burgomeister Nicola Scoke/Schoke, and the year should be 1402, compare "Zeitschrift [magazine/newspaper] für Hamburgische Geschichte" part II page 54. It seems noteworthy that these chronicles do not remember [today, gedenken is more like memorial/celebrate, but I think there wasn't that much pathos attached in 1861] Simon von Utrecht's participation in these campaigns, while there is evidence of it in contemporary documents. Compare the same source [the magazine for Hamburg history], page 82.

So yeah, the footnote basically just highlights a difference between the contemporary sources.

Galloglaich
2014-05-24, 10:09 AM
Looks like I missed this last night.


Can't really make sense of the old text, but the footnotes are pretty straightforward.


So yeah, the footnote basically just highlights a difference between the contemporary sources.

Interesting, thanks.

I asked a Swiss lawyer friend to explain what "Rechtsalterthümer" meant, this was his answer

"Legal provisions and institutions that survive into the modern legal system, even though they don't really have any place in it - e.g. in our canton of Appenzell Ausserrhoden, the right to run a pub ran with the land ("Tavernenrecht"), whereas modern law requires the individual running the pub to have a licence ("Wirtepatent"). I'm not sure whether any "Tavernenrechte" are still active, the right is forfeit unless it is maintained continuously, but there were still several pubs in Trogen that operated on the basis of the Tavernenrecht when I was in school.

Another example is the medieval promises to sponsor oil or candles for a church, that were constituted as obligations on the owner of a land plot. Just last year, a farmer in Näfels (Glarus) whose land was under such an obligation sued to be rid of it, and the court ruled that such feudal obligations were no longer enforceable."

G

fusilier
2014-05-24, 11:07 AM
Looks like I missed this last night.


Can't really make sense of the old text, but the footnotes are pretty straightforward.


So yeah, the footnote basically just highlights a difference between the contemporary sources.

Thanks lilapop -- I took German in high school, but never used it much, so I'd be the first to admit that my German comprehension is weak. I was able to get a feel for what was said, but couldn't properly translate it.

As for the older text, I can sort of figure out some meaning mainly because the basic framework of the story has been covered elsewhere.

Still I was hoping that some of the German speakers on here would give it a try, so thanks again. :-)

Galloglaich
2014-05-24, 11:50 AM
Well, what's clear to me is that King used those histories that borrowed readily from folklore, Beneke's for example explicitly references folklore when discussing the Bunte Kuh. As the chronicles seem to have the basic information that you can find on wikipedia (i.e. there was a fight, the pirates were defeated, and 70 pirates were captured).

We were warned by Berenger in an earlier iteration of this thread:


But hey, keep shooting - eventually you might find some evidence!

I already have found evidence.

All we know for sure at this point is that:

A) just as I said all along, the principal sources for that book are in fact the medieval town chronicles of Hamburg, Lubeck, and Bremen. That's why the name of the book is "The Chronicles of 3 free cities".
B) the book says there was a naval battle in which ships were sunk by cannon in 1402.
C) another earlier source (Beneke (http://books.google.com/books?id=X0dLAQAAIAAJ&dq=Beneke%20Hamburgische%20Geschichten%20und%20Sag en&pg=PA110#v=onepage&q=kanone&f=false)) mentions a 19 foot culverin or cannon which was captured from Stortebeckers ship during the battle. If you are to be believed this couldn't sink a ship, I would suggest otherwise.
D) Though we don't yet know which of the sources that particular naval battle account or the anecdote about the cannon comes from, we have access to several of them. In fact the cannon might very well still exist.

This is in addition to the plethora of earlier well established naval battles across the late Medieval period all over Europe which involved cannons which were already brought up in the previous incarnation of this debate 2 or 3 threads ago, which I'm currently too lazy to go look for.

There is considerable evidence that naval combat with cannon was taking place as early as 1400, probably at least back to 1380, in spite of your various objections to the idea which have evolved over time from claims that the gunpowder wouldn't work to claims that they could only shoot from the stern and so on, all of which were nonsense.

You will clearly never be convinced that you were wrong no matter what the evidence, but by the time the argument reaches it's final denouement I'll have enough data to write an academic paper on it, meanwhile sharing valuable raw data with the group which is vastly more relevant than anyone's theories, so it's worth continuing.

And speaking of which, though this incident with Storebecker is the only sea fight from this era that really gets on the radar in English language circles, the Chronicles mention dozens of other similar engagements, all of which can be examined for details about how they were conducted. The Hanseatic towns were constantly at war and fought several rather epic engagements with pirates, as well as the fleets of Denmark, England, and Holland and even France on numerous occasions from the 14th-16th Centuries. Many of these are also quite detailed.

Watch out bruh because there is more to come ;)


G

Brother Oni
2014-05-24, 01:42 PM
Another example is the medieval promises to sponsor oil or candles for a church, that were constituted as obligations on the owner of a land plot. Just last year, a farmer in Näfels (Glarus) whose land was under such an obligation sued to be rid of it, and the court ruled that such feudal obligations were no longer enforceable."

On this note, in the UK there are laws, Chancel repair liabilities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancel_repair_liability), that certain households are responsible for the repair and upkeep of their local church which is inherited by any new owners (the duties are tied to the property).

While it's been mostly plugged in recent years (or insurance policies made available to cover for it), some homeowners are still bound by it: link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/propertynews/9438425/Thousands-of-families-could-be-caught-by-church-repair-bills-as-archaic-rights-revived.html).

snowblizz
2014-05-24, 03:03 PM
Thanks lilapop -- I took German in high school, but never used it much, so I'd be the first to admit that my German comprehension is weak. I was able to get a feel for what was said, but couldn't properly translate it.

As for the older text, I can sort of figure out some meaning mainly because the basic framework of the story has been covered elsewhere.

Still I was hoping that some of the German speakers on here would give it a try, so thanks again. :-)

As a note, some of it is older than "high" German and in fact closer to Dutch. Oddly Swedish seemed to help too, but again it's closer top Dutch and the older German than modern German. I noticed this while I was comparing words on Wiktionary. But that gothic font is not exactly helping either. If it wasn't for that I could probably make sense of some of it, but it's really throwing me off.

fusilier
2014-05-24, 03:30 PM
I already have found evidence.

All we know for sure at this point is that:

A) just as I said all along, the principal sources for that book are in fact the medieval town chronicles of Hamburg, Lubeck, and Bremen. That's why the name of the book is "The Chronicles of 3 free cities".
B) the book says there was a naval battle in which ships were sunk by cannon in 1402.
C) another earlier source (Beneke (http://books.google.com/books?id=X0dLAQAAIAAJ&dq=Beneke%20Hamburgische%20Geschichten%20und%20Sag en&pg=PA110#v=onepage&q=kanone&f=false)) mentions a 19 foot culverin or cannon which was captured from Stortebeckers ship during the battle. If you are to be believed this couldn't sink a ship, I would suggest otherwise.
D) Though we don't yet know which of the sources that particular naval battle account or the anecdote about the cannon comes from, we have access to several of them. In fact the cannon might very well still exist.

E) We have not found a primary source that says ships in this battle in 1402 were sunk with cannon fire.

F) Also, we have yet to determine which source the author used to make the claim in the first place.

fusilier
2014-05-24, 04:12 PM
There is considerable evidence that naval combat with cannon was taking place as early as 1400, probably at least back to 1380, in spite of your various objections to the idea which have evolved over time from claims that the gunpowder wouldn't work to claims that they could only shoot from the stern and so on, all of which were nonsense.

Ok. I'll be as brief as I can because a lot of this is a distraction.

1. I won't challenge the claim that there is "considerable evidence" of naval combat with cannon. (I could, but then we would have to get into things about what's meant by "considerable" and by "evidence")

Instead I challenge the evidence itself. (see below)

2. The problems with calcium nitrate saltpeter are now well documented. But, it's moot. If you don't accept that the evidence for naval artillery in the 14th century is sketchy, and open to different interpretation, there's no point in travelling down that road. (Which is too bad because it's actually pretty interesting stuff).

3. I have never said that cannons were only ever mounted in the stern. I have discussed about where *heavy* ordnance (sometimes referred to as "ship-killing" ordnance) was first mounted on sailing ships, but that's not the same as where cannons, in general, were first mounted on sailing ships. Again, this a distraction, which is why I've avoided bringing it up . . .

The heart of the issue --

What is the evidence that ships were sinking each other with cannon? And is that evidence reliable?

Specifically to the Bunte Kuh --

The evidence presented is from a narrative derived from multiple sources: including historic chronicles, and other narrative histories.

Now, I do not take it as an a priori assumption that ships carried artillery heavy enough to destroy other ships in 1400. (I will refrain, for the moment, from asserting the opposite, and simply leave the issue open.)

So my question is:

Why should we accept King's narrative as reliable evidence to the events of the battle in 1402?

Lilapop
2014-05-24, 04:18 PM
As a note, some of it is older than "high" German and in fact closer to Dutch. Oddly Swedish seemed to help too, but again it's closer top Dutch and the older German than modern German. I noticed this while I was comparing words on Wiktionary. But that gothic font is not exactly helping either. If it wasn't for that I could probably make sense of some of it, but it's really throwing me off.
Its actually kind of a two-dimensional matrix, with high/low on one coordinate, and old/middle/new on the other. You can find old high german texts from like, the 10th century, and the 15th century sources we've been looking at would probably qualify as middle low german. There are even people in Frisia and further inland today for whom Plattdeutsch (cognate to flat) is their first mother language. That term itself is interesting as well - does it refer to lower echelons of society/less refined speech, as "low german" does, or does it hint at the relatively flat lands of nothern Germany?

fusilier
2014-05-24, 04:21 PM
As a note, some of it is older than "high" German and in fact closer to Dutch. Oddly Swedish seemed to help too, but again it's closer top Dutch and the older German than modern German. I noticed this while I was comparing words on Wiktionary. But that gothic font is not exactly helping either. If it wasn't for that I could probably make sense of some of it, but it's really throwing me off.

I noticed when I was studying German, that I could read a fair amount of Dutch, as it almost seemed like it was in between German and English. I could also understand the occasional Norwegian phrase.

StabbityRabbit
2014-05-24, 04:59 PM
I have a question regarding weapons and armor. How much damage do swords, axes, and spears manage to inflict upon a well armored foe. By well armored I mean plate over chain over cloth over person. Thanks to any and all that answer!

And yes I know that's technically three questions.

spineyrequiem
2014-05-24, 05:24 PM
My first answer is insufficient data. It'll all depend on how you use them. That said...

If you try to get through full plate purely through blood-mad hacking, all you'll do is blunt your blade. Plate armour is very tough and essentially impossible to cut through with bladed weapons. You have to aim for weak spots. With an axe, this is extremely difficult; you best bet would be to grapple with them, pretending it's a very short polearm, and then either use it as a basic club (no matter how thick their helmet, no-one likes getting bashed over the head with a lump of wood) or attempt to throttle them. Whether or not this is possible will depend on the exact design of plate armour; you might be able to get an axe shaft under a great helm, but you'll never manage to garotte someone wearing a bevor.

With a sword or spear, you're going to have to aim for weak spots. These will typically be around the throat (though not in late models of plate armour), the armpits, the groin... essentially, wherever you have a joint, there's a bit of a weak spot. Eye slits are also quite a popular target. However, in your case it's covered by chainmail (except the eyes. You can't cover those in chainmail. Or rather, you really shouldn't). This will affect your ability to stab depending on the design of your sword/spear. A very fat blade with a short-ish point (like a gladius) won't get very far in, especially not if you have very small links on your mail. However, something with a very long, smoothly-tapering point, like certain kinds of greatsword, might well be able to penetrate a couple of inches into mail; this tends to completely ruin your day, particularly as weak points in armour are often close to important bits of anatomy, hearts and such.

The chances are that in most situations the guy in armour will not be severely hurt beyond some bruising. Have a look at some full-plate armour sparring on youtube (can't immediately find any links, because I'm tired); you'll notice that what they're mostly doing is not actually trying to stab or hack each other, but rather get themselves into a position where they can attack a weak spot. Heavy armour was popular for so long for the simple reason that it was very, very good at stopping you dying.

Galloglaich
2014-05-24, 05:54 PM
Low German means low as in the lower lands near the north end of Germany. It doesn't mean anything about class or how far north or south they are - (which is a bit counter-intuitive) to a lot of Americans.

Plattdeutch is linked to Frisian, which is one of the precursors for English. Sometimes when I hear people speaking Frisian I can make out what sound like English words and phrases briefly, then it reverts to foreign sounding. It's very strange in that way.

Some exmples of Plaattdeutch, and Frisian

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr4l-osIuyg

Eddie Izzard tries to speak Old English in Friesland

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeC1yAaWG34

G

Galloglaich
2014-05-24, 05:56 PM
I have a question regarding weapons and armor. How much damage do swords, axes, and spears manage to inflict upon a well armored foe. By well armored I mean plate over chain over cloth over person. Thanks to any and all that answer!

And yes I know that's technically three questions.

Not much.

G

StabbityRabbit
2014-05-24, 06:10 PM
My first answer is insufficient data. It'll all depend on how you use them. That said...

If you try to get through full plate purely through blood-mad hacking, all you'll do is blunt your blade. Plate armour is very tough and essentially impossible to cut through with bladed weapons. You have to aim for weak spots. With an axe, this is extremely difficult; you best bet would be to grapple with them, pretending it's a very short polearm, and then either use it as a basic club (no matter how thick their helmet, no-one likes getting bashed over the head with a lump of wood) or attempt to throttle them. Whether or not this is possible will depend on the exact design of plate armour; you might be able to get an axe shaft under a great helm, but you'll never manage to garotte someone wearing a bevor.

With a sword or spear, you're going to have to aim for weak spots. These will typically be around the throat (though not in late models of plate armour), the armpits, the groin... essentially, wherever you have a joint, there's a bit of a weak spot. Eye slits are also quite a popular target. However, in your case it's covered by chainmail (except the eyes. You can't cover those in chainmail. Or rather, you really shouldn't). This will affect your ability to stab depending on the design of your sword/spear. A very fat blade with a short-ish point (like a gladius) won't get very far in, especially not if you have very small links on your mail. However, something with a very long, smoothly-tapering point, like certain kinds of greatsword, might well be able to penetrate a couple of inches into mail; this tends to completely ruin your day, particularly as weak points in armour are often close to important bits of anatomy, hearts and such.

The chances are that in most situations the guy in armour will not be severely hurt beyond some bruising. Have a look at some full-plate armour sparring on youtube (can't immediately find any links, because I'm tired); you'll notice that what they're mostly doing is not actually trying to stab or hack each other, but rather get themselves into a position where they can attack a weak spot. Heavy armour was popular for so long for the simple reason that it was very, very good at stopping you dying.
I'm sorry about the insufficient data, but I don't know enough about weapons and armor to have more data to give.

Anyway thanks for the info, and I'll check out some plate armor sparring videos.

warty goblin
2014-05-24, 07:25 PM
I have a question regarding weapons and armor. How much damage do swords, axes, and spears manage to inflict upon a well armored foe. By well armored I mean plate over chain over cloth over person. Thanks to any and all that answer!

And yes I know that's technically three questions.
Generally when attacking people in armor, one goes for the places the armor isn't. No suit can provide complete protection and still allow mobility, so it's better to hit them there. The openings on an armored man are generally:

The eyes/face. There's some evidence that suggests people often fought with their visors raised, probably for vision and oxygen supply. But even if the visor is down, it is still possible to stab somebody through the eyeslit.

The armpits. The inside of the armpit cannot be covered in plate steel. It can be protected by mail, and deeply cut pauldrons can protect against blows from the front or rear, but an attack up under the arm can bypass the plate and attack the more vulnerable mail.

The palms of the hands. Most gauntlets are palmed in leather, so you can stab through them.



Depending on the harness, there may be other openings as well, and there's some openings that aren't primary targets. It's hard to armor the back of the knee, but it's also a real challenge to hit somebody in the back of the knee with great force.

Now how you go about pursuing those openings depends on your weapon.

With a sword the preferred technique seems to have been to half-sword, that is grab the blade in the left hand (assuming a right handed wielder) about halfway up the blade. This essentially turns the blade into a short spear, and facilitates thrusting for the face. You can also use sword as a tool to control an enemy, or smash them in the face with the guard and pommel as a sort of improvised warhammer.

I don't think spears in the classical form were that popular in the eras where full body plate was available, but various pole arms certainly had spear points. Again, stab for the eyes, or use their various hooks and spikes to strike at an enemy, or trip them. Hammers mean you can try to concuss them, or cause serious blunt force trauma through the armor, or (possibly) punch a hole in the armor itself.

Axes also seem to have often become incorporated into the broader family of pole arms. A halberd is an axe, but also a spear and a hook. I'm not sure if the blades were of any great use against armor, but would certainly have been effective against enemies who could not afford full harness.

A lot of technique for fighting against men in armor seems to have relied more on wrestling and stabbing from a grapple with a dagger than other weapons though. Wrestling allows a person to control their adversary, and better target the openings on their armor, or else go straight for the sort of joint trauma that armor cannot protect against. It's a lot easier to stab somebody in the eyeballs if they can't stand up anymore.

Spiryt
2014-05-24, 07:53 PM
I don't think spears in the classical form were that popular in the eras where full body plate was available, but various pole arms certainly had spear points. Again, stab for the eyes, or use their various hooks and spikes to strike at an enemy, or trip them. Hammers mean you can try to concuss them, or cause serious blunt force trauma through the armor, or (possibly) punch a hole in the armor itself.


Well, judging by pictures, arsenal lists, etc. spears absolutely had never gone away. Plenty of them, in hands of horsemen, alongside 'proper' lances and infantry as well.

Especially in areas where more 'complicated' polearms never caught on that much.

Lilapop
2014-05-24, 08:47 PM
Low German means low as in the lower lands near the north end of Germany. It doesn't mean anything about class or how far north or south they are - (which is a bit counter-intuitive) to a lot of Americans.

Plattdeutch is linked to Frisian, which is one of the precursors for English. Sometimes when I hear people speaking Frisian I can make out what sound like English words and phrases briefly, then it reverts to foreign sounding. It's very strange in that way.

Some exmples of Plaattdeutch, and Frisian

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr4l-osIuyg

Eddie Izzard tries to speak Old English in Friesland

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeC1yAaWG34

G

That Old English experiment was awesome. Even though I have no idea where "boodgen" comes from.

The other one though... well. Last thing in the video, first thing I noticed: Its a foreign language to her, even though she might have learned well. For the guy on the other hand, its just a natural thing to speak like that. It might have been a technical issue negatively affecting the sound quality, but I didn't understand more than 50% of what he sad. With her, more like 99% success. I think the effect of that is that she is speaking it with a high german accent, which removes quite a bit of mumbling - and what remains are colloquial terms I've come across time and time again.
Guess thats the other main effect that helps me understand it. One of my grandparents is from Mecklenburg, most of Brandenburg is basically speaking a less extreme form of Berlinern, I've been living in Berlin for ages, I spent the last three years at the Baltic, I dabbled in Kölsch for a while, and so on. So while this video is probably the first time I heard someone speak real Plattdeutsch, I've been exposed to similar dialects and languages pretty much my entire life.

Gotta quote JFK here: "Ick bin een Balina."

Galloglaich
2014-05-25, 12:36 PM
That Old English experiment was awesome. Even though I have no idea where "boodgen" comes from.

The other one though... well. Last thing in the video, first thing I noticed: Its a foreign language to her, even though she might have learned well. For the guy on the other hand, its just a natural thing to speak like that. It might have been a technical issue negatively affecting the sound quality, but I didn't understand more than 50% of what he sad. With her, more like 99% success. I think the effect of that is that she is speaking it with a high german accent, which removes quite a bit of mumbling - and what remains are colloquial terms I've come across time and time again.
Guess thats the other main effect that helps me understand it. One of my grandparents is from Mecklenburg, most of Brandenburg is basically speaking a less extreme form of Berlinern, I've been living in Berlin for ages, I spent the last three years at the Baltic, I dabbled in Kölsch for a while, and so on. So while this video is probably the first time I heard someone speak real Plattdeutsch, I've been exposed to similar dialects and languages pretty much my entire life.

Gotta quote JFK here: "Ick bin een Balina."

I think Anglo-Americans and others in the "West" have a hard time grasping how "regionalist" Germany really is - due to what you might call the hyper unification of Germany in the period 1880-1945 that we know so well. Having lived there for a while I was really surprised that it's almost like Italy (only, if anything, more so) in the sense that it's really a cluster of really distinct regions. Of course there are some places which feel 'generic' German, but Saxons and Bavarians and Swabians really seemed (and according to what they told me, felt) different to me, and have different dialects (or at least, different strong regional accents) and seemed to think of themselves as different people - not to even mention the Alsatians or Pomeranians. Many of the towns still think they are in the Hanseatic league and still see themselves as a place apart from the rest of the nation as well. Like in Bremen where some people still speak that pladtdeutch or the city of Cologne which has it's own unique dialect (Kölsch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colognian_dialect)) and I gather there is a unique dialect in Berlin as well though I've never been there.

There is also as in much of Europe a sometimes sharp dividing line between town and country - peasant and bourgeois, which is beyond what you usually experience in the US, though I think that is sharper of a divide in France.

G

Galloglaich
2014-05-25, 02:11 PM
Also the Bavarians seemed to think all the other Germans were Prussians (for whom they had a nasty nickname) and the Swabians and Ulmers and Augsburgers I met seemed to think all the other Germans were Bavarians...

G

Galloglaich
2014-05-25, 03:00 PM
Buddy of mine found the images of two 15th Century pintle-mounted guns from the maritime museum in Hamburg, I don't think either of these are stortebeckers guns but they may be from the same era.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/yetdark/3831397674/in/photostream/

and this is supposed to be Stortebckers skull

https://www.flickr.com/photos/yetdark/3830602769/in/photostream/

Several other much larger old bronze culverins and mortars / bombards from the museum, though no idea what age

https://www.flickr.com/photos/yetdark/3831595998/in/photostream/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/yetdark/3830802957/in/photostream/

G

Rhynn
2014-05-25, 03:28 PM
I have a question regarding weapons and armor. How much damage do swords, axes, and spears manage to inflict upon a well armored foe. By well armored I mean plate over chain over cloth over person. Thanks to any and all that answer!

Potentially a lot (as in "kill you dead"), but it's very difficult.

Weapons will mostly not substantially damage a person through good armor. (A lot of qualifiers, but they're necessary.) Just mail over a gambeson (quilted cloth, usually 20+ layers) is pretty much proof against thrusts from swords, probably spears, and likely most arrows. It's not 100%, but it's really, really, really good protection. Sword-cuts don't have a prayer.

Hacking and cutting with swords and axes (or maces, for that matter) will not, generally, have any more effect. Even polearms (longer haft = more leverage) won't necessarily. Blunt force trauma isn't generally much of an issue. Look up "bohurt" or "battle of nations" on YouTube to see how much punishment people can take in mere reproduction armor (almost certainly inferior in so many ways to real period armor).

To hurt someone in armor, you mostly have to go around it. There's plenty of techniques for this, and half of longsword fighting is harnischfechten (armored fighting), which involves using the sword as a lever for grappling, half-swording to guide the point into small gaps, etc.

Generally, your best bet would be to throw your opponent to the ground and kill them with a dagger.

There are weapons that can crack armor - the "crow's beak" of a warhammer or poll hammer apparently can punch through plate. A mounted lance charge might - it's hard to say. And it is possible for sword or spear thrusts to penetrate mail, and maybe plate, to a degree (although generally not very deeply, which would often limit the injury to shallow punctures; of course, in the skull, an inch of puncture is too much...). A warhammer's beak to a helmeted head would probably be frequently effective.

It's hard to say, though, because there's very little practical evidence for any of this. There's so many variables; a lot of armor tests use bad armor, and at the very least it's not going to be worn by a human if you're expecting it to be penetrated...


Early medieval tournaments were basically fights between teams of knights with real weapons, and while they were dangerous sport, they weren't majorly deadly, because of the armor. Again, bohurt / BoN is a decent place to look at to get a general idea. It's not going to be perfectly accurate, but it will show you what massive blows armor can absorb - the polearm blows especially would probably be crippling to unarmored people. (Heck, getting a flying kick in the head from a man in full plate would probably stand a good chance of killing you if you're not wearing a helmet... concussion or brain damage at least.)

ARMA has some good basic overviews of armored (and unarmored) longsword combat here (http://www.thearma.org/essays/armoredlongsword.html) and here (http://www.thearma.org/essays/Talhoffer/HT-Web.htm).


I'm sorry about the insufficient data, but I don't know enough about weapons and armor to have more data to give.

It's not you, it's just that nobody's taken a bunch of guys, put armor on them, and then tried to maim or kill them with various weapons. Something about "liability" and "ethics" ... bah!

Accounts from older times are generally sparser the further back you go, and not necessarily that reliable anyway.


Well, judging by pictures, arsenal lists, etc. spears absolutely had never gone away. Plenty of them, in hands of horsemen, alongside 'proper' lances and infantry as well.

Part of that would probably be that full harness was pretty uncommon, but I don't think a spear would be particularly useless against armor - you could choke the shaft and stab at gaps in the armor.

Lilapop
2014-05-25, 03:32 PM
The page with the skull picture links to an online article. Apparently, the material doesn't yield enough DNA to identify him, and all they know is

Wir sind sicher, dass es sich bei dem Schädel um den Kopf eines Freibeuters handelt, eines etwa 30-jährigen, kräftigen Mannes, der schon einige Blessuren hatte, als er vor etwa 600 Jahren starb
- It was a pirate, because it was found on the island where they executed and displayed them.
- He was about 39 years old and powerfully build.
- He had recieved a bunch of other wounds before he died (there's no mention of how well healed they were, though).
- He died about 600 years ago.

None of the captions on the cannon pictures are interesting.

Incanur
2014-05-25, 04:05 PM
I have a question regarding weapons and armor. How much damage do swords, axes, and spears manage to inflict upon a well armored foe. By well armored I mean plate over chain over cloth over person. Thanks to any and all that answer!

This remains contested. Primary sources vary in their assessment; some portray attacking armored areas with such weapons as awesome (Gutierre Díez de Games (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yorku.ca%2Finpar%2Fgamez_evan s.pdf&ei=NVaCU6PBBoeYyATykYH4CQ&usg=AFQjCNFK0zni7leWJ3Z3k_B0739DchhFew&sig2=Pp082CnstXSJAQEyCl-Zzw&bvm=bv.67720277,d.aWw)) while other describe it as useless (Fourquevaux). By my interpretation, attacks on the thicker parts of a high-quality white harness had negligible odds of penetrating. These thicker area include the helmet and breastplate. Some thinner plate limb defenses might theoretically fail to a strong and perfectly delivered thrust, but landing such a thrust would be difficult. (At least one pollaxe manual does show a thrust to the foot that appears to penetrate plate defense.) Strong spear and sword thrusts would likely pierce the gussets of mail and padding used to defend the armpits. Powerful blows and precise thrusts to gauntleted hands could also inflict injury. Additionally, mighty blows to the helmeted head could stun and at least eventually incapacitate. In practice, duels between well-armored combatants on foot often involved grappling and stabbing with a dagger or sword. But an incredibly strong knight like Pero Niño (see the linked document) supposedly did well striking at the helmeted head with single-handed sword circa 1400.

Also note that lower-quality could offer less protection and would be more likely to fail under heavy strokes.

Galloglaich
2014-05-25, 05:47 PM
Thought y'all might find this interesting. It provides insight into how guild specialization worked, how craft guilds worked together and also a really nice inside view of a little understood military technology of the late medieval period.

These are incendiary bolts being made, the source is "Firework Book", MEDIEVAL TOWER LONDON, Ms I, 34, South Germany, 1450.

This first image shows the Master (bowyer / crossbowmaker or fletcher) with the feather in his hat, supervising the cutting out by a tailor and the sewing by women of canvas casings for fire-quarrels. (Folio 87v).

https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1.0-9/10247446_803296656349093_3065644201429999710_n.jpg

Master supervises the assembling the fire-quarrels using casings previously cut and sewn. (Folio 88r). These people are probably apprentice or journeymen bowyers.

https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t31.0-8/10255638_803296979682394_1225791094666743148_o.jpg

The preparation of incendiary bolts. (Folio 88r). These people are probably a third type of specialist, with knowledge of alchemy, possibly buschenmaster. These are being prepared with either an incendiary or explosive substance.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/t31.0-8/10285828_803296999682392_4278500426181839189_o.jpg

you can see some actual surviving incendiary bolts (mixed in with other types) here

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=119828&stc=1

and here

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=119829&stc=1

We still don't know precisely how they worked, and I don't think anyone has managed to recreate them, but we have the recipes and the processes written down.

G

fusilier
2014-05-25, 06:12 PM
Buddy of mine found the images of two 15th Century pintle-mounted guns from the maritime museum in Hamburg, I don't think either of these are stortebeckers guns but they may be from the same era.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/yetdark/3831397674/in/photostream/

and this is supposed to be Stortebckers skull

https://www.flickr.com/photos/yetdark/3830602769/in/photostream/

Several other much larger old bronze culverins and mortars / bombards from the museum, though no idea what age

https://www.flickr.com/photos/yetdark/3831595998/in/photostream/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/yetdark/3830802957/in/photostream/

G


The style of this mortar is pretty old:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/yetdark/3830814409/in/photostream/

I would guess late 16th - 17th century (maybe early 18th, but I don't think so).

The other cannons in the same room look more like 18th century naval cannons -- the muzzle swell, the proportions, etc., are all reminiscent of that time. They could be late 17th century, or perhaps early 19th century, but with how low the trunnions are mounted, I am reluctant to say that. If my books weren't currently packed up I might have a few more references to compare them to.

The larger bronze swivel gun could be 15th century. My understanding is that most cannons made around 1400 were of the hoop and stave type. Even for small swivel pieces . . . but the earliest cannons that we have knowledge about (circa 1326), were small bronze cannons shaped like vases. So the technology to cast small cannons like that was probably available.

However, the smaller swivel gun has "dolphins" (handles). I haven't heard of "dolphins" being used on a cannon from the 15th-century. I would guess both swivel guns were 16th century, but I'm not certain.

Galloglaich
2014-05-25, 07:10 PM
My understanding is that most cannons made around 1400 were of the hoop and stave type.

This isn't correct. Hoop and stave were only one of several types that were common at that point. There were numerous 15th early Century cannon with forged iron barrels as well as cast bronze barrels, and not just tiny ones either. I know you disdain images but sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

This is from 1399

http://www.themcs.org/weaponry/cannon/Tannenberg%20Cannon%20pre%201399.jpg

14th Century

http://www.themcs.org/weaponry/cannon/2007%20MCS%20Milan%20Handgun%20end%20C14%20start%2 0C15%20598.jpg

1400

http://www.themcs.org/weaponry/cannon/Germany%20Cologne%20Stadt%20Museum%20Handgun%20140 0%2047.JPG

early 15th Century Portuguese breach loader - caliber is 55 mm

http://silverhawkauthor.com/images/site_graphics/Artillery/15_May_2014_Museu_Militar_Guns_VdG_room_30.JPG

Wrought iron portuguese bombard 15th Century

http://silverhawkauthor.com/images/site_graphics/Artillery/Portugal/Lisbon_Military_Museum_underground_Gun_Room_160.JP G

15th Century cast iron falconet 80 mm caliber, 8 feet long

http://silverhawkauthor.com/images/site_graphics/Artillery/Portugal/Lisbon_Military_Museum_underground_Gun_Room_167.JP G

this one is hoop and stave made though it's a serpentine 9 cm caliber, 340 cm long from Burgundy 15th Century

http://silverhawkauthor.com/images/site_graphics/Artillery/Portugal/Lisbon_Military_Museum_underground_Gun_Room_169a.J PG

wrought iron falconet 15th Century, portugal, 40 mm caliber

http://silverhawkauthor.com/images/site_graphics/Artillery/Portugal/Lisbon_Military_Museum_underground_Gun_Room_171.JP G

15th century cast bronze gun with 'dolphins', 124 mm caliber

http://silverhawkauthor.com/images/site_graphics/Artillery/15_May_2014_Museu_Militar_Guns_VdG_room_4.JPG

G

fusilier
2014-05-25, 09:10 PM
This isn't correct. Hoop and stave were only one of several types that were common at that point. There were numerous 15th early Century cannon with forged iron barrels as well as cast bronze barrels, and not just tiny ones either. I know you disdain images but sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

Small hand gonnes were typically cast, or I think sometimes even forged. Bronze casting technology improved over the course of the 15th century, so by the middle of the century, huge cannons could be cast from bronze. But in 1400, I don't think they could have cast a large cannon, most that I've seen from that time were hoop-and-stave. Hoop-and-stave construction continued in use at sea well into the 16th century.



15th century cast bronze gun with 'dolphins', 124 mm caliber

http://silverhawkauthor.com/images/site_graphics/Artillery/15_May_2014_Museu_Militar_Guns_VdG_room_4.JPG

G

The proportions, general shape and design look more like a 16th century cannon, if not later. I suppose it might be a late 15th century weapon, but I doubt it.

No brains
2014-05-25, 09:49 PM
In a chat with a friend, "poisoned bullets" came up. Granted this is for a work of fiction they wanted some help with, but I like to draw inspiration from reality whenever reality could do something that needs to be done. I have four major questions that I would like help answering. Note that in all cases, the poison is not always a lethal one.

FIRST! How could one build a bullet to hold and release a poison?

Bullets deform a lot. This makes smearing a slug in poison difficult. Some people on a Yahoo Answers thread mentioned the use of hollow-points to contain a poison, but I was to understand that a hollow point would deform the shot even more, and probably push all of the poison off the now disk-shaped projectile. A hard metal canister contained in a softer jacket seems more plausible to me.

Seconded.What poisons could survive being heated by a gunshot?

This probably nixes most organic poisons, but maybe not. This is also complicated by the idea of a non-lethal poison bullet, as most chemically simple poisons are to my understanding lethal or horribly damaging like arsenic, mercury, or just lead.

The Third.Would any of those poisons work especially well?

With a bullet's tendency to over-penetrate and the impressive amount one could bleed from a GSW, can any poisons actually make it into someone/thing's system? This question could probably be obviated by a clever answer to question 1, but I figured it was worth delving into this issue in detail.

Fore!A little far from a real-world question, but what are some hypothetical things that could survive a bullet, but be affected by a poison?

I think man-portable firearms kill just about anything on Earth. Even elephants and whales are no match for the right shot of the right size. Even if something is shot in a non-vial area, a gunshot wound could be severely debilitating without poison. I am curious though about the idea that a poisoned bullet could help obviate the need for a well-placed shot, such as in a skirmish with a lot of cover where a good shot just isn't an option.

I would prefer answers that involve the poisoning of bullets fired from guns not built especially for firing poisoned bullets. Of course one could build a spring-loaded or air-compressed machine specifically for delivering poison, but what I want to know is if it is feasible to poison or construct a poison-carrying round that could be fired from a weapon similar to a S&W 500 or a hunting shotgun (or a deerslug thereof).

Apologies for any bad grammar; was rushed at last minute.

fusilier
2014-05-25, 10:20 PM
Buddy of mine found the images of two 15th Century pintle-mounted guns from the maritime museum in Hamburg, I don't think either of these are stortebeckers guns but they may be from the same era.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/yetdark/3831397674/in/photostream/

I came across some very similar swivel guns, on this site:
http://cannonsuperstore.com/recent_lantaka_sales.htm

There's are some photos of similar museum pieces here, along with a discussion about the weapons (although strangely no dates).
http://www.acant.org.au/Articles/MalayCannons.html

Here's a nice picture of a cannon dated to 1410 -- this is what I would consider typical of shipboard armament of circa-1400 -
http://silverhawkauthor.com/images/site_graphics/Artillery/France/Perier_a_boite_en_fer_forge_Western_Europe_1410.jp g

Similar weapons would still be in use in the 16th century -- although by that time they were used alongside cast designs.

warty goblin
2014-05-25, 10:25 PM
In a chat with a friend, "poisoned bullets" came up. Granted this is for a work of fiction they wanted some help with, but I like to draw inspiration from reality whenever reality could do something that needs to be done. I have four major questions that I would like help answering. Note that in all cases, the poison is not always a lethal one.

FIRST! How could one build a bullet to hold and release a poison?

Bullets deform a lot. This makes smearing a slug in poison difficult. Some people on a Yahoo Answers thread mentioned the use of hollow-points to contain a poison, but I was to understand that a hollow point would deform the shot even more, and probably push all of the poison off the now disk-shaped projectile. A hard metal canister contained in a softer jacket seems more plausible to me.

Hollow points don't deform until they hit something. A bullet with a core of hard metal by contrast may not deform all that much even when it does hit.


Seconded.What poisons could survive being heated by a gunshot?

This probably nixes most organic poisons, but maybe not. This is also complicated by the idea of a non-lethal poison bullet, as most chemically simple poisons are to my understanding lethal or horribly damaging like arsenic, mercury, or just lead.
Guns don't really come with a non-lethal setting, unless you're shooting something like beanbag rounds or rubber bullets, which are low velocity, short range and not intended to penetrate the skin. By the time you get up to metal with a fully loaded cartridge behind it, it's a lethal weapon.


The Third.Would any of those poisons work especially well?

With a bullet's tendency to over-penetrate and the impressive amount one could bleed from a GSW, can any poisons actually make it into someone/thing's system? This question could probably be obviated by a clever answer to question 1, but I figured it was worth delving into this issue in detail.
Just use a lower power round that doesn't tend to over-penetrate so much. Birdshot or .22 short, say. Or something that sheds most of the poison early,


Fore!A little far from a real-world question, but what are some hypothetical things that could survive a bullet, but be affected by a poison?

I think man-portable firearms kill just about anything on Earth. Even elephants and whales are no match for the right shot of the right size. Even if something is shot in a non-vial area, a gunshot wound could be severely debilitating without poison. I am curious though about the idea that a poisoned bullet could help obviate the need for a well-placed shot, such as in a skirmish with a lot of cover where a good shot just isn't an option.

I would prefer answers that involve the poisoning of bullets fired from guns not built especially for firing poisoned bullets. Of course one could build a spring-loaded or air-compressed machine specifically for delivering poison, but what I want to know is if it is feasible to poison or construct a poison-carrying round that could be fired from a weapon similar to a S&W 500 or a hunting shotgun (or a deerslug thereof).

Apologies for any bad grammar; was rushed at last minute.
Go hardcore. Go blue ringed octopus, or something like that. Bee venom, if you can get enough of it. Certain scorpions and spiders also pack a whallop. The sorts of stuff that drops a person poste haste and can incapacitate with small dosages very quickly. Otherwise the operative question is, if you want the guy dead, you don't you just shoot him again?

Now if you're gonna go that route, you don't need a lot of skin penetration. If you can figure out how to do it, get your poison into a form that's solid but water soluble. Then load it up into a 12 gauge shell, and you've got yourself a short range, very inaccurate load of venomous birdshot. Wear goggles when firing; getting the dust in the eyes is probably not advisable.

Brother Oni
2014-05-26, 04:35 AM
FIRST! How could one build a bullet to hold and release a poison?

As Warty said, hollowpoints don't deform until they penetrate, but given how lethal that deformation is inside the body, it kinda of renders the poison unnecessary.


Seconded.What poisons could survive being heated by a gunshot?

Most poisons. The front end isn't really heated by the propellant.


The Third.Would any of those poisons work especially well?

As Warty said, use something large calibre enough and it's easier to shoot them a second time than wait for the poison to act.

It mainly depends on whether you want something fast acting or not - dimethylmercury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethylmercury) is ridiculously poisonous but slow acting, the same goes for things like botulinum toxin.
If you want fast acting, then you want nerve agents - Warty's listed a few and some others to add would be VX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VX_%28nerve_agent%29) (<0.24mg/kg by liquid through the skin) or the Russian Novichok nerve agents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novichok_agent) (reputably 5-8 times more toxic than VX, but no information available).



Fore!A little far from a real-world question, but what are some hypothetical things that could survive a bullet, but be affected by a poison?

Enough dakka will kill most things, so not many things really.



Now if you're gonna go that route, you don't need a lot of skin penetration. If you can figure out how to do it, get your poison into a form that's solid but water soluble. Then load it up into a 12 gauge shell, and you've got yourself a short range, very inaccurate load of venomous birdshot. Wear goggles when firing; getting the dust in the eyes is probably not advisable.

I'm a bit dubious about speed of action from solid dosage forms, since you have rate of dissolution as a major hurdle. That said, spraying (suitably milled) dust into the air is a great way of getting toxicity via inhalation, which opens up the available toxins (potassium cyanide for example), but you better have NBC gear on and by this point, you're better off firing white phosphorus grenades to incapacitate them.

Galloglaich
2014-05-26, 04:57 AM
I came across some very similar swivel guns, on this site:
http://cannonsuperstore.com/recent_lantaka_sales.htm

There's are some photos of similar museum pieces here, along with a discussion about the weapons (although strangely no dates).
http://www.acant.org.au/Articles/MalayCannons.html

Here's a nice picture of a cannon dated to 1410 -- this is what I would consider typical of shipboard armament of circa-1400 -
http://silverhawkauthor.com/images/site_graphics/Artillery/France/Perier_a_boite_en_fer_forge_Western_Europe_1410.jp g

Similar weapons would still be in use in the 16th century -- although by that time they were used alongside cast designs.

All those guns were of the dates and origins I stated. You can lead a horse to water...

G

Incanur
2014-05-26, 12:09 PM
Fore!A little far from a real-world question, but what are some hypothetical things that could survive a bullet, but be affected by a poison?

Basically anything. Humans, for example, commonly survive bullet wounds. In theory, a potent poison could make guns significantly more effective. In practice it doesn't seem to be worth the trouble, but accounts of poisoned shot go back to the 16th century if not earlier and continue into the present day. The Soviets supposedly developed bullets filled with aconitine (http://books.google.com/books?id=MXV_EDO4sE0C&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=poisoned+bullets+history&source=bl&ots=GUHAabhVdM&sig=8RZK-jnFN2xRT-QXOaXxc75aZWI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=A3ODU5aNONKGogTh_4K4Ag&ved=0CDIQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=poisoned%20bullets%20history&f=false) for assassination. Here (http://books.google.com/books?id=dHbHS5GhCN4C&pg=PT108&dq=poisoned+bullets&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7HSDU5u5E5broASdlIGgDQ&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=poisoned%20bullets&f=false) are some technical details.

fusilier
2014-05-26, 02:48 PM
All those guns were of the dates and origins I stated. You can lead a horse to water...

G

Well, if it's on the internet it must be true! ;-)

Cannon design evolved considerably over the course of the 15th century and early 16th century. Which I've gone over before. So simply saying "this is a 15th century cannon", doesn't say it's representative of a weapon closer to 1400 or to 1500.

I think I was wrong when I said the two bronze swivel guns in the German museum were probably 16th century -- The style and construction are almost identical to 18th century Asian swivel guns. See the links in my previous post.

Yora
2014-05-26, 03:14 PM
Keeping it technical here, how does it stand with "stopping power" when it comes to bows and arrows? An arrow to the heart would probably kill very qickly (though an unlikely event) and one to the lung probably also lead to death soon.
But when you see arrows in movies, getting hit anywhere makes people fall down apparently dead instantly and without fragmentation of the projectile and probably much lower velocities, this seems rather unlikely to me.
What happens when a hunter hits a deer with an arrow. Does he have to prepare to still spend some hours chasing it until it collapses?

Spiryt
2014-05-26, 03:35 PM
Keeping it technical here, how does it stand with "stopping power" when it comes to bows and arrows? An arrow to the heart would probably kill very qickly (though an unlikely event) and one to the lung probably also lead to death soon.
But when you see arrows in movies, getting hit anywhere makes people fall down apparently dead instantly and without fragmentation of the projectile and probably much lower velocities, this seems rather unlikely to me.
What happens when a hunter hits a deer with an arrow. Does he have to prepare to still spend some hours chasing it until it collapses?

People in movies fall down instantly after every short slash and poke, even if they have half a ton of cloth and mail on them. IF they're not important characters of course. :smalltongue:

As far as chasing deers goes, that's how it's usually done at least. Aiming at liver, or other large, and blood rich part, and wait till running animals bleeds to death.

Dunno why aiming at head for 'instant drop' is not attempted - perhaps even with very sharp arrows and compound bow, glancing around the skull is still possible.

warty goblin
2014-05-26, 03:59 PM
Keeping it technical here, how does it stand with "stopping power" when it comes to bows and arrows? An arrow to the heart would probably kill very qickly (though an unlikely event) and one to the lung probably also lead to death soon.
But when you see arrows in movies, getting hit anywhere makes people fall down apparently dead instantly and without fragmentation of the projectile and probably much lower velocities, this seems rather unlikely to me.
What happens when a hunter hits a deer with an arrow. Does he have to prepare to still spend some hours chasing it until it collapses?
It depends I think significantly on the arrow head used. They may not fragment, but a broadhead can pretty wide and cut a serious hole on its way through. A very narrow bodkin point is a different beast to an inch wide flying razor blade.

That said, a certain amount of tracking is involved pretty much any hunt. I had a friend describe taking a deer with a 12 gauge loaded with rifled slugs. Apparently he completely shredded the deer's heart, and it still ran about thirty feet before keeling over.

Modern bowhunters often use collapsible broadheads, which allow for a significantly wider cutting edge than is aerodynamically plausible with a fixed blade. Shot from a relatively powerful bow, these are apparently capable of slicing right through bones, and tend to drop an animal pretty fast. Even fixed-blade modern broadheads are usually triple-bladed; a design that first appeared in the later bronze age interestingly enough. On the other hand Native Americans seem to have frequently used very small arrowheads for hunting even deer sized game, so it's not like you need a flying meat cleaver.

(It's also worth noting that bullets do not reliably fragment. A broadhead pretty reliably slices a wide hole in the target. From a powerful enough bow, it stands a fair chance of over-penetrating an unarmored target as well, so the shaft won't block the wound channel.)


People in movies fall down instantly after every short slash and poke, even if they have half a ton of cloth and mail on them. IF they're not important characters of course. :smalltongue:

As far as chasing deers goes, that's how it's usually done at least. Aiming at liver, or other large, and blood rich part, and wait till running animals bleeds to death.

Dunno why aiming at head for 'instant drop' is not attempted - perhaps even with very sharp arrows and compound bow, glancing around the skull is still possible.

Deer don't have particularly large heads, and even when standing still they move them about a great deal, between feeding and monitoring their environment. It's a bad target in other words, but if a deer is standing or walking perpendicular to the shooter, that's a really good target.

(Really, does anybody go for headshots in general? )

Yora
2014-05-26, 04:29 PM
I actually meant deforming, not fragmenting. No idea why I wrote that.

Heads and limbs are both much smaller than the body of almost all land animals, and move around much more in less predictable ways. The central body has the most mass and innertia; when it goes at speed in a certain direction, it requires a lot more force to change the speed or direction of the movement, than it takes to flail around with your limbs or bob your head. I'm not sure how deer and the like move, but I think in a running horse, the shape of the neck changes quite a lot during each part of a stride.
Shoting a running person in the foot to make him fall down is another case of such nonsense. Might happen as a lucky accident, but probably impossible to pull of on purpose. Especially if you want to make sure not to kill the person.

Rhynn
2014-05-26, 05:52 PM
(Really, does anybody go for headshots in general? )

Well, I think I've read that Delta Force operators train to take headshots in CQB (clearing rooms), but...


Especially if you want to make sure not to kill the person.

Yeah, the idea of a "non-lethal" shot is pretty silly - people have died from shock from really "insignificant" GSWs. The movie staple of shooting someone in the shoulder or thereabouts is particularly egregious - aiming for the shoulder is very, very likely to damage the major blood vessels running into the arm and lead to massive bleeding. Same with shooting at the leg (thigh). You shoot guns at people to kill them.

Less-lethal solutions like rubber bullets still aren't non-lethal. (For that matter, neither are electroshock weapons.) And wooden bullets... ugh. Especially at short ranges, less-lethal bullets can be very lethal (particularly if you get hit in the head).

Plus, in practice, handguns are extremely inaccurate in an actual situation (particularly if the target is armed or is otherwise a danger, in which case most shooters are trying to unload a huge amount of rounds fast) - the shots-to-hits ratios are usually terrible even in short-range firefights. And that's when they're aiming for the center of mass; aiming at heads or limbs would reduce accuracy even further.

Can't speak so much to how well rifles do, most of my reading has concerned handguns (police encounters are pretty great sources of data, because every bullet is accounted for, usually).

Obviously, there's exceptions - a sniper shooting at a stationary target, etc. Even then, though, procedure tends to be to take a lethal shot, because any shot is potentially lethal anyway, and you frequently can't take the chance that a "disabling" or "disarming" shot doesn't do what it was meant to.

Mike_G
2014-05-26, 06:30 PM
Most combat shooting is at the center of mass. This gives you a decent margin of error. If you aim at the middle of the target, you can miss by a bit and still have an effect. In modern warfare, the enemy is generally either taking cover or moving quickly, and a head shot is tough on a moving target. Especially if you have rounds whipping past you and smacking the rocks you're hiding behind.

If you see a standing enemy in the open and shoot at his belt buckle, you can be high or low by two and a half feet and still drop him, and you can be wide left or right by nearly a foot and still hit him. Most soldiers hit by rifle rounds will stop shooting back at you. Whether they live or die really isn't important to you, so long as they fall down and stop shooting back.

Special forces do practice head shots because they are instantly disabling. You can shoot a guy in the heart and he may live ling enough to shoot back. At long range that isn't a big concern, but clearing a roomful of terrorists, maybe that is. That kind of accuracy takes a lot of training.

Trying to hit a guy's gun hand or his leg to put him out of action without killing him would be very difficult, and nobody advocates that. Not saying it's never been done, but it's never recommended.

Most shooting in combat is a guy jacked up on adrenalin rapidly throwing rounds in the general direction of another jacked up guy doing the same, all while trying to present the smallest target possible. It pretty much takes a man's weight in bullets to get a kill.

Galloglaich
2014-05-26, 07:26 PM
I don't know if anyone was paying attention to the crossbow-incendiary bolt thing, but here is another nice addition, flaming bolts in action.

https://scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1.0-9/10368388_10152396984272557_7400956406376677386_n.j pg

G

Galloglaich
2014-05-26, 07:57 PM
Well, if it's on the internet it must be true! ;-)

Cannon design evolved considerably over the course of the 15th century and early 16th century. Which I've gone over before. So simply saying "this is a 15th century cannon", doesn't say it's representative of a weapon closer to 1400 or to 1500.

I think I was wrong when I said the two bronze swivel guns in the German museum were probably 16th century -- The style and construction are almost identical to 18th century Asian swivel guns. See the links in my previous post.

Like you post anything with a serious intent at learning or sharing knowledge? All you are trying to do is win an argument that you are utterly out of your depth in.

You claimed earlier - in an attempt to dismiss evidence of early cannon, that "most" 15th Century cannon used hoop and stave construction. If you actually knew anything about early firearms or cannon before the 17th Century you would know quite well that this is not the case, hoop and stave was only one of 3 principle construction methods in use from the late 14th Century onward (cast bronze, forged iron, and hoop and stave) and all three continued in use, alongside the mid- 15th Century Flemish invention of cast iron gun barrels, well into the 17th Century.

Several of the guns I posted, just like the earlier gigantic bombards I posted, have very well known dates of creation within 10 years of the year 1400. Some before some a bit after. At that time, they forged huge guns, short guns, long guns, and smaller ones. Most of the above were capable of sinking ships, though only the medium and smaller guns could be used from them that early.

The real question is, what caliber of gun, at what speed, does it take to punch holes through half inch or 1 inch planks of wood at point blank range. The answer is: most of the guns I just posted here can, and there have been dozens of tests which prove it. A volley from a half-dozen medium caliber (40-80mm) guns could sink a ship of that era- and guns of this caliber were UBIQUITOUS by the turn of the 14th century. But quite larger guns were also beginning to be used on ships at that time, up to 150 mm and more. And the navies of towns like Hamburg were at the very leading edge of the military / technological revolution of this time.

G

Raum
2014-05-26, 10:03 PM
Like you post anything with a serious intent at learning or sharing knowledge? All you are trying to do is win an argument that you are utterly out of your depth in. I profess no knowledge of the sources you're arguing over. However, you appear to be the one using ad hominem attacks to make your point. This isn't the first either...take an objective look at previous comments in this thread and the last.

Fallacious attacks aside, I enjoy and learn from what both you and Fusilier bring to the discussion. This is the internet...but perhaps we can stick to facts anyways? Else it's just multiple individuals doing their duty (http://xkcd.com/386/). Undoubtedly a forlorn hope.

Galloglaich
2014-05-26, 11:02 PM
I profess no knowledge of the sources you're arguing over. However, you appear to be the one using ad hominem attacks to make your point. This isn't the first either...take an objective look at previous comments in this thread and the last.

Fallacious attacks aside, I enjoy and learn from what both you and Fusilier bring to the discussion. This is the internet...but perhaps we can stick to facts anyways? Else it's just multiple individuals doing their duty (http://xkcd.com/386/). Undoubtedly a forlorn hope.

If you have been on this thread a while, you will have noticed there is a big gap between the elusive reality of things like fighting with swords, warfare in the middle ages and so on - and the bizarre tropes and cliche's about these subjects which dominate the pop culture and the thousands of role-playing and computer games based upon it. There is a reason why the latter never seem to be even remotely similar to the former, partly because lets face it, many people tend to prefer fantasy over reality even when reality is more interesting and more engaging. Why that is the case? Who knows. But partly it's just because of it's own inertia, because it's harder to find out the reality about anything, to know anything real, than to just let the gibberish flow in. And there are a lot of people who actually do want to know.

I was one of those people. I didn't find out about the real martial arts of Medieval Europe until I was over 30 years old, in spite of being interested in it my whole life. That is why I've posted in this thread for however many years it's been- because when I was a teenager and a young man I would have liked to have access to some accurate information about this kind of stuff. Today I'm part of a community which gives me a lot of access -to information, to researchers, to the fencing manuals, to ancient weapons and manuscripts which I've held in my hands. To the top experts in the world in historical fencing and many other related fields. I try to post the interesting things I find here sometimes, the new stuff, the raw stuff - so some people really trying to find the real thing can find it.

There are a lot of threads on this forum, and others like it, and as far as I know only one "Real World Weapon or Armor" thread. The "real world" stuff is always eclipsed by the fantasy. Pointing out the "real world" stuff which is so often completely against the grain of the other, inevitably generates some friction. It's something I've tried to avoid, but you can't do so forever.

I don't think I've made a single 'fallacious attack' ever once in this thread, but I know I'm not always diplomatic. Facts are facts, nonsense is nonsense, I've learned the hard way when I was learning on my own, without a clear dividing line between the two you are going to lose your way and sink into the ocean of mediocre pablum.

But if I've offended the readers of the thread I apologize to them. I will take an extended break from it.

G

fusilier
2014-05-26, 11:12 PM
Correct, I said "most", and I said "cannon", and I had stated that gun creating technology advanced during the 15th century, so that by the middle of the century large (huge) bombards were cast out of bronze. I also pointed out that by the late 14th century they could make quite large bombards using the hoop-and-stave method . . .

Perhaps I didn't do a good job of explaining all the details and subtleties, and I have confused or misled. I am, I admit, also human*, and capable of making mistakes -- like forgetting details or confusing some things up myself.

The context that was in my mind was the battle involving the Bunte Kuh. So, I was thinking of what was typical of the early 1400s.

Most of what I've learned about the nature of early naval ordnance is from the works of John F. Guilmartin. A historian of naval history who has focused a lot of his research into this very question -- when did ships begin to carry effective "anti-ship" ordnance?

When I see a claim that goes against those conclusions, the first reaction is to scrutinize the sources. I don't claim to be an expert, but I have had some training in evaluating and using sources to see if they justify certain claims, etc. That's what I was trying to do. If it passes the scrutiny, it will make the argument all the stronger.

Somehow we're now talking speculatively, whether or not they *could* have mounted cannon on ships that could sink other ships (circa 1400). That's a somewhat different argument -- I've delved into that in previous posts, and the answer is, typically, no -- but it's not that simple or straightforward.

However, the answer of "typically, no" is predicated upon a lack of evidence that ships regularly sank each other with ordnance in the early 15th century. So, if someone could find evidence that it occurred (regularly), then the premise could be undercut, and the answer would have to be reevaluated. This is where Kelly DeVries work is influential -- DeVries pointed out that much of the evidence for early cannon at sea doesn't hold up under close scrutiny. I feel, it's acceptable to challenge all early claims, and scrutinize them to see what they actually say. I did not intend to frustrate anyone, but only to confirm the sources.

* Of course that's exactly what a computer would say. Ref. Turing Test.

Incanur
2014-05-27, 12:32 AM
I don't know if anyone was paying attention to the crossbow-incendiary bolt thing, but here is another nice addition, flaming bolts in action.

This is a lovely find. Where's it from? The piece not only shows flaming bolts but also shows crossbows shot from the saddle. Despite lots of evidence for shooting crossbows from the saddle, some folks still question the practice, so it's nice to have more sources.

fusilier
2014-05-27, 12:36 AM
It was never my intention, or desire, to drive anyone from this board, especially someone who has provided such useful and informative responses.

I too, know the frustrations of dealing with fields in history that are mostly known through inaccuracies and misconceptions. While those fields that I have dealt with are different, much of the frustration is the same.

In this particular case, we happen to be opposed, each, I suspect, believing the other to be propounding inaccuracies, and each attempting, perhaps hoping, to correct the misconception. Not so much for the sake of each other (I certainly wouldn't have had the patience for that), but for the other readers of this board.

Brother Oni
2014-05-27, 02:10 AM
Perhaps it might be worthwhile to put up a list of touchy subjects in the OP, to save things degenerating (again)?

Storm_Of_Snow
2014-05-27, 03:07 AM
In a chat with a friend, "poisoned bullets" came up. Granted this is for a work of fiction they wanted some help with, but I like to draw inspiration from reality whenever reality could do something that needs to be done. I have four major questions that I would like help answering. Note that in all cases, the poison is not always a lethal one.

FIRST! How could one build a bullet to hold and release a poison?

Bullets deform a lot. This makes smearing a slug in poison difficult. Some people on a Yahoo Answers thread mentioned the use of hollow-points to contain a poison, but I was to understand that a hollow point would deform the shot even more, and probably push all of the poison off the now disk-shaped projectile. A hard metal canister contained in a softer jacket seems more plausible to me.

Seconded.What poisons could survive being heated by a gunshot?

This probably nixes most organic poisons, but maybe not. This is also complicated by the idea of a non-lethal poison bullet, as most chemically simple poisons are to my understanding lethal or horribly damaging like arsenic, mercury, or just lead.

The Third.Would any of those poisons work especially well?

With a bullet's tendency to over-penetrate and the impressive amount one could bleed from a GSW, can any poisons actually make it into someone/thing's system? This question could probably be obviated by a clever answer to question 1, but I figured it was worth delving into this issue in detail.

Fore!A little far from a real-world question, but what are some hypothetical things that could survive a bullet, but be affected by a poison?

I think man-portable firearms kill just about anything on Earth. Even elephants and whales are no match for the right shot of the right size. Even if something is shot in a non-vial area, a gunshot wound could be severely debilitating without poison. I am curious though about the idea that a poisoned bullet could help obviate the need for a well-placed shot, such as in a skirmish with a lot of cover where a good shot just isn't an option.

I would prefer answers that involve the poisoning of bullets fired from guns not built especially for firing poisoned bullets. Of course one could build a spring-loaded or air-compressed machine specifically for delivering poison, but what I want to know is if it is feasible to poison or construct a poison-carrying round that could be fired from a weapon similar to a S&W 500 or a hunting shotgun (or a deerslug thereof).

Apologies for any bad grammar; was rushed at last minute.
Have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Markov - he was a Bulgarian defector who was assassinated by the KGB in London in 1978, by a pellet containing ricin, fired from what was effectively a BB gun hidden inside an umbrella.

If you're not scared of being overt, then a barbed dart similar to those used by vets to sedate wild animals could be used.

If you want to kill them, then the poison is basically unnecessary - the only reason to add it is for terror purposes, making them die in a long drawn out way that scares everyone.

Oneris
2014-05-27, 03:15 AM
What is the precedence and practicality for long skirts with full battle armor, for a functional yet distinctively feminine protective gear?

I know that for plate armor, after covering the face and hair with a helmet, rejecting the horribly impractical molded breastplate for a more practical and flatter shape, and obscuring most curves with padding and underclothing, a female silhouette is for all intents and purposes identical to that of a male.

From a quick google search, it seems that once all the impractically covered or shaped armors have been eliminated, any left that do not rely on the wearer being helmet-less to identify as female have some sort of skirt worn under the tassets, either fully fitted, or draped loosely.

Personal experience tells me that skirts with a sufficient fullness generally won't impede movement unless you're forced to bring your feet above the hem length (like going up stairs), after which you have a chance to catch the hem on the way down and trip, but I'd like to know if there would be any other hazards associated with adding a skirt onto a suit of full plate armor.

http://th02.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/f/2013/036/9/4/female_knight_and_griffin_by_dashinvaine-d5t0kj1.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Ingres_coronation_charles_vii.jpg

Bonus Question! : How impractical is it to go into battle riding sidesaddle? Is it really as bad of an idea as it sounds?:smalleek:

Storm_Of_Snow
2014-05-27, 06:04 AM
By long, I assume you mean knee length and lower - so wouldn't you be kicking the skirt everytime you ran, or had to quickly move your feet in melee, which massively increases your risk of stumbling and opening yourself up to an attack.

The reason to do it is to accentuate the femininity, which, unless there's a massively important reason to do so (the Adepta Sororitas in 40k for example, who are the Imperial Church's military because the church are banned from having "men under arms" :smallwink:, so on a political basis alone, they kind of need obviously female warriors), you might as well go with normal armour that everyone knows how to make, just slightly altered around the hips and upper torso for the wearers comfort.

The Sororitas have loincloths (and whatever the name for a loincloth that hangs over the posterior is), leaving their legs with freedom of movement (although reduced IMO) whilst still giving an appearance of religious robes and adding to the feminine appearance.

Riding sidesaddle? I guess that you're effectively protected on one side by the horse's body (and you could have thicker barding there), but you're losing flexibility in close combat (you can't really get around to the rear of the side of the horse that you're sitting on, and you're more hunched up so you can't really get leverage into any blows in melee or pull a bow as effectively) and you are potentially easier to drag off onto the ground (as all you've got is the pommel that your inside knee is hooked over and nothing to get any grip onto on the other side of the horse).

You could potentially charge into combat and then jump off your horse to fight on foot, which riding sidesaddle might make easier, while your horse disrupts your opponents movements by simply carrying on it's charge, in a similar manner to how some charioteers fought.

Lilapop
2014-05-27, 06:26 AM
I don't know if anyone was paying attention to the crossbow-incendiary bolt thing, but here is another nice addition, flaming bolts in action.
I did! Just wasn't in the mood to contribute at that moment, and it got drowned by other topics pretty quickly. Here's a video of someone testing replicas of those: Fire Arrows! - Video 25 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL4vnolCwLI). The banner on the left shows the coat of arms of the Swiss city of Bern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wappen_Bern_matt.svg) - incidentally, at least the gunpowder mixture used in the video is from a Swiss source.



Fallacious attacks aside, I enjoy and learn from what both you and Fusilier bring to the discussion. This is the internet...but perhaps we can stick to facts anyways? Else it's just multiple individuals doing their duty (http://xkcd.com/386/). Undoubtedly a forlorn hope.
Been contemplating saying something in that direction, but wasn't sure how to put it. Thanks.



What is the precedence and practicality for long skirts with full battle armor, for a functional yet distinctively feminine protective gear?
[...]
Personal experience tells me that skirts with a sufficient fullness generally won't impede movement unless you're forced to bring your feet above the hem length (like going up stairs), after which you have a chance to catch the hem on the way down and trip, but I'd like to know if there would be any other hazards associated with adding a skirt onto a suit of full plate armor.
[...]
Bonus Question! : How impractical is it to go into battle riding sidesaddle? Is it really as bad of an idea as it sounds?:smalleek:
There might have been a short period where longer than knee-length mail skirts were used to make full-body armor before someone came up with mail leggings. For practicality of those, keep in mind that a battlefield usually doesn't start out as a well-trimmed lawn, and definitely doesn't end as one - stepping over boulders, roots, fallen trees, taller grasses, general elevation, barricades, and corpses is pretty similar to walking up and down stairs.

Also, even when you're just adding a cloth skirt to full plate like in the second picture, we're not talking about "flowing silk", but far heavier materials. Normal human gait always includes lifting the knee, so you will have to push up part of the weight above the knee and most of whats below it, which can amount to quite a bit with mail. Most of that effect can however be countermeasured by having the skirt slit at the side, but then riding would probably be kind of awkward.

Well, when sitting on a horse all the time, you might not have to worry about your lower legs' encumbrance...

Brother Oni
2014-05-27, 06:56 AM
Have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Markov - he was a Bulgarian defector who was assassinated by the KGB in London in 1978, by a pellet containing ricin, fired from what was effectively a BB gun hidden inside an umbrella.

He did take 3 days to die however, something that's not acceptable for immediate incapacitation as originally posed (he fell ill with a fever that evening after being shot in the morning).


What is the precedence and practicality for long skirts with full battle armor, for a functional yet distinctively feminine protective gear?

Further to other comments, it depends on what you mean by 'skirt'. Surcoats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surcoat) would be quite long, although not especially feminine. According to the link, they did have a number of different styles, from long (mid calf), short (above the knee) to split (knee high at front, calf length at the back).
Tabards were even shorter, often being mid thigh or to the waist/hip only.

Surcoats were very popular during the Crusades and it's theorised they was adopted by the Crusaders from the Saracens to help keep the sun off their armour.



Personal experience tells me that skirts with a sufficient fullness generally won't impede movement unless you're forced to bring your feet above the hem length (like going up stairs), after which you have a chance to catch the hem on the way down and trip, but I'd like to know if there would be any other hazards associated with adding a skirt onto a suit of full plate armor.

Your personal experience is more than mine, but perhaps you could try something more athletic while wearing a skirt to get an idea of how cumbersome it would be? I would think anything lower than the knee would run the risk of tripping since you're rapidly moving back and forth during combat.

The only other trip hazard would be the limited field of view while helmeted (I've seen people fall over their own feet while weaing full face helms) and whatever your opponent tries to trip you up.



There might have been a short period where longer than knee-length mail skirts were used to make full-body armor before someone came up with mail leggings.

Full length mail hauberks often come down to the calf before being adjusted by the wearer, typically to just above the knee for the reasons you've mentioned. Generally the mail is made wider at the bottom so that there's little to no effect on mobility, although some individuals, especially cavalrymen, prefer split hauberks (http://www.kultofathena.com/images%5CSNC284XL_l.jpg) for the additional flexibility.

Storm_Of_Snow
2014-05-27, 08:07 AM
He did take 3 days to die however, something that's not acceptable for immediate incapacitation as originally posed (he fell ill with a fever that evening after being shot in the morning).


Hence my comment about terror purposes - IIRC, ricin poisoning isn't exactly a nice way to exit this world. But if the assassin hadn't dropped his umbrella, it's likely no one would ever have suspected that as a delivery mechanism, and for a covert assassination, you want the killer to be both unsuspected and a long way away from their victim when they die.

Plus the toxin carrying projectile was only the size of a pin head - something a little larger, carrying a bigger dose, might have been more immediately lethal.

snowblizz
2014-05-27, 08:56 AM
But if the assassin hadn't dropped his umbrella, it's likely no one would ever have suspected that as a delivery mechanism, and for a covert assassination, you want the killer to be both unsuspected and a long way away from their victim when they die.


That's kinda the thing with poisons though right. They are subtle usually, and that's why you want it. The other benefit is that it makes stuff lethal that might not otherwise be.

But when we migrate to guns, the need to be subtle is kinda moot nor is there a particular need for further enhancements in killing power.

Broken Crown
2014-05-27, 10:12 AM
Bonus Question! : How impractical is it to go into battle riding sidesaddle? Is it really as bad of an idea as it sounds?:smalleek:

I'll admit I have no first-hand experience with riding sidesaddle, but from everything I've been told, it's not really practical for anything.

In battle, in addition to the the usual disadvantages, I expect you'd have the problem of being much less able to defend yourself. The traditional sidesaddle puts the rider's legs on the left side of the horse, but most people are right-handed, so this would tend to restrict the rider's ability to use a weapon. You also can't control the horse with your knees, which means you wouldn't have your hands free for fighting.

Dismounting would be easier (deliberately or otherwise!), but that's not really a virtue in cavalry. It might be workable for dragoons.

A skilled sidesaddle rider can perform some fairly impressive feats of equestrianism, but I can't think of any combat situation in which it would be preferable to riding astride the horse. I definitely can't think of any historical mounted warriors who rode that way.

Storm_Of_Snow
2014-05-27, 10:47 AM
That's kinda the thing with poisons though right. They are subtle usually, and that's why you want it. The other benefit is that it makes stuff lethal that might not otherwise be.

But when we migrate to guns, the need to be subtle is kinda moot nor is there a particular need for further enhancements in killing power.
Unless you're dealing with something normal bullets can't kill, or can't cause enough damage to kill quickly enough - I can't think of anything in real life (maybe some of the big cats), but in fiction, there's the various silver nitrate/garlic/UV rounds of the Blade and Underworld movies for example.

Or you don't want to kill your target, you want to incapacitate them, which takes us back to loading with sedatives or incapacitants.

Another possibility is a contagion - hitting someone with a sealed pellet that's carrying a virus, so they can carry it back to their allies/friends/family and infect them with it (whether it's something lethal or incapacitory). In that case, you want them alive for a long time so they can infect as many people as possible before they start to show symptoms.

Depending on the underlying cause, that could potentially even cure a zombie plague. :smallsmile:

Brother Oni
2014-05-27, 11:19 AM
Hence my comment about terror purposes - IIRC, ricin poisoning isn't exactly a nice way to exit this world. But if the assassin hadn't dropped his umbrella, it's likely no one would ever have suspected that as a delivery mechanism, and for a covert assassination, you want the killer to be both unsuspected and a long way away from their victim when they die.

Plus the toxin carrying projectile was only the size of a pin head - something a little larger, carrying a bigger dose, might have been more immediately lethal.

I'm in agreement with you on use as a terror and assassination tool, I'm just disagreeing with on its usefulness in a firefight.

Looking up this paper (Time- and Concentration-Dependent Cytotoxicity of Ricin in Human Lung Epithelial Cells (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFcQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtic.mil%2Fget-tr-doc%2Fpdf%3FAD%3DADA474430&ei=MLWEU7jkNIvo7Abv3ICABw&usg=AFQjCNH_8SjhRfd3KWBviNn6PC7yUAgPDQ)), it suggests that ricin lethality is independent of concentration, making it one of those poisons where only a very small amount is required to kill you (LD50 is ~22µg/kg by inhalation or injection), but it takes its time to do so (dimethylmercury I mentioned earlier is lethal at 0.1ml per person but took 5 months to kill that poor researcher).

This is in keeping with their method of action - ricin and dimethylmercury both monkey around with slower body processes (protein synthesis and brain chemistry respectively), while the much faster poisons either halt nerve function, stopping your breathing (sarin, VX, etc) or mess about with respiration (cyanide).

Incanur
2014-05-27, 11:52 AM
If you want to kill them, then the poison is basically unnecessary - the only reason to add it is for terror purposes, making them die in a long drawn out way that scares everyone.

Except that people survive gunshots all the time. As I mentioned earlier, poison in theory increases the odds of a kill. I agree it's not necessary, but it should help. I suspect poisoned bullets aren't common because it's not worth the trouble and constitutes a public-relations nightmare. But poisoned bullets have seen some use in warfare and assassination since the 16th century or earlier (http://books.google.com/books?id=i8avAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA259&dq=%22poisoned+bullets%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UcSEU-fVMIWhyATe5IGoBA&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=%22poisoned%20bullets%22&f=false). For example, refernces to poisoned bullets appear in the English Civil War (http://www.ecwsa.org/milpoisonedbullets.html). This (http://books.google.com/books?id=sNo3AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA7323&dq=%22poisoned+bullets%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UcSEU-fVMIWhyATe5IGoBA&ved=0CEoQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=%22poisoned%20bullets%22&f=false) early 20th-century source suggests poisoned bullets were filled with verdigris. In these two cases, as in many, allegations of poisoned-bullet use serve as way to describe the enemy as barbaric, so they may well have been false, but the weight of evidence indicates that poisoned bullets saw some use in battle over the ages.

In general even potent poisons take at least a few minutes to incapacitate, though some can supposedly act in seconds. This (http://books.google.com/books?id=Y2ov0mNYDioC&pg=PT332&dq=aconitine+bullets&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IMeEU82bNJauyAS8yoKIBw&ved=0CGIQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=aconitine%20bullets&f=false) account of death by aconitine-nitrate-laced Nazi bullets describes the process as taking two hours. Note that it also shows how the Nazi military considered poisoned munitions a potential military advantage.

spineyrequiem
2014-05-27, 05:29 PM
For the people talking about skirts in battle; my experience is limited (I've worn floor-length robes of various kinds, and I can tell you that those aren't fun with stairs, but I doubt you'd want them that long), but one thing that you might enjoy is this (http://repair-her-armor.tumblr.com/post/61729784319/rha-cute-frilly-dress-redesigns), particularly the fifth redesign. I'll admit the femininity is somewhat from the pose and helmet twintails, but it does have a nice bell-dress shape to it.

I suppose one could also try slits at the side of a chainmail skirt, which would allow you to run better (apparently) but just the sheer weight is going to be a problem; when moving your legs, you really don't want heavy stuff on your knees because it means you have to work so much harder. Then again, if you've got access to mithril (or some other fantastically light, strong material), you could pretty much go wild with the design, so long as it doesn't go much below the knee, as that will cause you problems.

Oneris
2014-05-27, 06:56 PM
Yeah, I guess if you had to have a full skirt all the way around, a bit below knee-length is the limit.

What about short in the front, and long in the back, or split in the front? If the skirt was meant to provide thigh and leg protection, that's now gone, but you generally wouldn't have trouble going forwards, though stepping backwards with too-long a hem might still be a problem. Your legs also wouldn't have to support the weight of the fabric, and while riding astride, the back of the skirt could drape over the back of the horse.

I'm also entertaining the idea of a sort of crinoline to support the skirt and keep it away from the legs and feet. The weight might be negligible compared to the rest of the armor resting around the hips, and it could also deflect or at least entangle sword blows, though a broken crinoline definitely enters the 'horribly dangerous and impractical trip hazard' territory.

Which brings up the point of damaged skirts and how opponents could use your skirts against you. A couple of sword slashes, and you'd be trailing a stream of entangling ribbons in your wake. Also, it provides opponents a handhold, similar to how long hair does. I know from several harrowing days at a con how horrible it is for your mobility to have people stepping on your train all the time (never again :smallyuk:) so I guess, in battle, the less places where people could grab, the safer you are.

I guess if you wanted to add in a bit of east Asian flavor, Hakama pants could look like a skirt, and were commonly worn with samurai armor, but I'm going specifically for western-style armor here, and hakama with plate just doesn't look right...

Rhynn
2014-05-27, 07:02 PM
I suppose one could also try slits at the side of a chainmail skirt, which would allow you to run better (apparently) but just the sheer weight is going to be a problem; when moving your legs, you really don't want heavy stuff on your knees because it means you have to work so much harder.

All armor is heavy, and you need to be well conditioned to wear it for long periods of time while doing something. Knee-length (and sometimes longer) mail hauberks were the standard armor of knights for a couple hundred years. They could be heavy (especially with all the quilted under-armor) but being impervious to swords was pretty much worth it.

A mail skirt won't have the weight on your knees/legs anyway, though; a hauberk's going to be hanging off your shoulders (ouch), mitigated by a sturdy belt tightly buckled around your waist. Just a skirt would hang off your belt too, most likely. It will occasionally rest against your legs when you move, sure, but it's not going to be anything like wearing cuisses, greaves, and sabatons and lifting them on every step.


What about short in the front, and long in the back, or split in the front? If the skirt was meant to provide thigh and leg protection, that's now gone, but you generally wouldn't have trouble going forwards, though stepping backwards with too-long a hem might still be a problem.

Plenty of mail hauberks were split in front. Greaves were often worn with them anyway.

Why would you have the skirt longer than knee or half-shin, anyway? Like, for what possible reason, if you've chosen to wear a skirt on a battlefield, would you intentionally make it so long it's possible to step on it? Make it shorter and that solves the issue right there.

Put a skirt over a suit of harness (worn over the leg armor and under the fauld) and you've got your feminine touch, so far as that goes... won't look much different from a surcoat, I think.

Late harness parts for reference. (http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=65030&d=1349613089)

No brains
2014-05-27, 08:02 PM
Oneris: One idea i had that could help to make armor look feminine with a skirt without endangering the wearer is to just tie a pareo around the waist. It will look good long enough to make your first impressions in a march or before a fight, and with the first good tug from anyone, it just comes undone and get out of the way.

Incanur: You keep saying people survive gunshots all the time. I have a couple of questions:

Is it that people survive gunshots without intervention or do they survive with close medical attention? In the event someone gets medical attention, then a proficient doctor might be able to tell that their patient has something else wrong with them as the poison takes effect. If that's the case then a poisoned bullet may not be any more effective.

I'm also curious about what kinds of gunshots people survive. Is it shots from all weapons? Are they shots to a specific area of the body? Is it even that such a large number of people have been shot that even a small surviving percentage still make a pretty big group?

I don't doubt you personally, it's just that even one gun is supposed to be good for killing people. What you say goes against what I've been taught and I think I don't know the big picture.

Mike_G
2014-05-27, 08:54 PM
Is it that people survive gunshots without intervention or do they survive with close medical attention? In the event someone gets medical attention, then a proficient doctor might be able to tell that their patient has something else wrong with them as the poison takes effect. If that's the case then a poisoned bullet may not be any more effective.

I'm also curious about what kinds of gunshots people survive. Is it shots from all weapons? Are they shots to a specific area of the body? Is it even that such a large number of people have been shot that even a small surviving percentage still make a pretty big group?

I don't doubt you personally, it's just that even one gun is supposed to be good for killing people. What you say goes against what I've been taught and I think I don't know the big picture.

Gunshots kill by destroying a vital organ, in which case you are probably screwed, or by blood loss, in which case you may recover if treated.

Medical treatment has gotten a lot better. Quick intervention can save a large percentage of gunshot victims, with varying levels of disability. What matters most is where you were hit, then the velocity of the round, then the size of the round. Obviously, if you get hit in the head or torso, you stand a good chance of major organ damage, and death. A hit to a limb probably won't kill you unless you bleed out from a damaged artery, or die later of infection and complication.

High velocity rounds, like most rifle rounds, do a huge amount of damage to tissue from cavitation (the shock wave caused by the bullet's passage) and can shatter bones, making big, awful messy wounds. Handgun ammo is low velocity, lower energy and does a lot less damage.

So, yes, there are a lot of factors, but fatality from gunshots wounds probably averages around 25-30% over all wounds. A contaminated bullet would increase overall lethality, but wouldn't help in battle. The guy will either be incapacitated by the wound or he won't. I don't care if the guy I shot dies next week or goes home to live a happy life. I care that he dropped his weapon and stopped trying to kill me. Poison bullets don't help me any.

They might make the guy's buddies hate me more and kill me instead of taking me prisoner, or make them fear me so much that they keep fighting instead of surrendering, meaning that even after they are defeated, I still lose men mopping up.

Incanur
2014-05-27, 10:50 PM
Is it that people survive gunshots without intervention or do they survive with close medical attention?

In the present, thousands of folks in the United States each year likely survive gunshot wounds without medical treatment according to this source (http://books.google.com/books?id=QXeGX67ezSYC&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=gunshot+mortality+rate+without+medical+attentio n&source=bl&ots=nWoOxlfwGt&sig=4prWf5oQGritDeOiM95TdlrEdf8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lUyFU4SLEsWmyASXnoDAAg&ved=0CFgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=gunshot%20mortality%20rate%20without%20medical%2 0attention&f=false). It estimates gunshot-wound mortality at around 8% within the U.S., with only half of those wounded seeking medical treatment. This text (http://books.google.com/books?id=xJ3Y2-CHYfMC&pg=PA5&dq=untreated+gunshot+wound&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yWGFU7O9IoidyAS10IDoBg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q=untreated%20gunshot%20wound&f=false) paints similar picture, arguing that self-treatment is effective for many gunshot wounds in the U.S. today. There's a lot of guesswork involved so it's hard to say for sure. Historically we have various accounts soldiers that survived gunshot wounds with little or no medical help, though again statistics on those untreated are inherently hard to come by. In a text published 1590, Sir John Smythe wrote the following:


For that by common experience it hath been seene in all skirmishes and great encounters, that for euerie one that hath been slaine dead in the field by the shot of Mosquer or Harquebuze, there haue been foure that haue not died by the hurts of such weapo~s of fire, although some of them haue remained euer after maimed, and some not.

Smythe was arguing for the bow against the gun, but he did have considerable experience in the field and this claim matches the various accounts of 16th-century soldiers surviving bullets that I've read. Blaise de Monluc (http://books.google.com/books?id=orTn7RpmyZIC&pg=PA189&dq=monluc+%2B+bullet+wound&hl=en&sa=X&ei=M1iFU8zbN4OtyASV1oDgAQ&ved=0CEQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=monluc%20%2B%20bullet%20wound&f=false), admittedly with quality medical attention, survived various bullet wounds including a shot to the face, though it left him disfigured. Military surgeon Dr. Martin L. Fackler (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html?_r=2&) says that shots to roughly 80% of targets on the body wouldn't be fatal, but obviously it depends on the round as well.


In the event someone gets medical attention, then a proficient doctor might be able to tell that their patient has something else wrong with them as the poison takes effect. If that's the case then a poisoned bullet may not be any more effective.

The Nazi logic was that every wound from poisoned munitions would have to be treated as a mortal one, thus killing more enemy soldiers and tying up more enemy medical resources. As Mike_G's analysis suggests, poisoned bullets mainly make sense from a Nazi total-war mindset. (Depleted uranium is arguably a sort of poison, but that could be a touchy political topic and in any case it's slower-acting than aconitine.) While there are toxins that incapacitate within a minute or two at the right dose - curare can kill dogs in about a minute according to this source (http://books.google.com/books?id=IRFPAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA43&dq=poison+%2B+seconds&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TFuFU7uxF4GTqAbFhIKwCA&ved=0CE8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=poison%20%2B%20seconds&f=false) - administering them by bullet is either beyond current technical ability or just too expensive to be worth it, especially given the PR nightmare.

Moving away from bullets, I think poisoned arrows and darts at times did grant a meaningful military advantage. But even with a projectile that's less lethal on its own and more suited to delivering poison, good poison isn't easy to mass produce. In 17th-century Makassar (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1477-4658.t01-1-00034/abstract) we have an example of poison as major military industry. For most historical militaries, though, arrow poison apparently wasn't worth the economic and social costs.

Brother Oni
2014-05-28, 02:15 AM
Which brings up the point of damaged skirts and how opponents could use your skirts against you. A couple of sword slashes, and you'd be trailing a stream of entangling ribbons in your wake. Also, it provides opponents a handhold, similar to how long hair does.

If your opponent is reaching down to grab your skirt, it opens his head up for you to smack with your sword (much better to just tackle you to the ground). Similarly grabbing hold of someone's hair ties up their hand, exposing their ribs (and armpit if you have a stabbing implement).

While handholds are an issue (or at least things where your opponent's weapon can catch), they need to provide either a leverage or immobilisation advantage or else you've opened yourself for an attack.



I guess if you wanted to add in a bit of east Asian flavor, Hakama pants could look like a skirt, and were commonly worn with samurai armor, but I'm going specifically for western-style armor here, and hakama with plate just doesn't look right...

Are you mistaking the haidate (thigh guard) for a hakama? While the hakama is worn, it's tied down under all the armour, much like padding for western armour, so isn't really visible.

There are some styles of cuisses that resemble a skirt, but a mid thigh length mail shirt could ostensibly pass for one:

http://armstreet.com/catalogue/full/medieval-western-paladin-etched-leg-armor-1.jpg



While there are toxins that incapacitate within a minute or two at the right dose - curare can kill dogs in about a minute according to this source (http://books.google.com/books?id=IRFPAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA43&dq=poison+%2B+seconds&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TFuFU7uxF4GTqAbFhIKwCA&ved=0CE8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=poison%20%2B%20seconds&f=false) - administering them by bullet is either beyond current technical ability or just too expensive to be worth it, especially given the PR nightmare.


Especially since if you're using banned weaponry anyway, there are much more efficient chemicals and delivery vectors.

Storm_Of_Snow
2014-05-28, 03:15 AM
I'm in agreement with you on use as a terror and assassination tool, I'm just disagreeing with on its usefulness in a firefight.


Actually, you're not disagreeing with me on it's usefulness in a firefight. :smallwink:

To actually get the poison into the targets system is difficult - the example I cited would have been on an unsuspecting target at a distance of a couple of inches at most, if not actually in contact with the victim. To use a mid-high velocity projectile from a firearm in a combat situation, where the target is aware of your presence and attempting to minimise their vulnerability, would run the risk of it missing, hitting body armour, passing straight through without dispersing any of the toxin, or the heat of propellant ignition denaturing the toxin and rendering it less effective or useless. And if you're a sniper, chances are you've got the time to choose your impact site and the weapon so as to cause an immediately or rapidly lethal injury with a single shot, so you don't really need them.

That's not to say it couldn't be done, and considering the KGB had the example I cited in the 70s, I wouldn't like to think about what the various secret services around the world have these days, but the cost and effort involved would almost certainly outweigh the capabilities.

But the original question was: Are they plausible? Not only are they plausible, there's examples of them being used.

The follow up question is: Are they practical in all realistic circumstances (so excluding a sudden emergence and attack of vampires, werewolves, zombies or tentacled gribbly things from outer space/R'lyeh/the Dungeon Dimensions/place local to you that you'd like to denigrate :smallamused: )? That would be a massive no. :smallamused:

Spiryt
2014-05-28, 06:03 AM
As far as 'skirts' go, there are sources, or even surviving originals (I think? will try to find) of something skirt like being quite popular with full white, usually 'Maximilian' armor in the Renaissance.

http://muzeuminstrumentow.pl/portal/images/il.%2011%20Krzysztof%20Szydowiecki.jpg


http://i57.tinypic.com/1h6rk3.jpg


http://www.thearma.org/essays/SandB/01_FREYDAL2.JPG




I'm not the one to say if they, especially longer ones were ever considered 'practical' or, more probably, just decoration of more representational foot harness.

Oneris
2014-05-28, 07:08 AM
Are you mistaking the haidate (thigh guard) for a hakama? While the hakama is worn, it's tied down under all the armour, much like padding for western armour, so isn't really visible.


The paintings I got my idea from depicted the women without the suneate and the haidate entirely, so I think the artist might have been taking a bit of artistic license.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/c6/c7/ab/c6c7ab988f9c9b5b9be83d35898dcb3b.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/Tomoe-Gozen.jpg/367px-Tomoe-Gozen.jpg

Mr. Mask
2014-05-28, 07:23 AM
There was an article a couple of years back, on the subject of female armour. They talked about making it like Xena's: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2012/0709/Army-uses-Xena-Warrior-Princess-as-inspiration-for-new-body-armor-for-women

Then they said, "that's dumb" and made this instead: http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2013/09/26/new-body-armor-women-military/

The first article is still worth a read, discussing some of the difficulties of wearing the armour designed for male soldiers when you're female.


Edit: While looking for the articles, someone reckoned Cadegund had a realistic mix of feminine aesthetic and working armour. Don't have time to take a look for it right now, so I can't confirm that.

Rhynn
2014-05-28, 07:43 AM
As far as 'skirts' go, there are sources, or even surviving originals (I think? will try to find) of something skirt like being quite popular with full white, usually 'Maximilian' armor in the Renaissance.

Hah, yeah, I had this feeling I'd seen them. So a skirt with full harness isn't actually going to make you look feminine, compared to everyone else's fancy outfits.

Mr. Mask
2014-05-28, 08:40 AM
Adding to feminine armour, I will mention that some armour was pretty decorative: http://sites.psu.edu/thehopliteexperience/wp-content/uploads/sites/10736/2014/04/h2_1992.180.3a.jpg

Storm_Of_Snow
2014-05-28, 10:57 AM
I've been thinking, all these pictures are good, but what actual historical artefacts of female armour are there in existence? For instance, I'm trying to remember whether the Tower of London has Elizabeth I's "Spanish Armada" armour as part of it's collection, which was really more for show and morale than anything practical.

If we have actual examples to consider, it might help a lot with the subject.

Another thing that may be worth considering is that, historically speaking, a fair number of women who joined armies didn't actually want to be seen as female (mainly because they'd be kicked out if it was discovered) - women like Joan of Arc, Boadicea etc. are kind of in the minority.

The only "common" female warriors from history I can think of (and they're still relatively rare) are Gladiatrix's, and I think they either fought unarmoured, or took the same armour styles/ story roles as the men did.

Incanur
2014-05-28, 11:16 AM
For further information on the effects of poisoned, this (http://books.google.com/books?id=nuIEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA98&dq=upas+poison+%2B+seconds&hl=en&sa=X&ei=owaGU6LMMZWjyATGg4LgBQ&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=upas%20poison%20%2B%20seconds&f=false) gruesome 19th-century experiment showed that darts dipped in poison from the Upas tree - the type of poisoned used in Makassar - and then dried incapacitated dogs, rabbits, and horses within 3 minutes or so, with death taking another 5-7 minutes. That's from a puncture with a piece of wood the size of quill, meant to imitate a blowgun dart.

Assuming the test was accurately reported and that the poison affects human the same way, you can see why poisoned darts and arrows inspired great fear. In theory such a poison would notably increase the effectiveness of arrows in a medieval-style battle or skirmish, as most any encounter lasts longer than 3 minutes. Other sources suggest shorter or longer incapacitation times, but an incapacitation time of 10 minutes could be similarly devastating on a medieval battlefield.

spineyrequiem
2014-05-28, 11:20 AM
All armor is heavy, and you need to be well conditioned to wear it for long periods of time while doing something. Knee-length (and sometimes longer) mail hauberks were the standard armor of knights for a couple hundred years. They could be heavy (especially with all the quilted under-armor) but being impervious to swords was pretty much worth it.

A mail skirt won't have the weight on your knees/legs anyway, though; a hauberk's going to be hanging off your shoulders (ouch), mitigated by a sturdy belt tightly buckled around your waist. Just a skirt would hang off your belt too, most likely. It will occasionally rest against your legs when you move, sure, but it's not going to be anything like wearing cuisses, greaves, and sabatons and lifting them on every step.




My point about having it over the knees was entirely based on my experience with moving heavy things; you always want to carry that above your hips, because otherwise you'll bang your knees against it, which slows you down a lot and hurts you into the bargain. I presumed that a heavy skirt would have a similar effect, simply because you're having to kick the wretched thing out of the way the whole time. That said, I haven't worn any particularly heavy skirts, so I might be wrong.

Oneris
2014-05-28, 11:46 AM
My point about having it over the knees was entirely based on my experience with moving heavy things; you always want to carry that above your hips, because otherwise you'll bang your knees against it, which slows you down a lot and hurts you into the bargain. I presumed that a heavy skirt would have a similar effect, simply because you're having to kick the wretched thing out of the way the whole time. That said, I haven't worn any particularly heavy skirts, so I might be wrong.

You generally don't need to kick skirts out of the way since the fabric follows the movement of your thighs and the movement propagates down to the hem. The only times when the fabric doesn't follow is when the movement is upwards rather than out, or when the fabric doesn't have enough contact with your legs to get the movement transfer. If your skirt is long enough to kick, it's too long for battle.

Animastryfe
2014-05-29, 12:28 AM
1. How much do spear martial arts differ from martial arts involving other polearms of similar lengths? This question is geographically independent.

2. Is there a reason to pick a spear over another polearm with a more complicated head in one vs one or small group combat?

Brother Oni
2014-05-29, 02:01 AM
The paintings I got my idea from depicted the women without the suneate and the haidate entirely, so I think the artist might have been taking a bit of artistic license.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/c6/c7/ab/c6c7ab988f9c9b5b9be83d35898dcb3b.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/Tomoe-Gozen.jpg/367px-Tomoe-Gozen.jpg

Both of the pictures you've linked to have the haidate clearly visible. :smalltongue:

That said, you're right on the artisitic license, although it may have been based off this ceremonial dress rather than actual battlefield armour:


http://translesbian.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/61299858.jpg

I've also found this that you might find interesting, although the person depicted was either a geisha or a geiko rather than an onnabugeisha:

http://i.imgur.com/GbhwAak.jpg



1. How much do spear martial arts differ from martial arts involving other polearms of similar lengths? This question is geographically independent.

2. Is there a reason to pick a spear over another polearm with a more complicated head in one vs one or small group combat?

Ooo, spear question. Will answer the first when I have more time, but a quick answer for the second is cost (spears are cheaper) and how much armour is involved (if plate armour is in the equation, you really want something like a pollaxe or something else with an armour penetrating 'beak').

Edit: With regard to spear martial arts, this is solely from a Chinese point of view (someone else will have to chime in for western styles as I have very little experience of them).

To make the comparison easier due to the vast myriad of polearms and fighting styles, I'll be using the Shaolin pudao (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podao) (big bladed short halberd) versus the spear.

The pudao has a lot more slashing moves and greater focus on using the blade, including smacking people with the broad side like a blunt object. Some variants have a blade or spike on the butt to enable attacks, but they're secondary to the main blade: demonstration 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LOX2zHcbo4); demonstration 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6468d04zldg).

In comparison, the spear has elements of staff forms (ie smacking them with the butt of the spear), a greater emphasis on using the length of the weapon, not to mention using the flexibility of the haft to bypass an opponent's defences: demonstration 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jrs0RRPY5I); demonstration 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnbxJ3cLztI).

Alas, very little information of what would actually be used of the battlefield remains. I would think there would be less flashiness and more emphasis on poking them with the sharp metal bit, regardless of the actual weapon.

Other known battlefield polearms are the ge (dagger axe) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagger-axe), which would be used in much the same way as a pollaxe (swinging motions for puncturing), and the initially more experimental ji (halberd) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ji_(halberd)), which is essentially is a ge bolted onto a spear and records indicate its primary use was to hook people (especially cavalrymen) down for the kill.

Later variants of the ji get very elaborate, but like the actual battlefield martial arts, it can be sometimes difficult to distinguish between demonstration and fighting weapons.

http://oldswords.com/mypictures/Dir888/888680-CAB6811386540.JPG

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/3256/dscn7711ah2.jpg
https://www.kungfudirect.com/prodimages/TDL/WS-Dan-ji-b.jpg
http://www.chinatown-shop.com/images/p1/192g.jpg